Timing of surgery and radiotherapy in the management of metastatic spine disease: expert opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Combined surgery and radiotherapy, in the treatment of metastatic disease of the spine, is now emerging as the gold standard of care where there is an indication for spinal stabilization and/or surgical decompression. However potential complications related to wound healing can occur with radiation delivered shortly before or after to surgery. The purpose of this study was to understand the practice of leading radiation oncologists and spine surgeons with regards to the timing of radiation (conventional and stereotactic) and surgery for the management of spinal metastases. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to leading radiation oncologists and spine surgeons throughout North America and completed via mail, email or internet. RESULTS: Eighty-six responses were received from radiation oncologists and 27 from spine surgeons. A total of 58% recommended waiting either 1 or 2 weeks after radiotherapy before operating on patients with spinal metastases. With radiotherapy administered after surgery, 62% of respondents suggested either a 1 or 2 weeks interval was sufficient. CONCLUSIONS: There appeared to be no significant difference in practice with the use of stereotactic radiotherapy though surgeons tend to accept a shorter interval in this subset of patients. We recommend that the interval between radiotherapy and surgery (and vice versa) should ideally be a minimum of 2 weeks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".