EPEN-04. SIOP EPENDYMOMA I: FINAL RESULTS, LONG TERM FOLLOW-UP AND MOLECULAR ANALYSIS OF THE TRIAL COHORT: A BIOMECA CONSORTIUM STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Surgery and radiotherapy are established childhood ependymoma treatments. The efficacy of chemotherapy has been debated. We report final results of the SIOP Ependymoma I trial, with 12-year follow-up, in the context of a post-hoc analysis of more recently described biomarkers. Aims and Methods The trial assessed event free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients aged three to 21 years with non-metastatic intracranial ependymoma, treated with a staged management strategy targeting maximum local control. The study also assessed: the response rate (RR) of subtotally resected (STR) disease to vincristine, etoposide and cyclophosphamide (VEC); and surgical operability. Children with gross total resection (GTR) received radiotherapy of 54 Gy in 30 daily fractions over six weeks, whilst those with STR received VEC before radiotherapy. We retrospectively assessed methylation and 1q status alongside hTERT, RELA, Tenascin C, H3K27me3 and pAKT expression. Results Between 1999 and 2007, 89 participants were enrolled, 15 were excluded with metastatic (n=4) or non-ependymoma tumours (n=11) leaving a final cohort of 74. Five- and ten-year EFS was 49.5% and 46.7%, OS was 69.3% and 60.5%. 1q gain was associated with poorer EFS (p=0.002, HR=3.00, 95%CI 1.49–6.10). hTERT expression was associated with worse five-year EFS (20.0% Vs 83.3%, p=0.014, HR=5.8). GTR was achieved in 33/74 (44.6%) and associated with improved EFS (p=0.006, HR=2.81, 95% confidence interval 1.35–5.84). There was an improvement in GTR rates in the latter half of the trial (1999-2002 32.4% versus 2003-2007 56.8%). Despite the protocol, 12 participants with STR did not receive chemotherapy. However, chemotherapy RR was 65.5% (19/29, 95%CI 45.7–82.1). Conclusions VEC exceeded the pre-specified RR of 45% in children over three years with STR intracranial ependymoma. However, cases of inaccurate stratification at treating centres highlights the need for rapid central review. We also confirmed associations between 1q gain, hTERT expression and outcome.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".