Stereotactic Radiosurgery Versus Observation in Small- and Medium-Sized Vestibular Schwannoma Patients With Normal Hearing: A Retrospective International Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The therapeutic approach for small- and medium-sized vestibular schwannoma (VS) with normal hearing function remains controversial, with limited comparative data regarding hearing outcomes after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or observation (OBS). We evaluated the serviceable hearing preservation, loss of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery class A hearing, and tumor control (TC) across individuals with Koos grade I and II VSs and normal hearing at presentation who underwent SRS or OBS. METHODS: In this multicenter international study, we retrospectively analyzed the hearing, radiological, and neurological outcomes of patients who underwent SRS (SRS group) or OBS (OBS group). The cohorts were matched using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, pure-tone average, and speech discrimination score at a 1:1 ratio without replacement. RESULTS: After matching, each group comprised 57 patients. The median follow-up was 49 and 37 months for the SRS and the OBS groups, respectively ( P = .3). The 5- and 9-year serviceable hearing preservation rates in the SRS group were 76.2% and 42.4% vs 56.1% and 16.8% in the OBS group ( P = .17). Class A preservation occurred in 57.9% (33/57) of the SRS and 52.6% (30/57) of the OBS cohorts ( P = .70). Regarding the TC rates, SRS was associated with significantly higher TC rates ( P < .0001). CONCLUSION: We found that SRS is significantly superior regarding TC and provided noninferior hearing outcomes compared with OBS in VS patients with American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery class A hearing at presentation. Therefore, we suggest performing SRS in individuals with VS and normal hearing function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".