Phantosmia during proton radiation and differences in frequency of phantosmia rates based on proton craniospinal irradiation technique for pediatric brain tumor patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unusual olfactory perception, often referred to as "phantosmia" or "cacosmia" has been reported during brain radiotherapy (RT), but is infrequent and does not typically interfere with the ability to deliver treatment. We seek to determine the rate of phantosmia for patients treated with proton craniospinal irradiation (CSI) and identify any potential clinical or treatment-related associations. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 127 pediatric patients treated with CSI, followed by a boost to the brain for primary brain tumors in a single institution between 2016 and 2021. Proton CSI was delivered with passive scattering (PS) proton technique (n = 53) or pencil beam scanning technique (PBS) (n = 74). Within the PBS group, treatment delivery to the CSI utilized a single posterior (PA) field (n = 24) or two posterior oblique fields (n = 50). We collected data on phantom smell, nausea/vomiting, and the use of medical intervention. RESULTS: Our cohort included 80 males and 47 females. The median age of patients was 10 years (range: 3-21). Seventy-one patients (56%) received concurrent chemotherapy. During RT, 104 patients (82%) developed worsening nausea, while 63 patients (50%) reported episodes of emesis. Of those patients who were awake during CSI (n = 59), 17 (29%) reported phantosmia. In the non-sedated group, we found a higher rate of phantosmia in patients treated with PBS (n = 16, 42%) than PS (n = 1, 4.7%) (p = .002). Seventy-eight patients (61%) required medical intervention after developing nausea/vomiting or phantosmia during RT. Two patients required sedation due to the malodorous smell during CSI. We did not find any significant difference in nausea/vomiting based on treatment technique. CONCLUSION: Proton technique significantly influenced olfactory perception with greater rates of phantosmia with PBS compared to PS. Prospective studies should be performed to determine the cause of these findings and determine techniques to minimize phantosmia during radiation therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".