An individual patient data meta-analysis on characteristics and outcome of patients with papillary glioneuronal tumor, rosette glioneuronal tumor with neuropil-like islands and rosette forming glioneuronal tumor of the fourth ventricle

PLoS One. 2014 Jul 3;9(7):e101211. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101211. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

Background and purpose: In 2007, the WHO classification of brain tumors was extended by three new entities of glioneuronal tumors: papillary glioneuronal tumor (PGNT), rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the fourth ventricle (RGNT) and glioneuronal tumor with neuropil-like islands (GNTNI). Focusing on clinical characteristics and outcome, the authors performed a comprehensive individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of the cases reported in literature until December 2012.

Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed articles reporting on PGNT, RGNT, and GNTNI using predefined keywords.

Results: 95 publications reported on 182 patients (PGNT, 71; GNTNI, 26; RGNT, 85). Median age at diagnosis was 23 years (range 4-75) for PGNT, 27 years (range 6-79) for RGNT, and 40 years (range 2-65) for GNTNI. Ninety-seven percent of PGNT and 69% of GNTNI were located in the supratentorial region, 23% of GNTNI were in the spinal cord, and 80% of RGNT were localized in the posterior fossa. Complete resection was reported in 52 PGNT (73%), 36 RGNT (42%), and 7 GNTNI (27%) patients. Eight PGNT, 3 RGNT, and 12 GNTNI patients were treated with chemo- and/or radiotherapy as the primary postoperative treatment. Follow-up data were available for 132 cases. After a median follow-up time of 1.5 years (range 0.2-25) across all patients, 1.5-year progression-free survival rates were 52±12% for GNTNI, 86±5% for PGNT, and 100% for RGNT. The 1.5-year overall-survival were 95±5%, 98±2%, and 100%, respectively.

Conclusions: The clinical understanding of the three new entities of glioneuronal tumors, PGNT, RGNT and GNTNI, is currently emerging. The present meta-analysis will hopefully contribute to a delineation of their diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic profiles. However, the available data do not provide a solid basis to define the optimum treatment approach. Hence, a central register should be established.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Brain Neoplasms / diagnosis*
  • Brain Neoplasms / mortality
  • Brain Neoplasms / pathology
  • Child
  • Child, Preschool
  • Databases, Factual
  • Disease-Free Survival
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Glioma / diagnosis*
  • Glioma / mortality
  • Glioma / pathology
  • Humans
  • Kaplan-Meier Estimate
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Neoplasms, Neuroepithelial / diagnosis*
  • Neoplasms, Neuroepithelial / mortality
  • Neoplasms, Neuroepithelial / pathology
  • Prognosis
  • Proportional Hazards Models
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

We acknowledge support from the German Research Foundation (DFG) and Leipzig University within the program of Open Access Publishing. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.