RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Re-irradiation (reRT) increases survival in locally recurrent diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG). There is no standard dose and fractionation for reRT, but conventional fractionation (CF) is typically used. We report our institutional experience of reRT for DIPG, which includes hypofractionation (HF). METHODS: We reviewed pediatric patients treated with brainstem reRT for DIPG at our institution from 2012 to 2022. Patients were grouped by HF or CF. Outcomes included steroid use, and overall survival (OS) was measured from both diagnosis and start of reRT. RESULTS: Of 22 patients who received reRT for DIPG, two did not complete their course due to clinical decline. Of the 20 who completed reRT, the dose was 20-30 Gy in 2-Gy fractions (n = 6) and 30-36 Gy in 3-Gy fractions (n = 14). Median age was 5 years (range: 3-14), median interval since initial RT was 8 months (range: 3-20), and 12 received concurrent bevacizumab. Median OS from diagnosis was 18 months [95% confidence interval: 17-24]. Median OS from start of reRT for HF versus CF was 8.2 and 7.5 months, respectively (p = .20). Thirteen (93%) in the HF group and three (75%) in the CF group tapered pre-treatment steroid dose down or off within 2 months after reRT due to clinical improvement. There was no significant difference in steroid taper between HF and CF (p = .4). No patients developed radionecrosis. CONCLUSION: reRT with HF achieved survival duration comparable to published outcomes and effectively palliated symptoms. Future investigation of this regimen in the context of new systemic therapies and upfront HF is warranted.
Assuntos
Neoplasias do Tronco Encefálico , Glioma Pontino Intrínseco Difuso , Reirradiação , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Humanos , Neoplasias do Tronco Encefálico/radioterapia , Glioma Pontino Intrínseco Difuso/radioterapia , Hipofracionamento da Dose de Radiação , EsteroidesRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Gender disparities have been demonstrated across several medical specialties, including neurology. Although women have comprised most of the child neurology trainees since 2007, it is not apparent whether this demographic shift is reflected in the Child Neurology Society (CNS) awards and leadership. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in gender representation among leadership positions and award recipients within the CNS. The primary outcome measure was the total number of board of director (BOD) positions or awards given by gender each year. METHODS: A retrospective review of publicly available data was conducted on CNS members, post-training award recipients, and BOD positions, including nomination records, from 1972 to 2023. Data abstracted were restricted to gender to preserve member and nominee anonymity. Gender identification and consensus were determined through a combination of strategies and study members. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson χ2 test, and the exact binomial test to compare gender proportions and the probability of being underrepresented in awards, leadership, and nominations over time. Data are presented according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. RESULTS: From 1972 to 2023, women represented 29% (44/152) of the BOD positions and 26% (61/236) of post-training award recipients presented by the CNS. Despite the increase in the proportion of women in child neurology, the overall gap in gender representation in leadership positions remains broadly stable. Only 13% (4/32) of CNS presidents have been women, a significant underrepresentation (95% CI 2.3%-52%, p < 0.004), although the representation of women in nonpresidential positions increased from 2003 to 2023. Women are also underrepresented as overall awardees (95% CI 12%-38%, p < 0.00001) except for the Philip R. Dodge Young Investigator Award, which is an investigator-initiated application. DISCUSSION: Women remain underrepresented at the highest levels of recognition in child neurology despite representing most of the field. Reasons for disparities are known to be multifactorial and likely include gender bias and structural sexism. We present several discussion topics that seek to rationalize this disparity and provide suggestions for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion for leadership roles and awards.