Cited by 26Pituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsNeuroendocrine Tumor Research AdvancesMeningioma and schwannoma management

Visual outcome, endocrine function and tumor control after fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy of craniopharyngiomas in adults: findings in a prospective cohort

Open access
Astradsson, Arnar, Munck af Rosenschöld, Per, Feldt-Rasmussen, Ulla, Poulsgaard, Lars, Wiencke, Anne Katrine, Ohlhues, Lars, Engelholm, Svend Aage, Broholm, Helle +4 more·2017·Acta Oncologica

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to examine visual outcome, endocrine function and tumor control in a prospective cohort of craniopharyngioma patients, treated with fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT).Material and methods: Sixteen adult patients with craniopharyngiomas were eligible for analysis. They were treated with linear accelerator-based FSRT during 1999–2015. In all cases, diagnosis was confirmed by histological analysis. The prescription dose to the tumor was 54 Gy (median, range 48–54) in 1.8 or 2.0 Gy per fraction, and the maximum radiation dose to the optic nerves and chiasm was 54.2 Gy (median, range 48.6–60.0) for the cohort. Serial ophthalmological and endocrine evaluations and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were performed at regular intervals. Median follow-up was 3.3 years (range 1.1–14.1), 3.7 years (range 0.8–15.2), and 3.6 years (range 0.7–13.1) for visual outcome, endocrine function, and tumor control, respectively.Results: Visual acuity impairment was present in 10 patients (62.5%) and visual field defects were present in 12 patients (75%) before FSRT. One patient developed radiation-induced optic neuropathy at seven years after FSRT. Thirteen of 16 patients (81.3%) had pituitary deficiency before FSRT, and did not develop further pituitary deficiency after FSRT. Mean tumor volume pre-FSRT was 2.72 cm3 (range 0.20–9.90) and post-FSRT 1.2 cm3 (range 0.00–13.10). Tumor control rate was 81.3% at two, five, and 10 years after FSRT.Conclusions: FSRT was relatively safe in this prospective cohort of craniopharyngiomas, with only one case of radiation-induced optic neuropathy and no case of new endocrinopathy. Tumor control rate was acceptable.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0284186x.2016.1270466

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Yasargil MG, Curcic M, Kis M, et al. Total removal of craniophar- yngiomas. Approaches and long-term results in 144 patients. J Neurosurg. 1990;73:3-11.
  2. Sartoretti-Schefer S, Wichmann W, Aguzzi A, et al. MR differenti- ation of adamantinous and squamous-papillary craniopharyngio- mas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18:77-87.
  3. Niranjan A, Kano H, Mathieu D, et al. Radiosurgery for craniophar- yngioma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;78:64-71.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Astradsson, A., Munck af Rosenschöld, P., Feldt-Rasmussen, U., Poulsgaard, L., Wiencke, A. K., Ohlhues, L., Engelholm, S. A., Broholm, H., Hansen Møller, E., Klose, M., Roed, H., & Juhler, M.
Affiliations
  • Hvidovre Hospital (DK)
  • Department of Radiation Oncology, Finsen Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark;
  • Department of Medical Endocrinology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark;
  • Rigshospitalet (DK)
  • Glostrup Hospital (DK)
  • Department of Neurosurgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark;
Corresponding author
Astradsson, Arnar
Venue
Acta Oncologica
Published
2017-01-13
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
415-421
ISSN
  • 0284-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-226X
OpenAlex
W2576447746
Cited by
26
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Oncologica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Hetland Olsens foundation
  • Sophus and Astrid Jacobsens foundation
  • Neuroscience Center
  • Clinics of Neurosurgery and Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurorehabilitation
  • Rigshospitalet University Hospital
  • Region Hovedstaden (Capital Region Research Grant for Health Research)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Pituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Meningioma and schwannoma management
Keywords
craniopharyngioma, fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy, visual outcome, visual acuity loss, visual field defects, radiation-induced optic neuropathy, pituitary function, endocrine function, tumor control, adult patients
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Craniopharyngioma, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pituitary Gland, Pituitary Hormones, Pituitary Neoplasms, Radiotherapy Dosage, Retrospective Studies, Vision, Ocular, Radiosurgery, Treatment Outcome, Dose Fractionation, Radiation, Tumor Burden, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review