MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407250678 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1803228

Natural History and Surgical Outcomes of Single-Center Experience in Management of Spheno-orbital Meningiomas

2025· article· en· W4407250678 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Wang, Peter Gooderham, Ryojo Akagami, Serge Makarenko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural historyCenter (category theory)MedicineNatural (archaeology)General surgerySurgeryHistoryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sphenoorbital meningiomas (SOM) are intracranial tumors that arise from the sphenoid wing. Common clinical presentations include visual impairment, exophthalmos, and headache. Radical resection is difficult due to anatomic complexity. Subtotal resections (STR) present high risks of residual progression. Adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) is used for establishing residual control. However, radiation-induced neuropathy and inflammatory responses often result, necessitating individualized management strategies. Methods: Between 2001 and 2023, we screened 100 patients who underwent craniotomy and surgical resection for SOM at our institution, including 72 patients. They were separated into two groups based on postoperative management strategies: surgery-only (S-only) versus surgery followed by adjuvant RT (S-RT). We analyzed clinical presentation, surgical outcomes, resection rates, postoperative course, disease recurrence, and adjuvant treatment outcomes. Results: A total of 72 patients (72.2% female) were included in our analysis (46 S-only and 26 S-RT) with a mean age of 59.1 years (range, 28–85 years). There were no major demographic differences between the two groups. Mean follow-up time was 70 months (66.5 months S-only vs. 73.6 months S-RT). The most common clinical presentations were visual acuity defect (47.2%), headache (43.1%), optic neuropathy (31.9%), and exophthalmos (26.4%). Greater extent of resection was achieved in S-only cohort (76.1% GTR vs. 15.4% GTR; p < 0.0001), with 23.9% (0% in S-RT) being Simpson grade I. Significantly more S-RT patients first presented with exophthalmos (42.3 vs. 17.4%; p = 0.0279) and retro-orbital pain (26.9 vs. 6.62%; p = 0.0295). S-RT lesions were more likely to demonstrate vascular encasement (57.7 vs. 28.3%; p = 0.0228), optic apparatus involvement (65.4 vs. 39.1%; p = 0.0491), and cavernous sinus invasion (50.0 vs. 23.9%; p = 0.0368). Tumor recurrence rate was 15.6% in S-only, 50% pre-RT ( p = 0.037), and 33.3% post-RT. Residual progression rate did not significantly decrease with adjuvant RT (28.6% S-only vs. 15.4% post-RT, p > 0.9999); the mean time to progression was 41.3 months for S-only patients (vs. 83.6 months post-RT). Conclusion: Microsurgical management of SOM often results in subtotal resection of tumor given the location of the lesion and critical neurovascular structures. We report outcomes after attempts at maximal safe resection and document patterns of recurrences. The postoperative course of SOM disease progression tends to be delayed around the areas of the orbit. Thus, long-term surveillance and individualized planning by a multidisciplinary skull base team is crucial in achieving proper management. 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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207