MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125531284 · doi:10.1159/000512720

Expanding the Horizons of mTOR Inhibitors for Treating Subependymal Giant Cell Astrocytomas with Obstructive Hydrocephalus

2021· article· en· W3125531284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramesh Doddamani, Rajesh Kumar Meena, Raghu Samala, Mohit Agrawal, Manjari Tripathi, P. Sarat Chandra

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Neurosurgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTuberous Sclerosis Complex Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubependymal zoneSubependymal giant cell astrocytomaHydrocephalusDiscovery and development of mTOR inhibitorsObstructive hydrocephalusPI3K/AKT/mTOR pathwayPathologyCancer researchRadiologyAstrocytomaGliomaSignal transductionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor,Recently, Weidman et al. [1], from the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, published an interesting article on the role of mTOR inhibitors (mTORi), in the management of obstructive hydrocephalus (OH) associated with subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA) in patients of tuberous sclerosis. The authors should be congratulated for this intrepid step taken in the treatment of OH due to SEGA, with mTORi exclusively. This situation might be otherwise considered for an emergency cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion in the neurosurgical community [1].The classical indications for surgery in SEGA have been the following: OH, increasing lesion size, hemorrhagic and cystic degeneration. OH can be dealt with definitive surgery, removing the SEGA with or without CSF diversion. The complications and the requirement of the CSF diversions following removal of the SEGA may be high (approximately 50%) as reported in the previous literature (prior to 2009, as per the study quoted by the authors). This led the authors to consider exclusive medical management with mTORi in patients harboring SEGA with OH, thereby avoiding the surgery.We like to reiterate the fact that surgical results have improved in the recent times, owing to the technological advances, especially with the endoscopic resections. Recently, the use of minimally invasive stereotactic-guided ablations, using either lasers or radiofrequency thermocoagulations, have revolutionized the treatment of the lesions arising from critical structures deep inside the brain with minimal morbidity and excellent outcomes [2-4]. On the contrary, Desai et al. [2], in another recently published study, successfully managed 3 patients of SEGA using laser ablation with no morbidity and excellent outcomes. Here, the authors performed surgery (stereotactic laser ablation with endoscopic septum pellucidotomy) for patients of tuberous sclerosis, harboring SEGA in the vicinity of foramen of Monroe, in the absence of hydrocephalus. They advocated prophylactic surgery to prevent development of hydrocephalus in the future. None of the patients in their series required a CSF diversion during the follow-up. This is contrary to the approach propounded by Weidman and colleagues [1]. However, the sample size was extremely small and the other important aspect was that none of these patients had hydrocephalus preoperatively. The surgery was performed preemptively to avoid the future development of OH [2].Weidmann et al. [1] have used ventricular dimensions for defining the hydrocephalus and accordingly classified moderate/severe ventriculomegaly as hydrocephalus. As per the criteria used which is not even validated, 8 patients had hydrocephalus; 5 of them had headache, nausea, and vomiting; and only 3 patients showed papilledema. Presence of papilledema is a definite sign of raised intracranial pressure, thereby reducing the effective sample size. There is no mention regarding the periventricular lucency (indicating transependymal flow), shape of the frontal horns, patency of the subarachnoid space, dilatation of the optic nerve sheath, and fullness of the brain on MRI brain. The diagnosis of hydrocephalus is therefore dependent on multiple factors and not just the ventricular dimensions as categorized by the authors. All these factors have a significant bearing in considering surgical treatment of the hydrocephalus. There is also no mention regarding the grading and the status of the papilledema in the follow-up [1]. Therefore, nearly 50% of the patients labelled as hydrocephalus might not be based on fair definition of the hydrocephalus. The authors do not make any mention regarding the patients undergoing surgery for SEGA with OH during the study period, thereby leading to a selection bias.The other critical aspect which needs to be addressed is the duration of the onset of the therapeutic benefit of mTORi from its initiation. The authors mention the symptomatic improvement was immediate in one of the patients; therefore, it was decided to continue the medical therapy despite severe hydrocephalus. This finding needs to be validated in a large patient pool and cannot be generalized, in view of the risk of progressive papilledema leading to visual deterioration. The other aspect which needs to be addressed is the time of onset of action, in terms of reduction of tumor size. The documentation of visual acuity/fields and fundus findings after the initiation of the therapy with mTORi and during the follow-up period would have been more appropriate.The other limitation of this study is the prolonged therapy with mTORi. It is currently a matter of debate on the duration of such therapy and also the associated risk of tumor regrowth following stopping of these medications. The prolonged therapy may not be economically feasible in resource limited countries. Hence, a one-time surgery using minimally invasive techniques may be more economical considering the cost of prolonged therapy with mTORi [5].Although this study shows promising results, it is marred by the small sample size and lack of an appropriate design. We are of the opinion that the use of mTORi in patients without OH may be more appropriate with our current understanding. The recommendation on the use of mTORi in patients of SEGA with OH should be considered with extreme caution. Well-designed studies involving patients with SEGA and OH undergoing medical management with mTORi in future should be awaited prior recommending stand-alone medical therapy for this subgroup of patients.The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.The authors did not receive any funding.Concept and drafting: Ramesh S. Doddamani, Rajesh Kumar Meena, Raghu Samala, and Mohit Agrawal. Critical review and editing the draft: Ramesh S. Doddamani, Sarat P. Chandra, and Manjari Tripathi.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric NeurosurgerySame topicTuberous Sclerosis Complex ResearchFrench-language works237,207