Tumor-Treating Fields and Related Treatments in the Management of Pediatric Brain Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric primary brain tumors pose significant therapeutic challenges due to their aggressive nature and the critical environment of the developing brain. Traditional modalities like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy often achieve limited success in high-grade gliomas and embryonal tumors. Tumor-treating fields (TTfields), a non-invasive therapy delivering alternating electric fields, has emerged as a promising approach to disrupt tumor cell division through mechanisms such as mitotic disruption, DNA damage, and tumor microenvironment modulation. TTfields are thought to selectively target dividing tumor cells while sparing healthy, non-dividing cells. While TTfields therapy is FDA-approved for the management of glioblastoma and other cancers, its application in pediatric brain tumors remains under investigation. Preclinical studies reveal its potential in medulloblastoma and ependymoma models, while observational data suggest its safety and feasibility in children. Current research focuses on optimizing TTfields' efficacy through advanced technologies, including high-intensity arrays, skull remodeling, and integration with immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors. Innovative device-based therapies like magnetic field-based technologies further expand the treatment possibilities. As clinical trials progress, TTfields and related modalities offer hope for addressing unmet needs in pediatric neuro-oncology, especially for tumors in challenging locations. Future directions include biomarker identification, tailored protocols, and novel therapeutic combinations to enhance outcomes in pediatric brain tumor management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".