ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2018
Pediatric intracranial ependymoma: correlating signs and symptoms at recurrence with outcome in the second prospective AIEOP protocol follow-up.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgery and radiotherapy strategies at first relapse of pediatric intracranial ependymoma: an Italian retrospective study integrating molecular subgrouping.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Recurrence patterns in pediatric intracranial ependymal neoplasm: a systematic imaging work-up.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Treatment and outcome of intracranial ependymoma after first relapse in the 2nd AIEOP protocol.Neuro-oncology · 2022Article
- Local and systemic therapy of recurrent ependymoma in children and adolescents: short- and long-term results of the E-HIT-REZ 2005 study.Neuro-oncology · 2021Article
- Extent of re-excision, sequence/timing of salvage re-irradiation, and disease-free interval impact upon clinical outcomes in recurrent/progressive ependymoma.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aims of patients' radiological surveillance are to: ascertain relapse; apply second-line therapy; accrue patients in phase 1/2 protocols if second-line therapy is not standardized/curative; and assess/treat iatrogenic effects. To lessen the emotional and socioeconomic burdens for patients and families, we ideally need to establish whether scheduled radiological surveillance gives patients a better outcome than waiting for symptoms and signs to appear.
methodsWe analyzed a prospective series of 160 newly-diagnosed and treated pediatric/adolescent patients with intracranial ependymoma, comparing patients with recurrent disease identified on scheduled MRI (the RECPT group; 34 cases) with those showing signs/symptoms of recurrent disease (the SYMPPT group; 16 cases). The median follow-up was 67 months.
resultsNo significant differences emerged between the two groups in terms of gender, age, tumor grade/site, shunting, residual disease, or type of relapse (local, distant, or concomitant). The time to relapse (median 19 months; range 5-104) and the MRI follow-up intervals did not differ between the SYMPPT and RECPT groups. The presence of signs/symptoms was an unfavorable factor for overall survival (OS) after recurrence (5-year OS: 8% vs. 37%, p = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, an adjusted model confirmed a significantly worse OS in the SYMPPT than in the RECPT patients.
conclusionsSymptomatic relapses carried a significantly worse survival for ependymoma patients than recurrences detected by MRI alone. It would therefore be desirable to identify recurrences before symptoms develop. Radiological follow-up should be retained in ependymoma patient surveillance because there is a chance of salvage treatment for relapses found on MRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30109673What 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.