MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734911387 · doi:10.3171/2017.2.spine16976

Reirradiation spine stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: systematic review

2017· review· en· W2734911387 on OpenAlexaff
Sten Myrehaug, Arjun Sahgal, Motohiro Hayashi, Marc Levivier, Lijun Ma, Roberto Martínez, Ian Paddick, Jean Régis, Samuel Ryu, Ben J. Slotman, Antônio De Salles

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersViewRayVarian Medical SystemsPfizer
KeywordsMedicineRadiosurgeryMEDLINEMyelopathyRadiation therapyCochrane LibrarySystematic reviewStereotactic radiation therapyGuidelineRadiologyRandomized controlled trialSurgerySpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE Spinal metastases that recur after conventional palliative radiotherapy have historically been difficult to manage due to concerns of spinal cord toxicity in the retreatment setting. Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), also known as stereotactic radiosurgery, is emerging as an effective and safe means of delivering ablative doses to these recurrent tumors. The authors performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of spine SBRT specific to previously irradiated spinal metastases. METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted, which was specific to SBRT to the spine, using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Evidence-Based Medicine Database, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and CMA Infobase, with further bibliographic review of appropriate articles. Research questions included: 1) Is retreatment spine SBRT efficacious with respect to local control and symptom control? 2) Is retreatment spine SBRT safe? RESULTS The initial literature search retrieved 2263 articles. Of these articles, 160 were potentially relevant, 105 were selected for in-depth review, and 9 studies met all inclusion criteria for analysis. All studies were single-institution series, including 4 retrospective, 3 retrospective series of prospective databases, 1 prospective, and 1 Phase I/II prospective study (low- or very low-quality data). The results indicated that spine SBRT is effective, with a median 1-year local control rate of 76% (range 66%-90%). Improvement in patients' pain scores post-SBRT ranged from 65% to 81%. Treatment delivery was safe, with crude rates of vertebral body fracture of 12% (range 0%-22%) and radiation-induced myelopathy of 1.2%. CONCLUSIONS This systematic literature review suggests that SBRT to previously irradiated spinal metastases is safe and effective with respect to both local control and pain relief. Although the evidence is limited to low-quality data, SBRT can be a recommended treatment option for reirradiation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations147
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207