Second-look surgery for ependymoma: the Italian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: Complete ependymoma resection ensures a better prognosis for children with this tumor, but the complete excision of infratentorial ependymomas involves serious risks. Second-look surgery for tumor remnants may be less harmful and enable complete removal. There is a potential, although still unclear, role for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in preparation for further surgery. METHODS: Since 1994, the authors have adopted two successive protocols for intracranial ependymoma, both including a phase of adjuvant chemotherapy for children with surgical tumor remnants with a plan for potential second-look surgery before radiotherapy. RESULTS: In the first protocol, 9 of 63 children underwent further surgery, and 6 became tumor free with no additional sequelae. Their prognosis for progression-free survival and freedom from local relapse was comparable to that of children who were operated on only once. In the second protocol, efforts were made to achieve complete resection and 29 of 110 patients underwent reoperations: 9 after the first surgery, 17 after chemotherapy, and 3 soon after radiotherapy. Fourteen of the 29 patients became tumor free, 1 of them with worsening neurological symptoms. The outcome of the 66 patients who became tumor free after 1 operation was compared with that of the 14 who became tumor free after reoperation. The 3-year progression-free survival of the 66 patients compared with the 14 other patients was 71.4% ± 6.9% and 90% ± 9.5%, respectively; the 3-year freedom from local relapse was 84.7% ± 5.9% and 90% ± 9.5%, respectively; and the 3-year overall survival was 85.9% ± 5.4% and 87.5% ± 11.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Second-look surgery proved feasible with no major morbidity, and results improved with time. Local tumor control was comparable in patients undergoing 1 or more resections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".