ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2018
Patterns of relapse for children with localized intracranial ependymoma.
Article in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- SIOP Ependymoma I: Final results, long-term follow-up, and molecular analysis of the trial cohort-A BIOMECA Consortium Study.Neuro-oncology · 2022Trial
- Molecular grouping and outcomes of young children with newly diagnosed ependymoma treated on the multi-institutional SJYC07 trial.Neuro-oncology · 2019Trial
- Supratentorial ependymoma: a comprehensive review of molecular classification, management strategies, and clinical outcomes (Part II of pediatric ependymomas across compartments).Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Review
- Pediatric CNS Radiation Oncology: Recent Developments and Novel Techniques.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- Optimizing outcomes in intracranial ependymoma: a contemporary review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of dose, volume, and outcome in children with localized, intracranial ependymoma treated with proton therapy within the prospective KiProReg Study.Neuro-oncology · 2022Article
- Treatment and outcome of pediatric intracranial ependymoma after first relapse.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2022Article
- The biology of ependymomas and emerging novel therapies.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2022Review
- Outcomes after first relapse of children with intracranial ependymoma treated on the second l'Associazione Italiana di Ematologia e Oncologia Pediatrica (AIEOP) protocol.Neuro-oncology · 2022Article
- Treatment and outcome of intracranial ependymoma after first relapse in the 2nd AIEOP protocol.Neuro-oncology · 2022Article
- Polish Multi-Institutional Study of Children with Ependymoma-Clinical Practice Outcomes in the Light of Prospective Trials.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The immunopeptidomic landscape of ependymomas provides actionable antigens for T-cell-based immunotherapy.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We examined patterns of relapse and prognostic factors in children with intracranial ependymoma. Records of 82 children diagnosed with localized intracranial ependymoma were reviewed. 52% first presented to our institution after relapse. Median age at initial diagnosis was 4 years (range 0-18 years). Gender was 55% male. Initial tumor location was infratentorial in 71% and supratentorial in 29%. Histology was WHO Grade II in 32% and Grade III in 68%. As part of definitive management, 99% had surgery, 70% received RT (26% 2D/3D-conformal RT[CRT], 22% intensity-modulated RT [IMRT], 22% proton), and 37% received chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 4.6 years (range 0.2-32.9). Overall, 74% of patients relapsed (50% local, 17% distant, 7% local + distant) at a median 1.5 (range 0.1-17.5) years. Five-year OS and FFS for patients presenting prior to relapse are 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-83%) and 48% (95% CI 30-64%), respectively. On log-rank, superior overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for gross total resection (p = 0.03). Superior failure-free survival (FFS) was demonstrated for age < 5 years (p = 0.04). No difference in OS or FFS was found between 2D/3D-CRT versus IMRT/proton (p > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, age ≤ 5 was independently associated with a lower risk of death and failure versus older patients (p < 0.05). Contrary to previous reports, young age may not be a poor prognostic factor in patients who can tolerate intensive treatment. Future studies examining patients stratified by clinical and molecular attributes are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.