Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39757304›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2025

Advances in molecular prognostication and treatments in ependymoma.

Emma Bakes, Rachel Cheng, Noralyn Mañucat-Tan, Vijay Ramaswamy, Jordan R Hansford

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

5 authors.

Emma Bakes *Michael Rice Centre for Hematology and Oncology, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Rachel Cheng *Michael Rice Centre for Hematology and Oncology, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Noralyn Mañucat-TanSouth Australia Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Vijay Ramaswamy *Developmental and Stem Cell Biology, Labatt Brain Tumour Research Centre, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada. vijay.ramaswamy@sickkids.ca.
Jordan R Hansford *Michael Rice Centre for Hematology and Oncology, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia. jordan.hansford@sahmri.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ependymoma is the third most common brain tumour of childhood and historically has posed a major challenge to both pediatric and adult neuro-oncologists. Ependymoma can occur anywhere in the central nervous system throughout the entire age spectrum. Treatment options have been limited to surgery and radiation, and outcomes have been widely disparate across studies. Indeed, these disparate outcomes have rendered it extraordinarily difficult to compare studies and to truly understand which patients are low and high-risk. Over the past two decades there have been tremendous advances in our understanding of the biology of ependymoma, which have changed risk stratification dramatically. Indeed, it is now well accepted that ependymoma comprises multiple distinct entities, whereby each compartment (supratentorial, posterior fossa, spinal) are distinct, and within each compartment there exist unique groups. The driver events, demographics and response to treatment vary widely across these groups and allow for a better classification of thee disease. Herein, we review the advances in the molecular stratification of ependymoma including how an improved classification and risk stratification allows for more precise therapies.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsEpendymomaHumansPrognosisEpendymomaGenomicsMolecular stratificationPFAPFBRadiotherapyZFTA

Identifiers

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.