Characteristics and management of ganglioneuroma and ganglioneuroblastoma‐intermixed in children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ganglioneuromas (GNs) usually demonstrate favorable histological and clinical features. Surgery is often performed due to clinical symptoms and/or theoretical concerns that GN may transform into neuroblastoma (NB); however, several studies have identified significant GN-surgical morbidities. OBJECTIVES: We compared the natural history, biological and clinical features of GN and ganglioneuroblastoma-intermixed (GNB-I) managed by surgery or observation to inform management and surveillance. PROCEDURES: This retrospective study includes patients (n = 67) with histological diagnosis of GN (50/67) and GNB-I (17/67) at the Hospital for Sick Children between 1990 and 2014. Clinical, pathological features, tumor dimensions, and management were recorded. RESULTS: Median age and maximal tumor diameter were 6 years (1.3-17.8) and 6.3 cm (1.4-16.9), respectively. Of the 67 patients, 46 (69%) had upfront surgery and 21 (31%) were observed. Of the 21 observed patients 4 later underwent resection. There were post-operative complications in 15 of the 50 (30%) surgical patients. The presence of imaging-defined risk factors correlated with complications (P = 0.005). Observed patients were older (median 8.4 vs. 5.3 years) and diagnosed more recently. Median growth was 0.3 cm/year and 6 of 21 had progressive disease (PD). At median follow-up of 2.2 years (0.2-14.3), all patients were alive and for those with evaluable imaging there were 27 complete and 10 partial responses, 19 stable and 6 PD. Pathology classification changed at resection for three cases, but no GN was reclassified to NB. CONCLUSIONS: GN and GNB-I have a slow growth rate and resection can be associated with significant morbidity. Watch and wait approaches should be considered for some GN and GNB-I.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".