Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Spinal Metastases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the risks of 3 key complications of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases, that is, radiation myelopathy (RM), vertebral compression fracture (VCF), and epidural disease progression, and to discuss strategies for minimizing them. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: RM, VCF and epidural disease progression are now recognized as important risks following SBRT for spine metastases. It is unclear at this stage exactly how large these risks are and what strategies can be employed to minimize these risks. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using MEDLINE and a review of the bibliographies of reviewed articles on SBRT for spinal metastases were conducted. RESULTS: The initial literature search revealed a total of 376 articles, of which 38 were pertinent to the study objectives. The risk of RM following SBRT was found to be dependent on the maximum dose to the spinal cord and estimated to be ≤5% if the recommended published thecal sac dose constraints are adhered to. The crude risk of VCF was 13.7% (range: 0.7%-40.5%), and, on average, 45% were surgically salvaged. It has been shown that the risk of VCF is dependent on several anatomic and tumor-related factors including the SBRT dose per fraction. The crude risk of local failure at 1 year was 21.4% (range: 12%-27%) of which 67% (range: 38%-96%) occurred within the epidural space. The grade of epidural disease has been shown to be associated with the risk of local failure. CONCLUSION: The risk of RM after spinal SBRT is low in particular if recommended dose metrics are adhered to. There is a significant risk of both VCF and epidural disease progression after spinal SBRT. These risks can potentially be minimized by identifying the risk factors for these complications, and performing careful radiotherapy and surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".