MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393358981 · doi:10.3171/2024.1.jns232285

Long-term radiographic and endocrinological outcomes of stereotactic radiosurgery for recurrent or residual nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas

2024· article· en· W4393358981 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Shaaban, Chloé Dumot, Georgios Mantziaris, Sam Dayawansa, Selçuk Peker, Yavuz Samancı, Ahmed M. Nabeel, Wael A. Reda, Sameh R. Tawadros, Khaled Abdelkarim, Amr M. N. El-Shehaby, Reem M. Emad Eldin, Ahmed Ragab Abdelsalam, Roman Liščák, Jaromír May, Elad Mashiach, Fernando De Nigris Vasconcellos, Kenneth Bernstein, Douglas Kondziolka, Herwin Speckter, Rubén Mota, Anderson Brito, Shray Kumar Bindal, Ajay Niranjan, L. Dade Lunsford, Carolina Benjamin, Timóteo Almeida, Jennifer Z. Mao, David Mathieu, Jean-Nicolas Tourigny, Manjul Tripathi, Joshua D. Palmer, Jennifer K. Matsui, J. Crooks, Rodney E. Wegner, Matthew J. Shepard, Jason P. Sheehan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiosurgeryTerm (time)RadiographyResidualPituitary adenomaRadiologyPituitary neoplasmPituitary glandAdenomaInternal medicineRadiation therapyHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is used for the treatment of residual/recurrent nonfunctional pituitary adenoma (NFPA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors related to long-term tumor control and delayed endocrinopathies following SRS. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients with recurrent/residual NFPA treated with single-fraction SRS; they were then divided into two arms. The first arm included patients with at least 5 years of radiographic follow-up and all patients with local tumor progression. The second arm included patients with at least 5 years of endocrinological follow-up and all patients who developed endocrinopathy. Study endpoints were tumor control and new or worsening hypopituitarism after SRS and were analyzed using Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: There were 360 patients in the tumor control arm (median age 52.7 [IQR 42.9-61] years, 193 [53.6%] males) and 351 patients in the hypopituitarism arm (median age 52.5 [IQR 43-61] years, 186 [53.0%] males). The median follow-up in the tumor control evaluation group was 7.95 (IQR 5.7-10.5) years. Tumor control rates at 5, 8, 10, and 15 years were 93% (95% CI 90%-95%), 87% (95% CI 83%-91%), 86% (95% CI 82%-90%), and 69% (95% CI 59%-81%), respectively. The median follow-up in the endocrinopathy evaluation group was 8 (IQR 5.9-10.7) years. Pituitary function preservation rates at 5, 8, 10, and 15 years were 83% (95% CI 80%-87%), 81% (95% CI 77%-85%), 78% (95% CI 74%-83%), and 71% (95% CI 63%-79%), respectively. A margin dose > 15 Gy (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-0.9; p < 0.001) and a delay from last resection to SRS > 1 year (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-0.9; p = 0.04) were significant factors related to tumor control in multivariable analysis. A maximum dose to the pituitary stalk ≤ 10 Gy (HR 1.1, 95% CI 1.09-1.2; p < 0.001) was associated with pituitary function preservation. New visual deficits after SRS occurred in 7 (1.94%) patients in the tumor control group and 8 (2.3%) patients in the endocrinopathy group. Other new cranial nerve deficits post-SRS occurred in 4 of 160 patients with data in the tumor control group and 3 of 140 patients with data in the endocrinopathy group. CONCLUSIONS: SRS affords favorable and durable tumor control for the vast majority of NFPAs. Post-SRS hypopituitarism occurs in a minority of patients, but this risk increases with time and warrants long-term follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicPituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207