Stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannoma: International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) Practice Guideline.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to develop International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS) consensus guideline statements for vestibular schwannoma. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to April 2015. RESULTS: A total of 55 full-text articles were included in the analysis. All studies were retrospective, except for 2 prospective quality of life studies. Five-year tumour control rates with Gamma Knife radiosurgery (RS), single fraction linac RS, or fractionated (either hypofractionated or conventional fractionation) stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT) were similar at 81-100%. The single fraction RS series (linac or Gamma Knife) with tumour marginal doses between 12 and 14 Gy revealed 5-year tumour control rates of 90-99%, hearing preservation rates of 41-79%, facial nerve preservation rates of 95-100% and trigeminal preservation rates of 79-99%.There were 6 non-randomized studies comparing single fraction RS versus FSRT. There was no statistically significant difference in tumour control; HR=1.66 (95% CI 0.81, 3.42), p =0.17, facial nerve function; HR = 0.67 (95% CI 0.30, 1.49), p =0.33, trigeminal nerve function; HR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.41, 1.56), p =0.51, and hearing preservation; HR = 1.10 (95% CI 0.72, 1.68), p =0.65 comparing single fraction RS with FSRT.Nine quality of life reports yielded conflicting results as to which modality (surgery, observation, or radiation) was associated with better quality of life outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There are no randomized trials to help guide management of patients with vestibular schwannoma. Within the limitations of the retrospective series, a number of consensus statements were made.
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".