Survival and Recurrence Outcomes Following Adjuvant Radiotherapy for Grade 2 Intracranial Meningiomas: 13-Year Experience in a Tertiary-Care Center.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR) in patients with grade 2 meningiomas treated with adjuvant radiotherapy compared to surgery alone at time of diagnosis. METHODS: All patients at the authors' institution between 2007 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. OS, LR, and treatment toxicities were assessed. Sensitivity analyses were performed for patients with initial gross total resection (GTR) and subtotal resection (STR). Kaplan-Meier analyses and log-rank test for significance were used to compare surgery alone and adjuvant radiotherapy groups. RESULTS: We included 189 patients with mean age 57.4 ± 14.6 years. Patients were 64% female, and median follow-up was 64 (interquartile range: 20-96) months. At initial treatment, 21 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy and 168 received surgery alone. There was no significant difference for OS (hazard ratio = 1.3 [95% confidence interval 0.4-4.5], P = 0.92) overall or when limited to GTR (P = 0.38) or STR (P = 0.85). There was no significant difference in LR overall (P = 0.75) or when restricted to GTR (P = 0.77) or STR (P = 0.20). No patient had radiotherapy stopped or altered because of side effects; however, 71.4% reported tolerable side effects during the treatment period and 14.3% reported chronic side effects persisting longer than 12 months post treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a large retrospective cohort, we found no survival or local recurrence benefit to adjuvant radiotherapy in treatment of grade 2 meningiomas. Sensitivity analysis limited to initial GTR and STR also failed to demonstrate any OS or LR benefit with adjuvant radiotherapy. In our experience, there is limited utility to upfront adjuvant radiotherapy following initial surgical resection in the treatment of grade 2 meningiomas.
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) | 0.001 | 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".