MDB-62. SUBGROUP AND SUBTYPE-SPECIFIC OUTCOMES IN METASTATIC INFANT MEDULLOBLASTOMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Metastatic infant medulloblastoma (MB) is a major challenge given the devastating long-term effects of craniospinal irradiation to the developing brain. However large cohorts of metastatic infant medulloblastoma have not been analysed to date. METHODS A multicentre molecularly informed international cohort of children <6 years old with metastatic medulloblastoma was assembled and analysed. RESULTS Eighty-four patients with a median age of 2.95 (0.66-6.58) years were identified. 48.8% were Group3-MB, 23.8% Group4-MB and 27.4% SHH-MB. 78% of Group3-MB were subtype II (40.4%) and IV (38.1%), 50% of Group 4 were subtype VII, and within SHH, SHHß and SHHγ were 52.2% and 43.5% respectively. 28.5% of all Group3-MB harboured MYC amplification. A multivariable analysis incorporating subgroup, MYC amplification and upfront craniospinal irradiation revealed that survival was superior for SHH patients compared to Group 3 irrespective of MYC status (Group3-veMYCamp: HR 3.05 95%-CI 1.05-8.87 p=0.04, Group3+veMYCamp HR 7.87 95%-CI 2.49-24.87 p=0.00044). Group 4 had a trend to a poor outcome (HR 2.63 95%-CI 0.82-8.39 p=0.1). SHH subjects had a superior outcome with 5-year PFS of 0.657 (95%-CI 0.47-0.92), without a significant difference between SHHß and SHHγ. High-dose chemotherapy regimens portended to a superior outcome for both subtypes of SHH-MB. 5-year PFS for non-radiated SHH-MB was 61% (95%-CI 40.8-91.4), compared to non-radiated Group3-MB (18.5%; 95%-CI 5.4-62.8) and Group4-MB (20%; 95%-CI 3.4-100). SHH-MB patients had more local than metastatic relapses compared to non-SHH-MB (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS In the largest study dedicated to metastatic infant medulloblastoma assembled to date, outcomes for infants with Group 3- and 4-MB with metastatic disease treated with radiation sparing approaches is dismal despite intensified regimens. MYC amplification portends to a near uniformly fatal prognosis with current treatment irrespective of upfront radiotherapy. Novel radiation sparing approaches are urgently needed for this group. Infants with both metastatic SHHß and SHHγ benefit from intensified therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".