Incidence and Time of Onset of Osseous Pseudoprogression in Patients With Metastatic Spine Disease From Renal Cell or Prostate Carcinoma After Treatment With Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor osseous pseudoprogression (PP), defined as an imaging-based transient increase in tumor size following treatment, was recently described in patients with spinal metastases following stereotactic body radiation therapy. Distinguishing PP from true tumor progression is critical. OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence, time of onset, and time range of PP following stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients treated for spinal metastases from either prostate cancer (PC) or renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and associated predictive factors. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on our institution's cancer database from 2009 to 2015. Selection was based on single level, no prior radiation or surgery, ≥2 follow-up spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and metastases arising from either PC or RCC. Gross tumor volume was contoured on pre- and up to 5 posttreatment MRIs. Patients were sorted into groups depending on gross tumor volume response: PP, non-PP, or progressive disease. Clinical and dosimetric variables were compared using either Fisher's exact test or Kruskal-Wallis analyses. RESULTS: Forty-three spinal segments from 31 patients were analyzed. RCC and PC patients showed similar incidence of PP (∼37%). Whether the primary was lytic or sclerotic was a significant predictive factor with more PP in the lytic group (P = .0208). There was a trend of earlier PP onset in RCC (within 6-18 mo) as compared to PC; however, PC segments showed more time-confined presentation of PP (9-12 mo). CONCLUSION: There was a higher incidence of PP in lytic compared to sclerotic primary tumor type. PP in spinal metastatic sites may have variable presentations depending on the primary cancer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".