MBCL-24. CAN YOUNG CHILDREN WITH RELAPSED MEDULLOBLASTOMA BE SALVAGED AFTER INITIAL IRRADIATION-SPARING APPROACHES?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION Irradiation-sparing approaches are used in young children with medulloblastoma (MB) given the vulnerability of the developing brain to neurocognitive impairment. Limited data are available following relapse for these patients. We aimed to describe the management and outcomes of young children with MB who relapsed after initial treatment without craniospinal irradiation (CSI). METHODS International retrospective study including patients with MB diagnosed between 1995–2017, ≤ 72 months old, initially treated without CSI, who subsequently relapsed. RESULTS Data are available for 52 patients (32 male). Median age at initial diagnosis was 27 months (range, 6–72) with 24 being metastatic. Initial therapy included conventional chemotherapy alone or high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) in 21 and 31 subjects, respectively. Three received upfront focal irradiation. Molecular subgrouping, available for 24 tumors, included 9 SHH and 15 non-WNT/non-SHH. Median time to relapse was 13 months (range, 3–63). Relapse was local, disseminated or combined in 20, 15, and 16, respectively. Salvage therapy with curative intent was given in 42/52 patients, including CSI in 28 subjects (median dose 36Gy, 18–41.4) or focal irradiation in 5 others. Three received HDC only. At a median follow-up time of 46 months (range, 4–255), 25 (48%) were alive, including 7/9 SHH and 7/15 non-WNT/non-SHH. The 2- and 5-year OS was 67% and 56% (SE, 7%), respectively. Two of 3 patients with SHH who did not receive salvage radiotherapy are survivors. CONCLUSION A substantial proportion of young children who relapse following irradiation-sparing strategies can be salvaged. Neurocognitive and ototoxicity outcomes are being evaluated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".