No abstract

Background The WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System has undergone major restructuring. Molecularly defined diagnostic criteria were introduced in 2016 (revised 4th edition) and expanded in 2021 (5th edition) to incorporate further essential diagnostic molecular parameters. We investigated potential differences between specialists in perception of these molecularly defined subtypes for pediatric high-grade gliomas (pedHGG). Methods We designed a 22-question survey studying the impact of the revised 4th edition of the WHO classification on pedHGG. Data were collected and statistically analyzed to examine the spectrum of viewpoints and possible differences between neuro-oncologists and neuropathologists. Results 465 participants from 53 countries were included; 187 pediatric neuro-oncologists (40%), 160 neuropathologists (34%), and 118 additional experts (26%). Neuro-oncologists reported issues with the introduction of molecularly defined tumor types, as well as the abolishment or renaming of established tumor entities, while neuropathologists did not to the same extent. Both groups indicated less relevant or insufficient diagnostic definitions were available in 2016. Reported issues were classified and assessed in the 2021 WHO classification and a substantial improvement was perceived. However, issues of high clinical relevance remain to be addressed, including the definition of clinical phenotypes for diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma and gliomatosis cerebri. Conclusions Within the WHO classification of pediatric brain tumors, such as pedHGG, rapid changes in molecular characterization have been introduced. This study highlights the ongoing need for cross talk between pathologist and oncologist to advance the classification of pedHGG subtypes and ensure biological relevance and clinical impact.

PurposeThe aim of this study is to investigate the spectrum of neurological triad improvement in patients with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) treated by re-irradiation (re-RT) at first progression.MethodsWe carried out a re-analysis of the SIOP-E retrospective DIPG cohort by investigating the clinical benefits after re-RT with a focus on the neurological triad (cranial nerve deficits, ataxia, and long tract signs). Patients were categorized as “responding” or “non-responding” to re-RT. To assess the interdependence between patients’ characteristics and clinical benefits, we used a chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. Survival according to clinical response to re-RT was calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method.ResultsAs earlier reported, 77% (n = 24/31) of patients had any clinical benefit after re-RT. Among 25/31 well-documented patients, 44% (n = 11/25) had improvement in cranial nerve palsies, 40% (n = 10/25) had improvement in long-tract signs, and 44% (11/25) had improvement in cerebellar signs. Clinical benefits were observed in at least 1, 2, or 3 out of 3 symptoms of the DIPG triad, in 64%, 40%, and 24%, respectively. Patients irradiated with a dose ≥20 Gy versus <20 Gy may improve slightly better with regard to ataxia (67% versus 23%; p-value = 0.028). The survival from the start of re-RT to death was not different between responding and non-responding DIPG patients (p-value = 0.871).ConclusionA median re-irradiation dose of 20 Gy provides a neurological benefit in two-thirds of patients with an improvement of at least one symptom of the triad. DIPG patients receiving ≥20 Gy appear to improve slightly better with regard to ataxia; however, we need more data to determine whether dose escalation up to 30 Gy provides additional benefits.