4.5 Review

Survival rates and prognostic predictors of high grade brain stem gliomas in childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 135, 期 1, 页码 13-20

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-017-2546-1

关键词

Pediatrics; Brain stem glioma; DIPG; Prognostic; Survival and systematic review

资金

  1. National Institute of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diagnosis of a pediatric high grade brain stem glioma is devastating with dismal outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the survival rates and assess potential prognostic factors including selected interventions. Studies included involved pediatric participants with high grade brain stem gliomas diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging or biopsy reporting overall survival rates. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a binomial random effects model. Sixty-five studies (2336 participants) were included. Meta-analysis showed 1 year overall survival (OS) of 41% (95% confidence interval (CI) 38-44%, I-sq 52%, 2083 participants), 2 year OS of 15.3% (95% confidence interval 12-20%, I-sq 73.1%, 1329 participants) and 3 year OS of 7.3% (95% confidence interval 5.2-10%, I-sq 26%, 584 participants). Meta-analyses of median overall survival results was not possible due to the lack of reported measures of variance. Subgroup analysis comparing date of study, classification of tumor, use of temozolomide, non-standard interventions or phase 1/2 versus other studies demonstrated no difference in survival outcomes. There was insufficient data to undertake subgroup meta-analysis of patient age, duration of symptoms, K27M histone mutations and AVCR1 mutations. Survival outcomes of high grade brain stem gliomas have remained very poor, and do not clearly vary according to classification, phase of study or use of different therapeutic interventions. Future studies should harmonize outcome and prognostic variable reporting to enable accurate meta-analysis and better exploration of prognosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据