Outcomes of a radiation sparing approach in medulloblastoma by subgroup in young children: an institutional review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe disease outcomes including overall survival and relapse patterns by subgroup in young pediatric patients treated for medulloblastoma with a radiation-sparing approach. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes includes treatment, relapse, and salvage therapy and late effects in children treated for medulloblastoma with a radiation-sparing approach at British Columbia Children's Hospital (BCCH) between 2000 and 2020. RESULTS: There were 30 patients (median age 2.8 years, 60% male) treated for medulloblastoma with a radiation-sparing approach at BCCH. Subgroups included Sonic Hedgehog (SHH) (n = 14), group 3 (n = 7), group 4 (n = 6), and indeterminate status (n = 3). Three- and 5-year event-free survival (EFS) were 49.0% (30.2-65.4%) and 42.0% (24.2-58.9%) and overall survival (OS) 66.0% (95% CI 46.0-80.1%) and 62.5% (95% CI 42.5 and 77.2%), respectively, with a median follow-up of 9.5 years. Relapse occurred in 12/25 patients following a complete response, of whom six (group 4: n = 4; group 3: n = 1; unknown: n = 1) were successfully salvaged with craniospinal axis (CSA) RT and remain alive at a median follow-up of 7 years. Disease/treatment-related morbidity included endocrinopathies (n = 8), hearing loss n = 16), and neurocognitive abnormalities (n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: This radiation sparing treatment approach for young patients with medulloblastoma resulted in a durable cure in most patients with SHH subgroup medulloblastoma. In those patients with groups 3 and 4 medulloblastoma, relapse rates were high; however, most group 4 patients were salvaged with RT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".