Pediatric pineoblastoma: A pooled outcome study of North American and Australian therapeutic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Pineoblastoma is a rare brain tumor usually diagnosed in children. Given its rarity, no pineoblastoma-specific trials have been conducted. Studies have included pineoblastoma accruing for other embryonal tumors over the past 30 years. These included only occasional children with pineoblastoma, making clinical features difficult to interpret and determinants of outcome difficult to ascertain. Patients and Methods Centrally or independently reviewed series with treatment and survival data from North American and Australian cases were pooled. To investigate associations between variables, Fisher’s exact tests, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, and Spearman correlations were used. Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models were used in survival analyses. Results We describe a pooled cohort of 178 pineoblastoma cases from Children’s Oncology Group (n = 82) and institutional series (n = 96) over 30 years. Children <3 years of age have significantly worse survival compared to older children, with 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates of 13.5 ± 5.1% and 16.2 ± 5.3%, respectively, compared with 60.8 ± 5.6% and 67.3 ± 5.0% for ≥3 years old (both P < .0001). Multivariable analysis showed male sex was associated with worse PFS in children <3 years of age (hazard ratio [HR] 3.93, 95% CI 1.80-8.55; P = .0006), suggestive of sex-specific risks needing future validation. For children ≥3 years of age, disseminated disease at diagnosis was significantly associated with an inferior 5-year PFS of 39.2 ± 9.7% (HR 2.88, 95% CI 1.52-5.45; P = .0012) and 5-year OS of 49.8 ± 9.1% (HR 2.87, 95% CI 1.49-5.53; P = .0016). Conclusion Given the rarity of this tumor, prospective, collaborative international studies will be vital to improving the long-term survival of these patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".