Scalp Seeding Post Craniotomy and Radiosurgery for Solitary Brain Metastasis: A Case Report and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiosurgery is being increasingly used post craniotomy for brain metastasis, instead of whole-brain radiation. We report a case of scalp metastasis following craniotomy and radiosurgery, along with a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: Our patient was a 70-year-old male who presented with a scalp metastasis, two years after craniotomy and radiosurgery, for a solitary brain metastasis from esophageal carcinoma. Using Medline® (United States National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), we performed a systematic review of the literature to identify cases of isolated scalp metastases following craniotomy for brain lesions. RESULTS: The scalp metastasis was in close proximity to the craniotomy site. Workup did not show any other site of active disease. Biopsy confirmed it to be a metastasis from esophageal carcinoma. The literature review did not yield any case of isolated scalp metastasis following craniotomy and whole-brain radiotherapy or radiosurgery. However, it yielded six cases of isolated scalp metastases following craniotomy for primary brain tumors. CONCLUSION: Isolated scalp metastasis has not been reported following craniotomy and whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases. Our patient likely had surgical seeding during craniotomy. These surgically implanted cells could not be ablated because the radiosurgery treatment volume does not cover the surgical tract. Further research is needed to identify risk factors for surgical seeding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".