MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200539801 · doi:10.3171/2021.9.jns211299

Resection and radiotherapy for intracranial ependymoma: a multiinstitutional 50-year experience

2022· article· en· W4200539801 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of neurosurgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoOttawa HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation therapyEpendymomaResectionAdjuvant radiotherapyAdjuvantSurgical resection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Maximal safe resection is the standard-of-care treatment for adults with intracranial ependymoma. The value of adjuvant radiotherapy remains unclear as these tumors are rare and current data are limited to a few retrospective cohort studies. In this study, the authors assembled a cohort of patients across multiple international institutions to assess the utility of adjuvant radiotherapy in this patient population. METHODS: Adults with intracranial ependymoma managed surgically at the University Health Network in Toronto, Canada, the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and The Ottawa Hospital in Ottawa, Canada, were included in this study. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Clinicopathological variables were assessed in univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models for prognostic significance of PFS and OS. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients diagnosed between 1968 and 2019 were identified for inclusion. The majority of patients had grade II ependymomas on histopathology (78%) that were infratentorially located (71%), underwent gross-total (GTR) or near-total resection (NTR; 55%), and were treated with adjuvant radiotherapy (67%). A volumetric analysis of the extent of resection in 49 patients with available tumor volume data supported the accuracy of the categorical GTR, NTR, and subtotal resection (STR) groups utilized. Independent statistically significant predictors of poorer PFS in the multivariate analysis included STR or biopsy (vs GTR/NTR; HR 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4-11.0, p < 0.0001) and not receiving adjuvant radiotherapy; cranial (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-1.1) and craniospinal (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04-0.5) adjuvant radiotherapy regimens improved PFS (p = 0.0147). Predictors of poorer OS in the multivariate analysis were grade III histopathology (vs grade II: HR 5.7, 95% CI 1.6-20.2, p = 0.0064) and undergoing a biopsy/STR (vs GTR/NTR: HR 9.8, 95% CI 3.2-30.1, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this 50-year experience in treating adult intracranial ependymomas confirm an important role for maximal safe resection (ideally GTR or NTR) and demonstrate that adjuvant radiotherapy improves PFS. This work will guide future studies as testing for molecular ependymoma alterations become incorporated into routine clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of neurosurgerySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207