不同分子类型的癫痫瘤有不同的复发模式。

IF 16.4 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neuro-oncology Pub Date : 2024-08-22 DOI:10.1093/neuonc/noae166
Denise Obrecht-Sturm, Melanie Schoof, Alicia Eckhardt, Martin Mynarek, Mark R Gilbert, Kenneth Aldape, Terri S Armstrong, Vijay Ramaswamy, Michael Bockmayr, Katja von Hoff, Gudrun Fleischhack, Jonas E Adolph, Stephan Tippelt, Stefan M Pfister, Kristian Pajtler, Dominik Sturm, Richard Drexler, Franz L Ricklefs, Natalia Stepien, Johannes Gojo, Torsten Pietsch, Monika Warmuth-Metz, Rolf Kortmann, Beate Timmermann, Christine Haberler, Stefan Rutkowski, Ulrich Schüller
{"title":"不同分子类型的癫痫瘤有不同的复发模式。","authors":"Denise Obrecht-Sturm, Melanie Schoof, Alicia Eckhardt, Martin Mynarek, Mark R Gilbert, Kenneth Aldape, Terri S Armstrong, Vijay Ramaswamy, Michael Bockmayr, Katja von Hoff, Gudrun Fleischhack, Jonas E Adolph, Stephan Tippelt, Stefan M Pfister, Kristian Pajtler, Dominik Sturm, Richard Drexler, Franz L Ricklefs, Natalia Stepien, Johannes Gojo, Torsten Pietsch, Monika Warmuth-Metz, Rolf Kortmann, Beate Timmermann, Christine Haberler, Stefan Rutkowski, Ulrich Schüller","doi":"10.1093/neuonc/noae166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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<0.01). 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<0.01). 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=0.03). However, 10-year PRS for PF-EPN-B dropped to 45.8±17.3%. Neither between radiation field and relapse pattern nor between 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Relapse patterns of specific EPN types are different. Future clinical trials, treatment adaptions, duration of surveillance and diagnostics should be planned incorporating entity-specific relapse information.</p>","PeriodicalId":19377,"journal":{"name":"Neuro-oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distinct relapse pattern across molecular ependymoma types.\",\"authors\":\"Denise Obrecht-Sturm, Melanie Schoof, Alicia Eckhardt, Martin Mynarek, Mark R Gilbert, Kenneth Aldape, Terri S Armstrong, Vijay Ramaswamy, Michael Bockmayr, Katja von Hoff, Gudrun Fleischhack, Jonas E Adolph, Stephan Tippelt, Stefan M Pfister, Kristian Pajtler, Dominik Sturm, Richard Drexler, Franz L Ricklefs, Natalia Stepien, Johannes Gojo, Torsten Pietsch, Monika Warmuth-Metz, Rolf Kortmann, Beate Timmermann, Christine Haberler, Stefan Rutkowski, Ulrich Schüller\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/neuonc/noae166\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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<0.01). 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<0.01). 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=0.03). However, 10-year PRS for PF-EPN-B dropped to 45.8±17.3%. Neither between radiation field and relapse pattern nor between 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Relapse patterns of specific EPN types are different. Future clinical trials, treatment adaptions, duration of surveillance and diagnostics should be planned incorporating entity-specific relapse information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuro-oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuro-oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noae166\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuro-oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noae166","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脑上皮瘤(EPN)并不是一种统一的疾病,而是具有生物学和临床异质性的不同疾病类型。然而,不同类型的EPN何时何地复发的模式尚未得到全面描述:我们收集了来自欧洲和北美队列的 269 例复发的颅内 EPN 儿童患者(n=233)和成人患者(n=36),并将 DNA 甲基化模式和拷贝数改变与临床信息相关联:结果:该队列包括以下分子 EPN 类型:PF-EPN-A(177人)、ST-EPN-ZFTA(45人)、PF-EPN-B(31人)、PF-EPN-SE(12人)和ST-EPN-YAP(4人)。PF-EPN-B(PF:后窝)和PF-EPN-SE(SE:肢端瘤下)的首次复发时间晚于PF-EPN-A、ST-EPN-YAP(ST:幕上)或ST-EPN-ZFTA(中位复发时间分别为4.3年和6.0年):中位复发时间:4.3 年和 6.0 年 vs. 1.9/1.0/2.4 年;p 结论:特定 EPN 类型的复发模式各不相同。在规划未来的临床试验、治疗调整、监测持续时间和诊断时,应纳入特定实体的复发信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Distinct relapse pattern across molecular ependymoma types.

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<0.01). 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<0.01). 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=0.03). However, 10-year PRS for PF-EPN-B dropped to 45.8±17.3%. Neither between radiation field and relapse pattern nor between 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 incorporating entity-specific relapse information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuro-oncology
Neuro-oncology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
27.20
自引率
6.30%
发文量
1434
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuro-Oncology, the official journal of the Society for Neuro-Oncology, has been published monthly since January 2010. Affiliated with the Japan Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology, it is a global leader in the field. The journal is committed to swiftly disseminating high-quality information across all areas of neuro-oncology. It features peer-reviewed articles, reviews, symposia on various topics, abstracts from annual meetings, and updates from neuro-oncology societies worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Brain tumoroids: treatment prediction and drug development for brain tumors with fast, reproducible and easy-to-use personalized models Cognitive phenotypes: Unraveling the heterogeneity in cognitive dysfunction among patients with primary brain tumors receiving radiotherapy. EGFR and EGFRvIII coopt host defense pathways, promoting progression in glioblastoma. Marizomib for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A randomized phase 3 trial. EDA2R reflects the acute brain response to cranial irradiation in liquid biopsies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1