PT-01 * THE IMPACT OF INITIAL RADIATION IN INFANTS AND THE RE-IRRADIATION OF RECURRENT DISEASE ON THE SURVIVAL OF EPENDYMOMA PATIENTS AT THE HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN, TORONTO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two significant changes in the management of ependymoma have taken place since 1990 at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto; the up-front irradiation of infants and the re-irradiation of recurrent disease. This study retrospectively reviews the impact of these changes on survival. METHODS: A retrospective case note analysis of children treated for ependymoma between 1990 and 2014 was undertaken. Survival was determined using the Kaplan Meier method. RESULTS: 76 ependymoma patients were identified with a median age of 4.58 years (0.42-17.6) including 31 infants < 3 years old (median age 1.51 years (0.42-2.97)). 45 (59.2%) were male and 31 (40.8%) were female. The majority (56 (73.7%)) were grade III histology and most (56 (73.7%)) were located within the posterior fossa. The median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 41 months (95% CI 20.4-61.7) and 116 months (95% CI 63.5-169.4) respectively. 5 year PFS and OS were 43.3% and 59.3% respectively. 21 infants received up-front radiation and 10 received chemotherapy only. 5 year PFS and OS were significantly higher in irradiated compared to non-irradiated infants (PFS: 52.9% versus 0% (p = 0.000002), OS: 74.6% versus 30.0% (p = 0.004)). 38 patients recurred of which 26 were previously irradiated.19 patients received re-irradiation on recurrence whereas 7 did not. 5 year OS was significantly higher in the re-irradiated patients at 71.8% compared to 0% in the non re-irradiated patients (p = 0.00007). Both management strategies were consistently implemented from 2004. Patients treated pre (n = 34) and post (n = 42) 2004 showed a significant improvement in 5 year PFS from 33.4% to 53.3% (p = 0.037) and OS from 51.2% to 79.2% (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Both radiation of infants as the initial management of ependymoma and re-irradiation of recurrent ependymoma significantly improve survival. Implementing these treatment strategies has resulted in significant improvement in progression free and overall survival for ependymoma patients.
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) | 0.003 | 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".