Stereotactic Radiosurgery Compared With Active Surveillance for Asymptomatic, Parafalcine, and Parasagittal Meningiomas: A Matched Cohort Analysis From the IMPASSE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal management of asymptomatic, presumed WHO grade I meningiomas remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To define the safety and efficacy of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) compared with active surveillance for the management of patients with asymptomatic parafalcine/parasagittal (PFPS) meningiomas. METHODS: Data from SRS-treated patients from 14 centers and patients managed conservatively for an asymptomatic, PFPS meningioma were compared. Local tumor control rate and new neurological deficits development were evaluated in the active surveillance and the SRS-treated cohorts. RESULTS: There were 173 SRS-treated patients and 98 patients managed conservatively in the unmatched cohorts. After matching for patient age and tumor volume, there were 98 patients in each cohort. The median radiological follow-up period was 43 months for the SRS cohort and 36 months for the active surveillance cohort (P = .04). The median clinical follow-up for the SRS and active surveillance cohorts were 44 and 36 months, respectively. Meningioma control was noted in all SRS-treated patients and in 61.2% of patients managed with active surveillance (P < .001). SRS-related neurological deficits occurred in 3.1% of the patients (n = 3), which were all transient. In the active surveillance cohort, 2% of patients (n = 2) developed neurological symptoms because of tumor progression (P = 1.0), resulting in death of 1 patient (1%). CONCLUSION: Up-front SRS affords superior radiological PFPS meningioma control as compared with active surveillance and may lower the risk of meningioma-related permanent neurological deficit and/or death.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".