An international multicenter matched cohort analysis of incidental meningioma progression during active surveillance or after stereotactic radiosurgery: the IMPASSE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients with incidental meningiomas remains unclear. The aim of this study was to characterize the radiologic and neurological outcomes of expectant and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) management of asymptomatic meningioma patients. METHODS: Using data from 14 centers across 10 countries, the study compares SRS outcomes to active surveillance of asymptomatic meningiomas. Local tumor control of asymptomatic meningiomas and development of new neurological deficits attributable to the tumor were evaluated in the SRS and conservatively managed groups. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohorts, 727 meningioma patients underwent SRS and were followed for a mean of 57.2 months. In the conservatively managed cohort, 388 patients were followed for a mean of 43.5 months. Tumor control was 99.0% of SRS and 64.2% of conservatively managed patients (P < .001; OR 56.860 [95% CI 26.253-123.150]). New neurological deficits were 2.5% in the SRS and 2.8% of conservatively managed patients (P = .764; OR 0.890 [95% CI 0.416-1.904]). After 1:1 propensity matching for patient age, tumor volume, location, and imaging follow-up, tumor control in the SRS and conservatively managed cohorts was 99.4% and 62.1%, respectively (P < .001; OR 94.461 [95% CI 23.082-386.568]). In matched cohorts, new neurological deficits were noted in 2.3% of SRS-treated and 3.2% of conservatively managed patients (P = .475; OR 0.700 [95% CI 0.263-1.863]). CONCLUSIONS: SRS affords superior radiologic tumor control compared to active surveillance without increasing the risk of neurological deficits in asymptomatic meningioma patients. While SRS and active surveillance are reasonable options, SRS appears to alter the natural history of asymptomatic meningiomas including tumor progression in the majority of patients treated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".