MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407243216 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1803145

Spontaneous Regression of Vestibular Schwannomas: A Clinical And Radiographic Assessment

2025· article· en· W4407243216 on OpenAlexaff
Celine Hounjet, Jeremy Kam, Hannah Schoenroth, Brian D. Westerberg, Ryojo Akagami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVestibular SchwannomasRadiographyVestibular systemMedicineRegressionAudiologyRadiologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Vestibular schwannomas (VSs) are benign nerve sheath tumors that arise from the vestibulocochlear nerve within the internal auditory canal (IAC) and extend into the cerebellopontine angle (CPA). It is the most common tumor of the CPA with an annual incidence of 17.4/1 million. They typically demonstrate slow growth over time and as such, observation is a reasonable approach to management. A portion of these tumor remains static and approximately 5 to 10% of these tumors will demonstrate spontaneous regression while under observation, including those associated with neurofibromatosis type 2. The standard treatment for symptomatic or growing lesions is surgical resection followed by radiation for residual tumor or reoccurrence; however, management recommendations encourage tailoring care to each patient and tumor individually. Several previous case series have attempted to identify predictive factors for tumor growth and regression, but few have reached significance or demonstrated reproducible findings. If factors were identified that could predict tumor growth one could intervene at an earlier stage of the disease. One meta-analysis conducted on growing tumors identified that size at diagnosis was the only predictive factor that reached significance. In a similar vein, defining factors that reliably predict spontaneous regression could prevent unnecessary intervention. As per our review of the literature, no patient characteristics have yet predicted spontaneous regression to date. Imaging characteristics including a festooned aspect of the tumor and the presence of cerebrospinal fluid in the IAC have been identified as predictive for tumor regression in small case series ( N = 13–14). Methods: Using a clinical database of VS treated by one team at our institution, we identified 40 patients who have demonstrated significant spontaneous regression or complete resolution of their VS. All patients received a survey by mail and telephone. For all patients who consented to participate, radiographic and clinical data was collected from patient charts in addition to survey responses. Medical comorbidities and medications provided through patient questionnaire were corroborated with patient charts. Tumor volume was approximated using the formula V = 4/3 × π × length/2 × width/2 × height/2 and nominal logistic regression was completed using JMPv17 with 50% tumor reduction as the reference value. Results: Ten patients were included in the final descriptive summary of this patient population. Tumors were generally small, left sided (8/10), with a fungated shape (6/10) and at least partial preservation of CSF in the IAC (8/10). Significant decrease in tumor volume was an inclusion criterion; however, no patient factors or radio graphic factors appeared to predict the degree of tumor regression. Conclusion: In conclusion, this is the first study to consider patient lifestyle factors obtained through patient survey in addition to clinical and radiographic findings to describe spontaneous regression of VS. Although there was perhaps a higher-than-average rate of herpes/varicella in this population, no clinical factors were found to be predictive on analysis. Additionally, no radiographic factors appear to be protective including those previously demonstrated to be protective, such as CSF preservation in the IAC and IAC extension. Publication History Article published online: 07 February 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207