Stereotactic radiosurgery for non-functioning pituitary adenomas: meta-analysis and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society practice opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review reports on outcomes and toxicities following stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFAs) and presents consensus opinions regarding appropriate patient management. METHODS: Using the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, a systematic review was performed from articles of ≥10 patients with NFAs published prior to May 2018 from the Medline database using the key words "radiosurgery" and "pituitary" and/or "adenoma." Weighted random effects models were used to calculate pooled outcome estimates. RESULTS: Of the 678 abstracts reviewed, 35 full-text articles were included describing the outcomes of 2671 patients treated between 1971 and 2017 with either single fraction SRS or hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (HSRT). All studies were retrospective (level IV evidence). SRS was used in 27 studies (median dose: 15 Gy, range: 5-35 Gy) and HSRT in 8 studies (median total dose: 21 Gy, range: 12-25 Gy, delivered in 3-5 fractions). The 5-year random effects local control estimate after SRS was 94% (95% CI: 93.0-96.0%) and 97.0% (95% CI: 93.0-98.0%) after HSRT. The 10-year local control random effects estimate after SRS was 83.0% (95% CI: 77.0-88.0%). Post-SRS hypopituitarism was the most common treatment-related toxicity observed, with a random effects estimate of 21.0% (95% CI: 15.0-27.0%), whereas visual dysfunction or other cranial nerve injuries were uncommon (range: 0-7%). CONCLUSIONS: SRS is an effective and safe treatment for patients with NFAs. Encouraging short-term data support HSRT for select patients, and mature outcomes are needed before definitive recommendations can be made. Clinical practice opinions were developed on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS).
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 | 0.031 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".