RARE-02.RE-IRRADIATION FOR RECURRENT CRANIOPHARYNGIOMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract PURPOSE Patients with recurrent craniopharyngioma after radiotherapy (RT) have few treatment options. At our institution, re-irradiation has been offered to selected individuals with recurrent craniopharyngioma not suitable for further surgery, intracystic therapy or targeted agents. METHODS A retrospective study was performed of patients with craniopharyngioma treated with two courses of fractionated RT. First RT (RT1) prescriptions ranged from 50–54 Gy in 25–30 fractions; re-irradiation (RT2) prescriptions were 54 Gy in 30 fractions with full, in-field overlap of dose. The maximum dose to organs-at-risk (brainstem, optic structures) were maintained at or below the prescription dose. There was no cumulative dose limit to any structure. RESULTS We identified four patients. Median RT1-to-RT2 interval was 5.8 years (range, 4.7–20.4). Cumulative maximum doses to optic chiasma and nerves were >100 Gy in all four patients. With a median follow-up of 33 months after RT2, three patients had disease control and are alive at 9, 23 and 42 months from RT2; one patient developed progressive disease and died 33 months after RT2. In three evaluable patients, vision remained stable or improved after RT2; the remaining one patient had no light perception prior to re-irradiation. Two patients had neuropsychological testing before and after RT2; neurocognitive domains were generally stable in one patient but working memory declined in the second patient. CONCLUSIONS Despite exceeding usual tolerances for optic chiasm and nerves, visual outcomes were stable in all living patients. Re-irradiation should be discussed as a treatment option for patients with recurrent craniopharyngioma but without other therapeutic options.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".