ependymoma: lessons from the past, prospects for the future

1
LETTER TO THE EDITOR Ependymoma: lessons from the past, prospects for the future Reply to the letter by E. Bouffet et al. Charles Teo & Andrew Little Received: 7 May 2009 / Published online: 3 July 2009 # Springer-Verlag 2009 Dear Editor: We read with interest the letter by Bouffet et al. on our article The management of completely resected childhood intracra- nial ependymoma: the argument for observation only[1]. We would like to respond to several comments. We agree that further work is necessary to determine which patients are at low risk for recurrence. Molecular markers may ultimately prove useful. While hTERT is an intriguing candidate in post hoc analyses, its value for stratifying treatment in a prospective manner has not yet been demonstrated. We look forward to these studies. The best (though limited) definition of low risk currently in clinical practice is low-grade pathology in a child older than 3 years and no residual tumor on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging. We were concerned with Professor Bouffets assertion that our decision-making process is arbitraryand hazardouswhen, in fact, it has been refined by the senior author during his two decades of treating childhood ependymoma. We have acknowledged the preliminary nature of the data supporting observation as a treatment option, and we trust that our colleagues recognize the datas limitations; the implication that our oncology colleagues will consider our review a treatment guideline and not consider the benefits and risks of adjuvant radiation is worrisome. We assure Professor Bouffet that we have our patients best interests at heart when we carefully select low-risk patients to avoid the toxicity of radiotherapy in the developing brain. Reference 1. Little AS, Sheean T, Manoharan R, Darbar A, Teo C (2009) The management of completely resected childhood intracranial ependy- moma: the argument for observation only. Childs Nerv Syst 25: 281284 Childs Nerv Syst (2009) 25:1385 DOI 10.1007/s00381-009-0916-5 C. Teo (*) Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Barker Street, Randwick NSW 2031, Australia e-mail: [email protected] A. Little Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Upload: charles-teo

Post on 14-Jul-2016

221 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Ependymoma: lessons from the past, prospects for the future

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Ependymoma: lessons from the past, prospects for the futureReply to the letter by E. Bouffet et al.

Charles Teo & Andrew Little

Received: 7 May 2009 /Published online: 3 July 2009# Springer-Verlag 2009

Dear Editor:We read with interest the letter by Bouffet et al. on our article“The management of completely resected childhood intracra-nial ependymoma: the argument for observation only” [1]. Wewould like to respond to several comments. We agree thatfurther work is necessary to determine which patients are atlow risk for recurrence. Molecular markers may ultimatelyprove useful. While hTERT is an intriguing candidate in posthoc analyses, its value for stratifying treatment in aprospective manner has not yet been demonstrated. We lookforward to these studies. The best (though limited) definitionof low risk currently in clinical practice is low-gradepathology in a child older than 3 years and no residualtumor on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging.

We were concerned with Professor Bouffet’s assertion thatour decision-making process is “arbitrary” and “hazardous”when, in fact, it has been refined by the senior author duringhis two decades of treating childhood ependymoma. We have

acknowledged the preliminary nature of the data supportingobservation as a treatment option, and we trust that ourcolleagues recognize the data’s limitations; the implicationthat our oncology colleagues will consider our review atreatment guideline and not consider the benefits and risks ofadjuvant radiation is worrisome. We assure Professor Bouffetthat we have our patient’s best interests at heart when wecarefully select low-risk patients to avoid the toxicity ofradiotherapy in the developing brain.

Reference

1. Little AS, Sheean T, Manoharan R, Darbar A, Teo C (2009) Themanagement of completely resected childhood intracranial ependy-moma: the argument for observation only. Childs Nerv Syst 25:281–284

Childs Nerv Syst (2009) 25:1385DOI 10.1007/s00381-009-0916-5

C. Teo (*)Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery,Prince of Wales Private Hospital,Barker Street,Randwick NSW 2031, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

A. LittleBarrow Neurological Institute,Phoenix, AZ, USA