Favorable outcome with conservative treatment for children with low grade brainstem tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric brainstem tumors (BST) comprise a heterogeneous group of entities. Data regarding treatment options and outcome of BST, specifically brainstem low grade tumors (BSLGT) are limited. In order to better define risk groups and evaluate treatment options for pediatric BST, we performed a comprehensive analysis of all BST patients treated in our hospital during the MRI era. PROCEDURES: We retrospectively analyzed clinical, imaging, and pathology data at presentation, treatment, and outcome of all BST patients followed at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto over the last 25 years. RESULTS: Of 1,801 children with brain tumors, 223 (12%) had a brainstem primary location. Tumors without pontine involvement were BSLGT in 98.3%, whereas 75% of tumors involving the pons were high grade (P = 0.0001). Patients with BSLGT had 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 57 ± 3% and 89 ± 5%, respectively. Upfront observation of tumor residual conferred no survival disadvantage with 5-year PFS and OS of 57 ± 5% and 93 ± 3%, respectively. In the group of patients requiring further treatment, 5-year PFS and OS were comparable between chemotherapy and radiotherapy with 53 ± 12% and 93 ± 4% and 66 ± 11% and 83 ± 6%, respectively (P = 0.26 and 0.3, respectively). CONCLUSION: BST without pontine involvement are almost invariably BSLGT. Children with BSLGT have an excellent outcome even with careful initial observation. No clear benefit was observed for radiotherapy over chemotherapy when adjuvant treatment was needed. A conservative approach may be warranted for children with non-pontine brainstem lesions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".