INTRODUCTION: The health status of adult survivors of pediatric brain tumors is poorly documented. Documenting their health risks regarding tumor recurrence or new tumor, endocrine, and cognitive sequels, as well as their social outcome, would help to define their medical needs when they become adults. Identifying risk factors of late morbidity could help to improve treatment protocols in order to reduce the burden of sequels. PURPOSE: We decided to review retrospectively our pediatric oncology database, in order to study the oncological and clinical outcome of adult patients treated for brain tumor during childhood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected patients treated under the age of 18, and followed clinically after the age of 20. RESULTS: We studied 207 patients, aged 20.2-45 years at last control. Forty eight (23%) presented with late progression of the initial tumor, and 29 (14%) developed new tumors requiring surgery; 7 died of tumor progression. The main sequels were endocrine in 88 patients (44%), and cognitive in 86 (43%); only 36 patients (18%) had no sequel at all. The Karnofsky score was ≥ 80 (independent) in 73%; however, only 48% of evaluable patients were normally employed. Among the variables related to initial treatment, reoperation was the most significant factor influencing negatively outcome; however, young age at irradiation was the only significant factor predicting poor employment status. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients treated for brain tumor in childhood are at significant risk of tumor progression, and many patients require prolonged oncological follow-up. Complex disabilities require the organization of efficient child-to-adult transition for these vulnerable patients.
INTRODUCTION: The health status of adult survivors of pediatric brain tumors is poorly documented. Documenting their health risks regarding tumor recurrence or new tumor, endocrine, and cognitive sequels, as well as their social outcome, would help to define their medical needs when they become adults. Identifying risk factors of late morbidity could help to improve treatment protocols in order to reduce the burden of sequels. PURPOSE: We decided to review retrospectively our pediatric oncology database, in order to study the oncological and clinical outcome of adult patients treated for brain tumor during childhood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected patients treated under the age of 18, and followed clinically after the age of 20. RESULTS: We studied 207 patients, aged 20.2-45 years at last control. Forty eight (23%) presented with late progression of the initial tumor, and 29 (14%) developed new tumors requiring surgery; 7 died of tumor progression. The main sequels were endocrine in 88 patients (44%), and cognitive in 86 (43%); only 36 patients (18%) had no sequel at all. The Karnofsky score was ≥ 80 (independent) in 73%; however, only 48% of evaluable patients were normally employed. Among the variables related to initial treatment, reoperation was the most significant factor influencing negatively outcome; however, young age at irradiation was the only significant factor predicting poor employment status. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients treated for brain tumor in childhood are at significant risk of tumor progression, and many patients require prolonged oncological follow-up. Complex disabilities require the organization of efficient child-to-adult transition for these vulnerable patients.
Authors: N K Foreman; P M Faestel; J Pearson; J Disabato; M Poole; G Wilkening; E B Arenson; B Greffe; R Thorne Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: S L Palmer; O Goloubeva; W E Reddick; J O Glass; A Gajjar; L Kun; T E Merchant; R K Mulhern Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sean M Lew; Joseph N Morgan; Estee Psaty; Daniel R Lefton; Jeffrey C Allen; Rick Abbott Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Bonnie J Nagel; Shawna L Palmer; Wilburn E Reddick; John O Glass; Kathleen J Helton; Shengjie Wu; Xiaoping Xiong; Larry E Kun; Amar Gajjar; Raymond K Mulhern Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C A Anderson; G N Wilkening; C M Filley; M S Reardon; B K Kleinschmidt-DeMasters Journal: Pediatr Neurosurg Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 1.162
Authors: J Grill; S Puget; E De Carli; L Amoroso; M Taylor; R Brauner; P Leblond; V Kieffer; A Laurent-Vannier; C Dufour; M Bourgeois; P Wicart; F Dhermain; D Oppenheim; C Sainte-Rose; C Kalifa Journal: Neurochirurgie Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 1.553
Authors: Elyse R Park; Frederick P Li; Yan Liu; Karen M Emmons; Arthur Ablin; Leslie L Robison; Ann C Mertens Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Roger J Packer; James G Gurney; Judy A Punyko; Sarah S Donaldson; Peter D Inskip; Marilyn Stovall; Yutaka Yasui; Ann C Mertens; Charles A Sklar; H Stacy Nicholson; Lonnie K Zeltzer; Joseph P Neglia; Leslie L Robison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Katherine B Curtin; Anne E Watson; Jichuan Wang; Obianuju C Okonkwo; Maureen E Lyon Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Susan R Rose; Vincent E Horne; Jonathan Howell; Sarah A Lawson; Meilan M Rutter; Gylynthia E Trotman; Sarah D Corathers Journal: Nat Rev Endocrinol Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 43.330
Authors: Tessa B Kok; Wendy J Post; Oliver Tucha; Eveline S J M de Bont; Willem A Kamps; Annette Kingma Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 7.444
Authors: Dannis G van Vuurden; Esther Hulleman; Olga L M Meijer; Laurine E Wedekind; Marcel Kool; Hendrik Witt; Peter W Vandertop; Thomas Würdinger; David P Noske; Gertjan J L Kaspers; Jacqueline Cloos Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2011-12
Authors: Jason Fangusaro; Maria Giuseppina Cefalo; Maria Luisa Garré; Lynley V Marshall; Maura Massimino; Bouchra Benettaib; Noha Biserna; Jennifer Poon; Jackie Quan; Erin Conlin; John Lewandowski; Mathew Simcock; Neelum Jeste; Darren R Hargrave; François Doz; Katherine E Warren Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 6.244