Distinct relapse pattern across molecular ependymoma types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ependymoma (EPN) is not a uniform disease but represents different disease types with biological and clinical heterogeneity. However, the pattern of when and where different types of EPN relapse is not yet comprehensively described. METHODS: We assembled 269 relapsed intracranial EPN from pediatric (n = 233) and adult (n = 36) patients from European and Northern American cohorts and correlated DNA methylation patterns and copy-number alterations with clinical information. RESULTS: The cohort comprised the following molecular EPN types: PF-EPN-A (n = 177), ST-EPN-ZFTA (n = 45), PF-EPN-B (n = 31), PF-EPN-SE (n = 12), and ST-EPN-YAP (n = 4). First relapses of PF-EPN-B (PF: posterior-fossa) and PF-EPN-SE (SE: subependymoma) occurred later than of PF-EPN-A, ST-EPN-YAP (ST: supratentorial), or ST-EPN-ZFTA (median time to relapse: 4.3 and 6.0 years vs. 1.9/1.0/2.4 years; P < .01). Metastatic or combined recurrences in PF-EPN-B and -A more often involved the spinal cord than in ST-EPN-ZFTA (72.7% and 40.0 vs. 12.5%; P < .01). No distant relapses were observed in ST-EPN-YAP (n = 4) or PF-EPN-SE (n = 12). Post-relapse survival (PRS) was poor for PF-EPN-A and ST-EPN-ZFTA (5-year PRS: 44.5% ± 4.4%/47.8% ± 9.1%), whereas PF-EPN-B and PF-EPN-SE displayed a 5-year PRS of 89.5% ± 7.1%/90.0% ± 9.5% (P = .03). However, 10-year PRS for PF-EPN-B dropped to 45.8% ± 17.3%. Neither between the radiation field and relapse pattern nor between the radiation field and spinal involvement at relapse an impact was identified. Notably, all patients with relapsed ST-EPN-YAP did not receive upfront radiotherapy but were successfully salvaged using irradiation at relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Relapse patterns of specific EPN types are different. Future clinical trials, treatment adaptions, duration of surveillance, and diagnostics should be planned to incorporate entity-specific relapse information.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".