Efficacy and safety of hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy in diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) stands as the predominant type of brainstem glioma. It is characterized by a notably brief median survival period, with the majority of patients experiencing disease progression within six months following radiation therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) in DIPG treatment. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases, and relevant studies comparing HFRT and CFRT in DIPG were included. Data were extracted and analyzed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment-related toxicities. Statistical analysis was performed using random-effects models with heterogeneity assessment. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 518 patients. No significant difference in one-year OS was observed between HFRT and CFRT (29% vs. 22%, p = 0.94). The median OS was similar in both treatment groups (9.7 vs. 9.3 months, p = 0.324). Similarly, no significant difference in one-year PFS was found between HFRT and CFRT (19.8% vs. 16.6%, p = 0.82), with comparable median PFS (9.3 vs. 9.4 months, p = 0.20). In meta-regression analysis, there was no association of chemotherapy (p > 0.05) or radiation biologically effective dose (BED) (p > 0.05) regarding OS or PFS outcomes. There were no significant differences in treatment-related toxicities. Conclusions: HFRT yields one-year OS and PFS rates similar to CFRT in DIPG, with no significant differences in treatment-related toxicities. Chemotherapy and BED did not affect OS or PFS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".