Fractionated radiotherapy after gross-total resection of spinal chordoma: a systematic review of survival outcomes using individualized patient data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Spinal chordoma treatment guidelines recommend resection. However, in patients in whom gross-total resection (GTR) is achieved, the benefits of radiation therapy (RT) are unclear. Therefore, the authors performed a systematic review to determine if RT is associated with postoperative progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) after achieving GTR of spinal chordoma. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for studies including individualized data of patients undergoing GTR with or without RT for spinal chordoma. Patients < 18 years of age or those who underwent stereotactic body RT were excluded. Qualitative assessment was performed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale guidelines. Log-rank tests for time-to-event data and a Cox proportional-hazards model were generated for a multivariable statistical model. RESULTS: Complete data of 132 patients were retrieved, with 37 (28%) patients receiving adjuvant RT and 95 (72%) not receiving adjuvant RT. The mean follow-up was not statistically significantly different between those undergoing RT and not undergoing RT (54.02 months and 65.43 months, respectively). Patients were more likely not to undergo RT if their disease was located in the sacrum versus the mobile spine (p < 0.001). When controlling for age ≥ 65 years, male sex, disease location, and treatment year ≥ 2010, patients undergoing RT had similar PFS and OS when compared with those not undergoing RT on multivariable survival analysis (HR 0.935 [95% CI 0.703-2.340], p = 0.844 and HR 2.078 [95% CI 0.848-5.090], p = 0.110, respectively). However, age ≥ 65 years was associated with poorer OS in adjusted analyses (HR 2.761 [95% CI 1.185-6.432], p = 0.018) relative to patients < 65 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: After achieving GTR of spinal chordoma, the utility of RT on PFS and OS remains unclear. Age ≥ 65 years appears to be associated with OS in spinal chordoma patients. Additional multicenter prospective studies are needed to determine the utility of RT in 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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".