MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416050111 · doi:10.3171/2025.6.spine25376

Outcomes following stereotactic body radiation therapy specific to spinal metastases with paraspinal disease extension: does volume matter?

2025· article· en· W4416050111 on OpenAlexaff
Wee Loon Ong, Kang Zeng, Daniel Moore-Palhares, Hany Soliman, Sten Myrehaug, Jay Detsky, Hanbo Chen, Mark Ruschin, Eshetu G. Atenafu, Jérémie Larouche, Christopher D. Witiw, Pejman Maralani, Arjun Sahgal, Chia‐Lin Tseng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurosurgery Spine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiseaseRadiation therapyVolume (thermodynamics)Stereotactic radiation therapyComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Paraspinal involvement has been consistently reported as a negative predictor of local control following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of paraspinal disease and determine the impact on outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent SBRT for spinal metastases with paraspinal involvement, identified from a single-institutional prospective database, were retrospectively reviewed. Those with prior radiation therapy/surgery were excluded. The treated clinical target volume (CTV) was segmented into paraspinal (CTV_PS), neuroforaminal (CTV_NF), epidural (CTV_EP), and osseous bone (CTV_bone) components. The extent of extraosseous disease was classified according to the involvement of rib, neuroforamina, and muscle. Volume and dosimetric parameters were collected and dichotomized using recursive binary partitioning. The outcomes of interest were the cumulative incidence of local failure (LF), overall survival (OS), and reirradiation rates. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients with 125 treated spinal sites were identified. There were 38% (47/125), 66% (82/125), and 19% (24/125) treated spinal sites with involvement of rib, neuroforamina, and muscle, respectively. The median follow-up duration of the cohort was 17.34 months (IQR 7.79-40.11 months). The 12-month and 24-month cumulative incidence rates of LF were 19.5% (95% CI 12.6%-27.4%) and 29.8% (95% CI 21.4%-38.7%), respectively. The 12-month cumulative incidence rates of LF were 12.0% (95% CI 5.9%-20.5%) and 36.3% (95% CI 20.2%-52.6%) for patients with CTV_PS < 42.9 mL and those with ≥ 42.9 mL (p < 0.001), respectively, and 55.6% (95% CI 28.7%-75.8%) and 12.2% (95% CI 6.5%-19.9%) for patients with and without muscle invasion (p = 0.001), respectively. In the multivariable analysis, only CTV_PS remained statistically associated with LF. CTV_PS ≥ 42.9 mL was associated with 2.3 times (95% CI 1.13-4.83, p = 0.02) increased risk of LF compared with CTV_PS < 42.9 mL. The 12-month and 24-month OS rates were 56% (95% CI 47%-65%) and 41% (95% CI 32%-50%), respectively. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score < 1 and oligometastatic disease (≤ 5 metastases) were associated with better OS in the multivariable analysis. The 12-month and 24-month reirradiation rates were 7.3% (95% CI 3.4%-13.3%) and 16.5% (95% CI 10.2%-24.1%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal metastases with high-volume paraspinal involvement were associated with increased risk of LF following SBRT, and strategies to optimize local control are required.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurosurgery SpineSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207