Primary versus postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery for acromegaly: a multicenter matched cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of primary stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in patients with medically refractory acromegaly who are not operative candidates or who refuse resection is poorly understood. The aim of this multicenter, matched cohort study was to compare the outcomes of primary versus postoperative SRS for acromegaly. METHODS: The authors reviewed an International Radiosurgery Research Foundation database of 398 patients with acromegaly who underwent SRS and categorized them into primary or postoperative cohorts. Patients in the primary SRS cohort were matched, in a 1:2 ratio, to those in the postoperative SRS cohort, and the outcomes of the 2 matched cohorts were compared. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 78 patients (median follow-up 66.4 months), including 26 and 52 in the matched primary and postoperative SRS cohorts, respectively. In the primary SRS cohort, the actuarial endocrine remission rates at 2 and 5 years were 20% and 42%, respectively. The Cox proportional hazards model showed that a lower pre-SRS insulin-like growth factor-1 level was predictive of initial endocrine remission (p = 0.03), whereas a lower SRS margin dose was predictive of biochemical recurrence after initial remission (p = 0.01). There were no differences in the rates of radiological tumor control (p = 0.34), initial endocrine remission (p = 0.23), biochemical recurrence after initial remission (p = 0.33), recurrence-free survival (p = 0.32), or hypopituitarism (p = 0.67) between the 2 matched cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Primary SRS has a reasonable benefit-to-risk profile for patients with acromegaly in whom resection is not possible, and it has similar outcomes to endocrinologically comparable patients who undergo postoperative SRS. SRS with medical therapy in the latent period can be used as an alternative to surgery in selected patients who cannot or do not wish to undergo resection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".