4.4 Article

Natural History and Outcome of Optic Pathway Gliomas in Children

Journal

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
Volume 53, Issue 7, Pages 1231-1237

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.22198

Keywords

diagnosis; low-grade gliomas; neurofibromatosis type 1; optic pathway; progression-free survival; treatment; visual outcome

Funding

  1. Brain Tumour Research Assistance and Information Network (B.R.A.I.N.Child)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The optimal management of optic pathway gliomas (OPGs) is complicated by their variable natural history, the association with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and difficulties in defining progression and response to treatment. Methods. This study is a retrospective review of all children presenting to a single institution with all OPG between 1990 and 2004. Results. Of the 133 children included, 78 (59% had NF1; 87 (71 NF1) were observed initially, of whom 23 (11 NF1) Subsequently required treatment. Forty-six patients received immediate treatment. Initial treatment, without or with all observation period, comprised chemotherapy alone (32, 11 NF1); debulking + chemotherapy (15, 4 NF1); gross total resection (6); radiotherapy (2); debulking + radiotherapy (3); and debulking only 0 2, 3 NF1). Overall, 16 patients were irradiated during the study period. Four children died (overall Survival at 5 and 10 years was 97.6% and 94.6% for those who required treatment). Progression-free survival (PFS) for the 69 patients who needed treatment was 48%. There was no difference in PFS between chemotherapy versus chemotherapy + debulking or debulking alone. PFS for the NF1 patients who required treatment was similar to that of non-NF1 patients. Mean follow-up time was 9.0 (range 0.6-18.0, median 8.6) years. Conclusions. The Study confirms the complexity of OPGs and that NF1 is a major determinant of the resultant behavior of the tumor. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2009;53:1231-1237. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available