SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2025
Single session versus hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for large meningiomas (> 8 cc): a systematic review and meta analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor larger meningiomas, higher radiation doses need to be delivered to the tumor, increasing the chances of radiation induced toxicity. Hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (HSRS) imparts overall high dose in small multiple fractions, minimising this risk over single session SRS (SSRS). This meta analysis was conducted to homogenize the role of SRS for large meningiomas (> 8 cc) and run a comparative analysis between HSRS and SSRS. METHODOLOGY: Pubmed and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed to include the relevant articles and meta analysis was performed to estimate pooled favorable clinical outcomes, tumor control and peritumoral edema (PTE) rates. Statistical tests were utilized to compare SSRS and HSRS modalities.
results791 lesions underwent SSRS while 273 tumors were administered HSRS. Significantly higher percentage of Skull base tumors underwent HSRS over SSRS (84.6% vs. 76%, p = 0.003) and mean tumor size was significantly higher in the HSRS cohort (17.6 cc vs. 14.6 cc, p = 0.014). The pooled tumor control and favorable clinical outcome rates were 90% and 85% respectively, with no significant differences in HSRS and SSRS cohorts (95% vs. 90%, logit difference: 0.645, p = 0.10 and 87% vs. 85%, logit difference: 0.26, p = 0.48 respectively). Post radiosurgical PTE incidence was statistically similar for both cohorts with an overall pooled incidence of 7.9% (logit difference = 0.03, p = 0.95). Follow up period was significantly higher in patients undergoing SSRS (67 vs. 49 months, p = 0.037).
conclusionDespite having significantly larger tumor volume, HSRS could achieve similar outcomes with SSRS. However, the inadequacy of data on direct comparative studies between HSRS and SSRS warrants prospective multicenter trials with international collaboration and long term follow up for HSRS. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41291309What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.