Adult Craniopharyngioma: Case Series, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal therapeutic approach for adult craniopharyngioma remains controversial. Some advocate for gross total resection (GTR), while others advocate for subtotal resection followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (STR + XRT). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the rate of recurrence in the follow-up of 3 yr in adult craniopharyngioma stratified by extent of resection and presence of adjuvant radiotherapy. METHODS: MEDLINE (1946-July 1, 2016) and EMBASE (1980-June 30, 2016) were systematically reviewed. From1975 to 2013, 33 patients were treated with initial surgical resection for adult onset craniopharyngioma at our center and were reviewed for inclusion in this study. RESULTS: Data from 22 patients were available for inclusion as a case series in the systematic review. Eligible studies (n = 21) were identified from the literature in addition to a case series of our institutional experience. Three groups were available for analysis: GTR, STR + XRT, and STR. The rates of recurrence were 17%, 27%, and 45%, respectively. The risk of developing recurrence was significant for GTR vs STR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.38) and STR + XRT vs STR (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10-0.41). Risk of recurrence after GTR vs STR + XRT did not reach significance (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.33-1.24, P = .18). CONCLUSION: This is the first and largest systematic review focusing on the rate of recurrence in adult craniopharyngioma. Although the rates of recurrence are favoring GTR, difference in risk of recurrence did not reach significance. This study provides guidance to clinicians and directions for future research with the need to stratify outcomes per treatment modalities.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".