MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415587841 · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000003809

Hypofractionation of Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Intracranial Meningiomas: A Retrospective Multicenter Study and Systematic Review of Literature

2025· article· en· W4415587841 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Meng, Derek S. Tsang, Kenneth E. Bernstein, Brandon Santhumayor, Elad Mashiach, Justin Z. Wang, Suganth Suppiah, Chandranath Sen, Donato Pacione, Bernadine R. Donahue, Erik P. Sulman, Joshua B. Silverman, John G. Golfinos, Gelareh Zadeh, Douglas Kondziolka

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiosurgeryGamma knifeMulticenter studyRetrospective cohort studyProspective cohort studyDose fractionation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypofractionated Gamma Knife radiosurgery (hfGKRS) is increasingly considered for treating large or near-critical structure meningiomas because of potential safety advantages. However, data on optimal fractionation and long-term outcomes remain limited. This study evaluated the longer-term tumor control and toxicity after hfGKRS for intracranial meningiomas at 2 large centers, supplemented by a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature. METHODS: The analysis included 34 patients (site 1 = 25, site 2 = 9, median age 62.6 years) with 40 tumors (median volume 11.2 cm 3 ). 62% was low-grade (World Health Organization grade 0-1) and 38% was high-grade (World Health Organization grade 2-3). The most common fractionation schemes were 20 Gy in 5 fractions for low-grade and 21 Gy in 3 fractions for high-grade tumors. The mean follow-up was 28.8 months. RESULTS: Only 6 of 34 patients did not have any previous treatment including surgery and/or radiotherapy. 82% of patient patients had neurological deficits before stereotactic radiosurgery. The estimated rate of 5-year tumor progression for low-grade and high-grade tumors was 7.7% (95% CI 0.41%-30%) and 36% (95% CI 12%-62%). Symptoms improved in 12 patients (35%) and worsened in 6 patients (16%), with 1 case attributed to tumor progression and no significant visual deterioration in 16 tumors within 3 mm of the optic apparatus. There was no statistically significant association between fractionation (3 vs 5) scheme and tumor control ( P = .07) or survival ( P = .12). Karnofsky Performance Status performance was a significant predictor of death (HR 0.89, P = .012) and tumor progression (HR 0.93, P = .048). The combined meta-analysis revealed a 5-year tumor control rate of 91.6% for low-grade and 37.9% for high-grade meningiomas. CONCLUSION: hfGKRS demonstrates durable control and acceptable safety for low-grade intracranial meningiomas. High-grade tumors showed less favorable outcomes comparable with single-session Gamma Knife radiosurgery historical data. Further prospective data are needed to confirm these findings and optimize fractionation strategies.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207