Kyu-Won Shim1, Dong-Seok Kim, Joong-Uhn Choi. 1. Department of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Severance Children's Hospital, Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The ependymomas are relatively not a common tumor. However, most clinicians agree that the radical removal of the tumor is the most important prognostic factor. MORBIDITY OF TREATMENT: Tumor removal was not sufficient before the era of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and resulted in a considerable operative morbidity and mortality. As the microneurosurgical techniques and microsurgical anatomy become popular and the MRI provide more detailed anatomical information preoperatively, radical removal of this complex and complicated tumor can be more feasible. In childhood ependymoma, the treatment-related morbidity and mortality can be the special issues, which can modify the policy of management safe tumor removal and minimal adjuvant treatment, which are extremely important. RADIATION THERAPY: Radiation treatment has been the option for disseminated disease and residual tumor. With the advancement of detailed MR anatomical information, safer and more delicate radiation becomes possible with newer radiation modalities, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity modulating radiotherapy, and tomotherapy. PROGNOSTIC FACTORS: Although many clinicians believe that the ependymomas are inheritably chemoresistant, the new targets for the treatment are under investigation or clinically tried. Also, the genetic alterations of ependymoma are developing and might be a promising target. CONCLUSION: The surgical techniques and assistant modalities for tumor removal are still advancing. So, the outcome of ependymoma is still improving. Unfortunately, newer treatment modalities, such as new chemotherapeutic agent and gene modification agent, are still not promising. The history of ependymoma management is still in progress.
INTRODUCTION: The ependymomas are relatively not a common tumor. However, most clinicians agree that the radical removal of the tumor is the most important prognostic factor. MORBIDITY OF TREATMENT: Tumor removal was not sufficient before the era of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and resulted in a considerable operative morbidity and mortality. As the microneurosurgical techniques and microsurgical anatomy become popular and the MRI provide more detailed anatomical information preoperatively, radical removal of this complex and complicated tumor can be more feasible. In childhood ependymoma, the treatment-related morbidity and mortality can be the special issues, which can modify the policy of management safe tumor removal and minimal adjuvant treatment, which are extremely important. RADIATION THERAPY: Radiation treatment has been the option for disseminated disease and residual tumor. With the advancement of detailed MR anatomical information, safer and more delicate radiation becomes possible with newer radiation modalities, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity modulating radiotherapy, and tomotherapy. PROGNOSTIC FACTORS: Although many clinicians believe that the ependymomas are inheritably chemoresistant, the new targets for the treatment are under investigation or clinically tried. Also, the genetic alterations of ependymoma are developing and might be a promising target. CONCLUSION: The surgical techniques and assistant modalities for tumor removal are still advancing. So, the outcome of ependymoma is still improving. Unfortunately, newer treatment modalities, such as new chemotherapeutic agent and gene modification agent, are still not promising. The history of ependymoma management is still in progress.
Authors: Mark Barszczyk; Pawel Buczkowicz; Pedro Castelo-Branco; Stephen C Mack; Vijay Ramaswamy; Joshua Mangerel; Sameer Agnihotri; Marc Remke; Brian Golbourn; Sanja Pajovic; Cynthia Elizabeth; Man Yu; Betty Luu; Andrew Morrison; Jennifer Adamski; Kathleen Nethery-Brokx; Xiao-Nan Li; Timothy Van Meter; Peter B Dirks; James T Rutka; Michael D Taylor; Uri Tabori; Cynthia Hawkins Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Mariska Sie; Wilfred F A den Dunnen; Harm Jan Lourens; Tiny G J Meeuwsen-de Boer; Frank J G Scherpen; Walderik W Zomerman; Kim R Kampen; Eelco W Hoving; Eveline S J M de Bont Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel Diaz-Aguilar; Sergei Terterov; Alexander M Tucker; Shaina Sedighim; Rudi Scharnweber; Stephanie Wang; Catherine Merna; Shayan Rahman Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2018-04-26