Safety and Local Control of Radiation Therapy for Chordoma of the Spine and Sacrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To assess the toxicity, common radiation doses, and local control (LC) rates of radiation therapy for chordoma of the spine and sacrum and identify the difference in LC and toxicity between adjuvant, salvage, and primary therapy using radiation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Chordoma of the spine is typically a low-grade malignant tumor thought to be relatively radioresistant with a high rate of local recurrence and the potential for metastases. Improved results of modern radiation therapy in the treatment of chordoma support exploration of its role in the management of primary/de novo chordoma or recurrent chordoma. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using PubMed and Embase databases to assess information available regarding the toxicity, LC rates, and overall survival (OS) rates for adjuvant, salvage, and primary radiation therapy for spinal and sacral chordoma. RESULTS: A total of 40 articles were reviewed. Evidence quality was low or very low. The highest rates of LC and OS were with early adjuvant RT for primary/de novo disease. Salvage RT for recurrent disease has very small cohorts and thus strong conclusions were not able be made. CONCLUSION: The use of pre- and/or post-operative photon image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), proton or carbon ion therapy should be considered for patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of primary and recurrent chordomas in the mobile spine and sacrum, since these RT modalities may improve local control. Preoperative evaluation by the surgeon and radiation oncologist should be used to formulate a cohesive treatment plan.The use of photon IGRT or carbon ion therapy as the primary treatment of chordoma, when currently in its developmental stage, shows promise and requires clear delineation of toxicity profile and long-term local control. 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 | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".