What if: A retrospective reconstruction of resection cavity stereotactic radiosurgery to mimic neoadjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Neoadjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery (NaSRS) of brain metastases has gained importance, but it is not routinely performed. While awaiting the results of prospective studies, we aimed to analyze the changes in the volume of brain metastases irradiated pre- and postoperatively and the resulting dosimetric effects on normal brain tissue (NBT). Methods We identified patients treated with SRS at our institution to compare hypothetical preoperative gross tumor and planning target volumes (pre-GTV and pre-PTV) with original postoperative resection cavity volumes (post-GTV and post-PTV) as well as with a standardized-hypothetical PTV with 2.0 mm margin. We used Pearson correlation to assess the association between the GTV and PTV changes with the pre-GTV. A multiple linear regression analysis was established to predict the GTV change. Hypothetical planning for the selected cases was created to assess the volume effect on the NBT exposure. We performed a literature review on NaSRS and searched for ongoing prospective trials. Results We included 30 patients in the analysis. The pre-/post-GTV and pre-/post-PTV did not differ significantly. We observed a negative correlation between pre-GTV and GTV-change, which was also a predictor of volume change in the regression analysis, in terms of a larger volume change for a smaller pre-GTV. In total, 62.5% of cases with an enlargement greater than 5.0 cm 3 were smaller tumors (pre-GTV < 15.0 cm 3 ), whereas larger tumors greater than 25.0 cm 3 showed only a decrease in post-GTV. Hypothetical planning for the selected cases to evaluate the volume effect resulted in a median NBT exposure of only 67.6% (range: 33.2–84.5%) relative to the dose received by the NBT in the postoperative SRS setting. Nine published studies and twenty ongoing studies are listed as an overview. Conclusion Patients with smaller brain metastases may have a higher risk of volume increase when irradiated postoperatively. Target volume delineation is of great importance because the PTV directly affects the exposure of NBT, but it is a challenge when contouring resection cavities. Further studies should identify patients at risk of relevant volume increase to be preferably treated with NaSRS in routine practice. Ongoing clinical trials will evaluate additional benefits of NaSRS.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".