MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4221089132 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noac081

Identifying risk factors for recurrence/relapse in NF1 optic pathway gliomas: Moving forward by looking back

2022· letter· en· W4221089132 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna F. Piotrowski, Sadhana Jackson

Notice bibliographique

RevueNeuro-Oncology · 2022
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer Center
Mots-clésMedicineInternal medicineOncologyRadiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1)-associated optic pathway gliomas (NF1-OPG) is the chief medical problem of patients with NF1 during childhood. These low-grade gliomas tend to occur in approximately 15%-20% of NF1 patients, with approximately half needing to receive tumor-directed treatment.1–3 Unfortunately one-third of patients relapse after this initial therapy.1 If all young children with NF1 had routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening, this incidence may be even higher, but the current standard of care solely requires surveillance ophthalmologic examinations. A critical knowledge gap of NF1-OPGs lies with determining which patients will experience treatment-refractory or relapsed disease.4 To date, only characteristics of patient age, posterior tumor location, and residual tumor volume have been correlated with poor visual outcomes and tumor progression.1 In this study, Kotch et al detail their findings from a retrospective review of 103 patients diagnosed with NF1-OPG across seven institutions, from 2005 to 2014.5 A majority of these patients received carboplatin-based therapies and 44% exhibited refractory/relapsed disease with a median time to progression of 21.5 months. Treatment-refractory/relapsed NF1-OPG was defined as two or more treatment regimens needed due to relapsed disease or lack of treatment response. The primary outcomes were centered on 2 and 5 years from initiation of chemotherapy and the secondary objective was evaluation of long-term visual acuity. They concluded that risk factors for treatment-refractory and relapsed disease included patients less than 24 months of age, gliomas localized posterior to the chiasm, familial NF1 inheritance, and optic pathway abnormalities by 2 years of age. Interestingly, neither the size of the OPG nor the severity of visual acuity at initial diagnosis correlated with the risk for treatment failure or relapsed disease. Due to a lack of NF1-OPG studies centered on treatment-refractory and relapsed disease performed to date, this retrospective review was definitely warranted, so as to assist with optimal design of prospective trials.4 Yet, it would be interesting to know how the authors collected 111 subjects for this study, as the denominator could provide information regarding true NF1-OPG disease incidence and treatment response. Moreover, prior studies have identified approximately one-third of patients fail frontline chemotherapy, while this cohort exhibited a higher percentage (44%) of refractory/relapsed cases.1 The total patient evaluation and higher treatment failure numbers may be secondary to the inclusion of academic centers that have expertise in NF1 clinical care and thus see more complicated cases. Specifics of orbital MRI of OPGs have become more sophisticated over the last decade. The most recent Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) criteria detailed essential MRI sequences at baseline and suspected disease progression.6 While Kotch et al utilized a central review for neuro-ophthalmologists, there was no central review performed by neuroradiologists to further characterize these OPGs via RAPNO criteria.5 Additionally, there was no central review by neuro-oncologists to confirm NF1 diagnosis, and/or link clinical history (eg, neurologic symptoms, proptosis, endocrinologic symptoms, etc.) with relative risk factors.4 All of these patients had a diagnosis of NF1 but genotyping was not reported nor performed in each. Previous studies have demonstrated localization of the NF1 gene mutation (specifically at the 5′ third of the gene) appears to be a true feature of the mutations in NF1 patients with OPGs when compared with NF1 patients without OPGs (OR = 6.05, P = .003). These findings demonstrate the possibility of linking genotype features with phenotypes of visual deterioration pre- or post-therapy.7 Worsening visual acuity distinguished them as progressive disease candidates warranting change of therapy. Yet past studies have demonstrated visual changes may have occurred prior to therapy initiation; meaning initial therapy may not have needed to be terminated or changed completely.1,8 Furthermore, this retrospective review does not account for such rare cases of NF1-OPG patients with spontaneous visual improvement sans therapy that may have never needed treatment with longer observation windows; yet seemingly clinically unsafe if left untreated for more than 18 months from diagnosis.1,4 Collectively, these results further obviate the need for future prospective studies to better outline disease prognostication. NF1-associated OPGs are mostly indolent but may cause severe visual impairment which requires treatment. Sadly, it is a complex condition without clear indications for who, when, and how best to treat. These findings by Kotch et al are useful because if age and tumor location are validated risk factors, then earlier identification of high-risk patients can impact treatment recommendations. Studies like these improve our understanding of chemotherapy options and anticipated response to therapy. While the widely accepted gold standard of therapy for low-grade gliomas is carboplatin with vincristine, its use is associated with a high incidence of allergies, myelosuppression, alopecia, nausea, neuropathy, abdominal pain, and hearing loss.9 In comparison, the Canadian Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium demonstrated similar survival outcomes and a lower toxicity profile with vinblastine monotherapy for progressive low-grade gliomas; again underscoring the need to standardize prospective trials to directly compare therapeutic options.10 This study is additionally valuable for validating Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) endpoints for visual outcomes, which interestingly may be discordant from radiographic measurements. Future studies should follow RAPNO imaging guidelines to enhance the identification of tumor progression, along with functional outcomes. Furthermore, genotype-phenotype correlations should be explored in this tumor predisposition syndrome, where germline and somatic mutations ultimately drive tumorigenesis which has the potential to benefit from tumor-targeted novel therapeutics.11 Overall, prospective data on the natural history of NF1-OPGs can help stratify which patients are at high risk and thus potentially provide justification for additional and/or alternative tumor-directed therapy for a subset of patients with the intent of overall vision preservation. This research/work/investigator was supported (in part) by the Division of Intramural Research of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. Conflict of interest statement. N/A.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,624
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNeuro-OncologyMême sujetNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesTravaux en français237 207