Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27585992›Full record

Trial reportChild's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery2016

Assessing 'second-look' tumour resectability in childhood posterior fossa ependymoma-a centralised review panel and staging tool for future studies.

Christopher P Millward, Conor Mallucci, Tim Jaspan, Donald Macarthur, Richard Heyward, Tim Cox, Kung Chong, Richard G Grundy

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Ependymoma: Evaluation and Management Updates.Current oncology reports · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher P MillwardAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool, L12 2AP, UK. christopherpaulmillward@gmail.com.
Conor MallucciAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Eaton Road, Liverpool, L12 2AP, UK.
Tim JaspanChildren's Brain Tumour Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Donald MacarthurChildren's Brain Tumour Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Richard HeywardGreat Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
Tim CoxGreat Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
Kung ChongGreat Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK.
Richard G GrundyChildren's Brain Tumour Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
University College London · GBAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBBrain Tumour Research · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo improve uniformity in radiological review/reporting and discussion of surgical resection status in the forthcoming SIOP Ependymoma II trial, a central review of imaging and resection status will be carried out prior to treatment stratification. We present a review of surgical decision-making from the UKCCSG/SIOP Ependymoma trial for very young children (<3 years) (Lancet Oncol 8:696-705, 2007) and propose a primary surgical staging system for residual disease that could be used for Ependymoma II.

methodsImaging of 89 patients enrolled in the UKCCSG infant Ependymoma trial was independently reviewed by 3 experienced paediatric neuro-oncology surgeons. Pre- and post-op MRI imaging was available for 28 posterior fossa cases with incomplete resection. Location of residual disease, decision to offer 'second-look' surgery (prior to adjuvant therapy), perceived chance of complete resection, and risk to cranial nerves was assessed. Recommendation for second-look surgery was compared with actual second-look surgery.

resultsIn the actual study period, 13 patients (46 %) had further surgery at some point. The independent panel, after blinded review of the imaging, would have offered 19 patients overall (68 %) in this same cohort up-front early second-look surgery prior to definitive adjuvant therapy. We devised a 5-point staging system to introduce consistency in staging residual disease and resectability, and this is presented.

conclusionsBased on scans alone, a surgical panel would have offered second-look surgery to 68 % of patients with residual ependymoma. The potential benefits and drawbacks of a surgical review panel and classification system will be discussed in the context of the forthcoming Ependymoma II trial.

Indexed as

Child, PreschoolCranial Fossa, PosteriorEpendymomaFemaleHumansInfantMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeoplasm StagingSkull Base NeoplasmsClassification toolEpendymomaReview panel‘Second-look’ surgery

Identifiers

PMID27585992
OpenAlexW2518031672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.