Pediatric cranial stereotactic radiosurgery: Meta-analysis and international stereotactic radiosurgery society practice guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the use of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for pediatric patients. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize indications and outcomes specific to pediatric cranial SRS to inform consensus guidelines on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society. METHODS: A systematic review, using the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, analyzed English-language articles on SRS, published between 1989 and 2021, that included outcomes for at least 5 pediatric patients. MEDLINE database terms included tumor types and locations, and radiosurgical and age-specific terms. We excluded nonclinical reports, expert opinions, commentaries, and review articles. Meta-regressions for associations with local control were performed for medulloblastoma, craniopharyngioma, ependymoma, glioma, and arteriovenous malformation (AVM). RESULTS: Of the 113 articles identified for review, 68 met the inclusion criteria. These articles described approximately 400 pediatric patients with benign and malignant brain tumors and 5119 with AVMs who underwent cranial SRS. The rates of local control for benign tumors, malignant tumors, and AVMs were 89% (95% CI, 82%-95%), 71% (95% CI, 59%-82%), and 65% (95% CI, 60%-69%), respectively. No significant associations were identified for local control with the patient-, tumor-, or treatment-related variables. CONCLUSIONS: This review is the first to summarize outcomes specific to SRS for pediatric brain tumors and AVMs. Although data reporting is limited for pediatric patients, SRS appears to provide acceptable rates of local control. We present ISRS consensus guidelines to inform the judicious use of cranial SRS for pediatric patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".