Stereotactic radiosurgery for cerebellopontine meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To (1) measure surgical outcomes associated with stereotactic radiosurgery treatment of cerebellopontine angle meningiomas, and (2) determine if differences in radiation dosages or preoperative tumor volumes affect surgical outcomes.Methods A systematic search was performed on the PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases searching for patients under stereotactic radiosurgery for meningiomas of the cerebellopontine angle. After data extraction and Newcastle-Ottawa scale quality assessment, meta-analysis of the data was performed with Review Manager 3.4.5.Results In total, 6 studies including 406 patients were included. Postprocedure, patients had minimal cranial nerve complications while having an overall tumor control rate of 95.6%. Complications were minimal with facial nerve deficits occurring in 2.4%, sensation deficits of the trigeminal nerve in 4.0%, hearing loss in 5.9%, hydrocephalus in 2.0% and diplopia in 2.6% of all patients. Individuals with tumors extending into the internal auditory canal extension did not have significantly increases in hearing loss. There was a higher likelihood of tumor regression on postprocedure imaging in studies with a median prescription dose of >13 Gy (RR 1.27 [95% CI 1.04–1.56, p = 0.0225). There was no evidence of publication bias detected.Conclusions Radiosurgery is an effective modality for offering excellent tumor control of CPA meningiomas while allowing for only minimal complications postprocedure. A higher prescription dose may achieve higher tumor regression at follow up. Future studies should aim at establishing and optimizing accurate dosimetric guidelines for this patient population.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".