GCT-02. Imaging response assessment for Central Nervous System Germ Cell Tumours: consensus recommendations from the European Society for Paediatric Oncology Brain Tumour Group (SIOPE-BTG) and North American Children’s Oncology Group (COG)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) germ cell tumours (GCT) comprise a heterogeneous and relatively rare group of neoplasms. Improving the ability to conduct international clinical trials for CNS GCT requires use of homogeneous, common objective disease assessments and standardised response criteria. Currently, different criteria are employed between European and North American protocols for assessing radiological disease response. METHODS: An international working group of the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) Brain Tumour Group (BTG) and North American Children’s Oncology Group (COG) was therefore established to develop consensus recommendations for imaging response assessment for CNS GCT. The working group first reviewed existing literature and current practices and identified major challenges regarding imaging assessment. RESULTS: New clinical imaging standards were defined for the most common sites of intracranial GCT disease (suprasellar/pineal/bifocal), as well as for definition of loco-regional extension. In particular, clear standards were highlighted for definition of partial response (PR) and complete response (CR) to induction chemotherapy at different sites. Furthermore, growing teratoma syndrome (GTS) was clearly defined [apparent radiological increase in non-germinomatous GCT (NGGCT) size during induction chemotherapy despite normalising/normalised AFP/HCG markers – requiring surgery], to avoid such potential cases being classified as progressive disease (PD). CONCLUSION: This consensus will allow more consistent prospective neuroradiological evaluation of response to therapy for patients with CNS GCT and facilitate direct comparison of treatment outcomes across international studies. Ultimately, it may allow international trials to be developed and undertaken across a larger group of collaborating nations, which will be essential to answer many of the remaining questions for this rare but diverse group of tumours.
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 | 0.073 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".