CRAN-29. CONSERVATIVE SURGERY FOLLOWED BY PROTON THERAPY FOR CRANIOPHARYNGIOMA IN CHILDREN: A PHASE II STUDY TO EXAMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF DOSE ESCALATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal treatment for pediatric craniopharyngioma remains controversial. Although conservative surgery followed by radiation is favored, particularly when hypothalamic infiltration. Proton beam therapy (PT) offers further sparing of normal tissues exposure compared to photons. The objectives of this study were; To assess the efficacy of limited surgery followed by PT in children with craniopharyngioma; To evaluate feasibility of dose escalation while maintaining risk-adapted dose constraints to the chiasm. The trial included 33 patients (17 males), median age 9.0 years (2.1–15.5) at diagnosis, 9.6 years (3.3–15.8) at radiation. All patients underwent surgery (1–5, median: 2) with measurable residue. Median interval between diagnosis and PT was 7.2 months (2.5–73.6). Median PTV was 31.1 cm3 (12.7–136). Imaging studies during radiation identified increase in size of cystic components in 11 patients, including 2 who required re-planning. Total median dose was 54.4 CGE (52.2–56.1). Based on dosimetric parameters, 5 patients underwent slight dose escalation. Median dose to the chiasm was 52.7 CGE (51.8–54.4). At a median follow-up of 4.3 years (1.3–7.0) since radiation, 32 patients are alive. 3 patients experienced progression. All patients are on hormone replacement, 25/32 patients have normal vision in at least one eye, 17/32 have restricted fields. 24 patients have normal academic status, 8 patients require special schooling. Median BMI is 24.1 (18.7–36.3), 11 patients are overweight and 9 obese. This study supports the use of PT in pediatric craniopharyngioma, although the objective of dose escalation, using passive scattering delivery was not reached, preventing dose effect relationship evaluation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".