BACKGROUND: In the context of many implied but not rigorously stated histologic feature combinations, the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of astrocytic tumors specifies only the presence or absence of endothelial proliferation, necrosis, and mitosis to distinguish astrocytoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, and glioblastoma multiforme. METHODS: The authors examined the effects of these and other reliably recognized histologic features on survival in the Childhood Brain Tumor Consortium (CBTC) sample of 340 children with supratentorial astrocytic tumors. RESULTS: Overall, the WHO criteria distinguished only two prognostically distinct classes of astrocytomas. When the specific combinations of the three features were unambiguously designated, three diagnostic categories resulted. These revised diagnostic categories are consistent with WHO guidelines and have significantly different survival distributions. However, neither the original WHO diagnoses nor the revised categories adequately separated these tumors prognostically, because histologic features other than those specified by WHO were significantly associated with improved or worsened survival. CONCLUSIONS: Classifications based on small numbers of specified histologic features may not be feasible because they inadequately separate childhood astrocytic tumors into prognostically homogeneous groups. Preferable classification techniques are those that simultaneously account for all reliably recognized histologic features. Copyright 2000 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: In the context of many implied but not rigorously stated histologic feature combinations, the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of astrocytic tumors specifies only the presence or absence of endothelial proliferation, necrosis, and mitosis to distinguish astrocytoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, and glioblastoma multiforme. METHODS: The authors examined the effects of these and other reliably recognized histologic features on survival in the Childhood Brain Tumor Consortium (CBTC) sample of 340 children with supratentorial astrocytic tumors. RESULTS: Overall, the WHO criteria distinguished only two prognostically distinct classes of astrocytomas. When the specific combinations of the three features were unambiguously designated, three diagnostic categories resulted. These revised diagnostic categories are consistent with WHO guidelines and have significantly different survival distributions. However, neither the original WHO diagnoses nor the revised categories adequately separated these tumors prognostically, because histologic features other than those specified by WHO were significantly associated with improved or worsened survival. CONCLUSIONS: Classifications based on small numbers of specified histologic features may not be feasible because they inadequately separate childhood astrocytic tumors into prognostically homogeneous groups. Preferable classification techniques are those that simultaneously account for all reliably recognized histologic features. Copyright 2000 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Antonio C M Maia; Suzana M F Malheiros; Antonio J da Rocha; Carlos J da Silva; Alberto A Gabbai; Fernando A P Ferraz; João N Stávale Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; Joanna J Phillips; Rupa Parvataneni; Annette Molinaro; Emma Essock-Burns; Gabriela Bourne; Andrew T Parsa; Manish K Aghi; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Soonmee Cha; Susan M Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Federico Sánchez-Herrera; Eduardo Castro-Sierra; Luis Felipe Gordillo-Domínguez; Miguel Angel Vaca-Ruiz; Blanca Santana-Montero; Mario Perezpeña-Diazconti; Vicente González-Carranza; Samuel Torres-García; Fernando Chico-Ponce de León Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2009-01-16 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Meng Law; Robert J Young; James S Babb; Nicole Peccerelli; Sophie Chheang; Michael L Gruber; Douglas C Miller; John G Golfinos; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yan Zhou; Cheng-Hui Liu; Yi Sun; Yang Pu; Susie Boydston-White; Yulong Liu; Robert R Alfano Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: S K Ellika; R Jain; S C Patel; L Scarpace; L R Schultz; J P Rock; T Mikkelsen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2007-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; J Graeme Hodgson; Jamie S Chang; Scott R Vandenberg; Ru-Fang Yeh; Andrew T Parsa; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; William P Dillon; Soonmee Cha Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.105