Management of Optic Chiasmatic/ Hypothalamic Astrocytomas in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The management of optic chiasmatic gliomas is controversial, partly related to failure to separate out those tumors involving the optic chiasm only (chiasmatic tumors) from those also involving the hypothalamus (chiasmatic/hypothalamic tumors). The purpose of this study was: (i) to analyze the outcomes of chiasmatic and chiasmatic/hypothalamic tumors separately; and (ii) to determine the appropriateness of recommending radical surgical resection for the chiasmatic/hypothalamic tumors. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all newly diagnosed tumors involving the optic chiasm from 1982-1996 at British Columbia's Children's Hospital was performed. RESULTS: There were 32 patients less than 16 years of age, 14 with chiasmatic and 18 with chiasmatic/hypothalamic astrocytomas, with an average duration of follow-up of 5.8 years and 6.3 years, respectively. Ten of the patients with chiasmatic tumors and none with chiasmatic/hypothalamic tumors had neurofibromatosis I. Thirteen of the 14 chiasmatic tumors were managed with observation only, and none had progression requiring active intervention. For the chiasmatic/hypothalamic tumors, eight patients had subtotal resections (>95% resection), six had partial resections (50-95%), three had limited resections (<50%), and one had no surgery. There were fewer complications associated with the limited resections, especially with respect to hypothalamic dysfunction. There was no correlation between the extent of resection (subtotal, partial, or limited) and the time to tumor progression (average 18 months). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, chiasmatic and chiasmatic/hypothalamic tumors are different entities, which should be separated out for the purposes of any study. For the chiasmatic/hypothalamic tumors, there was more morbidity and no prolongation of time to progression when radical resections were compared to more limited resections. Therefore, if surgery is performed, it may be appropriate to do a surgical procedure that strives only to provide a tissue diagnosis and to decompress the optic apparatus and/or ventricular system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".