Management of recurrent or progressive spinal metastases: reirradiation techniques and surgical principles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growing incidence of new cases and the increasing prevalence of patients living longer with spine metastasis, a methodological approach to the management of patients with recurrent or progressive disease is increasing in relevance and importance in clinical practice. As a result, disease management has evolved in these patients using advanced surgical and radiotherapy technologies. Five key goals in the management of patients with spine metastases include providing pain relief, controlling metastatic disease at the treated site, improving neurologic deficits, maintaining or improving functional status, and minimizing further mechanical instability. The focus of this review is on advanced reirradiation techniques, given that the majority of patients will be treated with upfront conventional radiotherapy and further treatment on progression is often limited by the cumulative tolerance of nearby organs at risk. This review will also discuss novel surgical approaches such as separation surgery, minimally invasive percutaneous instrumentation, and laser interstitial thermal therapy, which is increasingly being coupled with spine reirradiation to maximize outcomes in this patient population. Lastly, given the complexities of managing recurrent spinal disease, this review emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary care from neurosurgery, radiation oncology, medical oncology, neuro-oncology, rehabilitation medicine, and palliative care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".