Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30452715›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2019

Craniospinal irradiation as part of re-irradiation for children with recurrent intracranial ependymoma.

Derek S Tsang, Louise Murray, Vijay Ramaswamy, Michal Zapotocky, Uri Tabori, Ute Bartels, Annie Huang, Peter B Dirks, Michael D Taylor, Cynthia Hawkins and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Ependymomas in Children and Adults.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  13. Role of Radiotherapy in Patients With Relapsed Medulloblastoma.Brain tumor research and treatment · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Derek S TsangRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Louise MurrayRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Vijay RamaswamyDivision of Haematology/Oncology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Michal ZapotockyDivision of Haematology/Oncology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Uri TaboriDivision of Haematology/Oncology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Ute BartelsDivision of Haematology/Oncology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Annie HuangDivision of Haematology/Oncology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Peter B DirksDivision of Neurosurgery, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Michael D TaylorDivision of Neurosurgery, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Cynthia HawkinsPediatric Laboratory Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Eric BouffetDivision of Haematology/Oncology, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.
Normand LaperriereRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Hospital for Sick Children · CAUniversity Health Network · CACharles University · CZUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of this study was to evaluate outcomes in children with relapsed, molecularly characterized intracranial ependymoma treated with or without craniospinal irradiation (CSI) as part of a course of repeat radiation therapy (re-RT).

methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 31 children. Patients with distant relapse received CSI as part of re-RT. For patients with locally recurrent ependymoma, those treated before 2012 were re-irradiated with focal re-RT. In 2012, institutional practice changed to offer CSI, followed by boost re-RT to the site of resected or gross disease.

resultsMedian follow-up was 5.5 years. Of 9 patients with distant relapse after initial RT, 2-year freedom from progression (FFP) and overall survival (OS) were 12.5% and 62.5%, respectively. There were 22 patients with local failure after initial RT. In these patients, use of CSI during re-RT was associated with improvement in 5-year FFP (83.3% with CSI vs 15.2% with focal re-RT only, P = 0.030). In the subgroup of patients with infratentorial primary disease, CSI during re-RT also improved 5-year FFP (100% with CSI, 10.0% with focal re-RT only, P = 0.036). Twenty-three patients had known molecular status; all had posterior fossa group A tumors (n = 17) or tumors with a RELA (v-rel avian reticuloendotheliosis viral oncogene homolog A) fusion (n = 6). No patient developed radiation necrosis after fractionated re-RT, though almost all survivors required assistance throughout formal schooling. Five out of 10 long-term survivors have not developed neuroendocrine deficits.

conclusionsRe-irradiation with CSI is a safe and effective treatment for children with locally recurrent ependymoma and improves disease control compared with focal re-irradiation, with the benefit most apparent for those with infratentorial primary tumors.

Indexed as

ChildChild, PreschoolCraniospinal IrradiationEpendymomaFemaleHumansInfantMaleNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRe-IrradiationRetrospective Studiesependymomapediatricsrecurrencere-irradiation

Identifiers

PMID30452715
PMCPMC6422429
OpenAlexW2901321561

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.