2011
DOI: 10.1227/neu.0b013e3182004c1e
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surgery for Spinal Cord Ependymomas: Outcome and Prognostic Factors

Abstract: These results support early surgery aiming at complete resection as the primary treatment for presumed spinal ependymomas. The prognosis after surgery for some myxopapillary ependymomas seems worse than generally believed.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
53
4
6

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 132 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
4
53
4
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Gross total resection has been shown to reduce the risk for recurrence and increase progression-free survival (PFS) [5, 7, 30]. In cases with involvement of the conus, the likelihood of complete resection is reduced or implies an increased risk of postoperative morbidity [2].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gross total resection has been shown to reduce the risk for recurrence and increase progression-free survival (PFS) [5, 7, 30]. In cases with involvement of the conus, the likelihood of complete resection is reduced or implies an increased risk of postoperative morbidity [2].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The tumor bed is the main site of failure [3], and metastasis is uncommon [35]. Long-term development of secondary neoplasms has been observed in this patient population [8, 36, 37]. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiple previous reports have investigated outcomes based on extent of surgical resection. It is a near universal finding that GTR improves outcomes, often measured as progression-free survival (PFS); while not statistically significant in this cohort there was a trend towards improvement in OS in patients receiving GTR in this analysis [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. The few mean tumor size among those receiving RT (4.6 cm) was significantly larger than among those not receiving RT (3.2 cm, p = 0.0002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%