Reirradiation for recurrent craniopharyngioma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reirradiation is rarely administered to patients with recurrent craniopharyngioma owing to concerns regarding visual and endocrine side effects. The purpose of this case series was to evaluate our institutional experience of patients with craniopharyngioma treated with 2 courses of fractionated radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective study was performed of all patients with craniopharyngioma treated with 2 courses of fractionated radiation therapy at a single institution. Electronic medical records and radiation therapy records were reviewed. RESULTS: We identified 4 eligible patients with recurrent craniopharyngioma. With a median follow-up of 33 months after reirradiation, 3 patients attained disease control; 1 patient developed progressive disease, 27 months after reirradiation. In 3 evaluable patients, vision remained stable or improved after reirradiation; one patient had no light perception before reirradiation. None of the patients experienced additional endocrine toxicities after reirradiation, apart from one patient who had low serum thyroid stimulating hormone before reirradiation and later developed hypothyroidism after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Reirradiation may represent a safe and effective therapeutic option for selected patients with recurrent, refractory craniopharyngioma and without other salvage treatment options. Larger studies with longer-term follow up are warranted to better understand outcomes in these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".