Growth hormone replacement therapy does not predict relapse across medulloblastoma subgroups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Treatment for medulloblastoma can lead to significant long-term endocrine sequelae, including growth hormone (GH) deficiency. There has been some concern that GH replacement can increase the risk of tumor relapse. Our goal was to assess the risk of recurrence after GH therapy in medulloblastoma (MB) patients treated with modern, molecularly informed protocols. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study at a tertiary pediatric hospital from January 1999 to December 2022. Patients < 18 years old with MB who received craniospinal irradiation (CSI) were included, treated according to contemporary risk-adapted protocols. Epidemiological, molecular, and clinical data were collected. Results A total of 148 patients with MB were treated with CSI, with a median age of 8.3 years (IQR 5.9-10.8). The molecular subgroups included Group 4 (n = 69, 46.6%), Group 3 (n = 27, 18.2%), WNT (n = 21, 14.2%), and SHH (n = 20, 13.5%). During follow-up, 79 patients (53.4%) were diagnosed with GH deficiency, and 73 of them initiated GH therapy. We found no association between sex (P = 1), presence of metastases (P = .14), or molecular subgroup (P = .71) and the use of GH therapy. Thirty-four patients (22.9%) relapsed during follow-up, with 10 of them receiving GH therapy (13.7% of all patients on GH). Progression-free survival (PFS) was higher among those who received GH replacement therapy, even within each subgroup independently. In a multivariate analysis of patients who had not relapsed at least 2 years post-diagnosis, GH replacement was associated with significantly improved overall survival (OS) and a trend toward improved PFS (PFS: HR 0.35, 95% CI, 0.12-1.08, P = .068; OS: HR 0.34, 95% CI, 0.12-0.99, P = .049). Conclusions The use of GH is not associated with an increased risk of recurrence or death in children with medulloblastoma treated with CSI according to current protocols. Our results provide further reassurance that all children with requiring treatment for growth hormone deficiency after medulloblastoma therapy should be offered physiological growth hormone replacement.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".