MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284888650 · doi:10.3171/2022.4.jns22203

Stereotactic radiosurgery for Koos grade IV vestibular schwannoma: a multi-institutional study

2022· article· en· W4284888650 on OpenAlexaff
Stylianos Pikis, Georgios Mantziaris, Rithika Kormath Anand, Ahmed M. Nabeel, Darrah Sheehan, Kimball Sheehan, Wael A. Reda, Sameh R. Tawadros, Khaled Abdelkarim, Amr M. N. El-Shehaby, Reem Emad Eldin, Selçuk Peker, Yavuz Samancı, Tehila Kaisman‐Elbaz, Herwin Speckter, Wenceslao Hernández, Julio Isidor, Manjul Tripathi, Renu Madan, Brad E. Zacharia, Lekhaj Daggubati, Nuria Martínez Moreno, Roberto Martínez Álvarez, Anne-Marie Langlois, David Mathieu, Christopher P. Deibert, Vivek Sudhakar, Christopher P. Cifarelli, Denisse Arteaga Icaza, Daniel T. Cifarelli, Zhishuo Wei, Ajay Niranjan, Gene H. Barnett, L. Dade Lunsford, Greg Bowden, Jason P. Sheehan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiosurgerySchwannomaUnivariate analysisSurgeryFacial nerveMultivariate analysisRetrospective cohort studyAcoustic neuromaProportional hazards modelInternal medicineRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Though stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is an established safe treatment for small- and medium-sized vestibular schwannomas (VSs), its role in the management of Koos grade IV VS is still unclear. In this retrospective multicenter study, the authors evaluated tumor control and the patient outcomes of primary, single-session SRS treatment for Koos grade IV VS. METHODS: This study included patients treated with primary, single-session SRS for Koos grade IV VS at 10 participating centers. Only those patients presenting with non-life-threatening or incapacitating symptoms and at least 12 months of clinical and neuroimaging follow-up were eligible for inclusion. Relevant data were collected, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to perform time-dependent analysis for post-SRS tumor control, hearing preservation, and facial nerve function preservation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for outcome measures using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-seven patients (344 females, median patient age 54 [IQR 22] years) treated with primary SRS were included in this study. The median tumor volume was 8.7 (IQR 5) cm3. Before SRS, serviceable hearing, facial nerve weakness (House-Brackmann grade > I), and trigeminal neuropathy were present in 205 (33%), 48 (7.7%), and 203 (32.4%) patients, respectively. The median prescription dose was 12 (IQR 1) Gy. At a median radiological follow-up of 38 (IQR 54) months, tumor control was achieved in 94.1% of patients. Early tumor expansion occurred in 67 (10.7%) patients and was associated with a loss of tumor control at the last follow-up (p = 0.001). Serviceable hearing preservation rates at the 5- and 10-year follow-ups were 65% and 44.6%, respectively. Gardner-Robertson class > 1 (p = 0.003) and cochlear dose ≥ 4 Gy (p = 0.02) were risk factors for hearing loss. Facial nerve function deterioration occurred in 19 (3.0%) patients at the last follow-up and was associated with margin doses ≥ 13 Gy (p = 0.03) and early tumor expansion (p = 0.04). Post-SRS, 33 patients developed hydrocephalus requiring shunting. Adverse radiation effects occurred in 92 patients and were managed medically or surgically in 34 and 18 cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SRS is a safe and effective method of obtaining tumor control in patients with Koos grade IV VS presenting with non-life-threatening or debilitating symptoms, especially those with surgical comorbidities that contraindicate resection. To decrease the incidence of post-SRS facial palsy, a prescription dose < 13 Gy is recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207