Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 417

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Late Effects of Conformal Radiation Therapy for Pediatric Patients With Low-Grade Glioma: Prospective Evaluation of Cognitive, Endocrine, and Hearing Deficits

Open access
Merchant, Thomas E., Conklin, Heather M., Wu, Shengjie, Lustig, Robert H., Xiong, Xiaoping·2009·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: We conducted a prospective trial to evaluate late effects in pediatric patients with low-grade glioma (LGG) treated with conformal radiation therapy (CRT). Patients and Methods: Between August 1997 and August 2006, 78 pediatric patients with LGG (mean age, 9.7 years; standard deviation, ±4.4 years) received 54 Gy of CRT with a 10-mm clinical target volume margin. Tumor locations were diencephalon (n = 58), cerebral hemisphere (n = 3), and cerebellum (n = 17). Baseline and serial evaluations were performed to identify deficits in cognition, endocrine function, and hearing. Deficits were correlated with clinical factors and radiation dose within specific normal tissue volumes. Results: Cognitive effects of CRT through 5 years after CRT correlated with patient age, neurofibromatosis type 1 status, tumor location and volume, extent of resection, and radiation dose. The effect of age exceeded that of radiation dose; patients younger than 5 years experienced the greatest decline in cognition. Before CRT, growth hormone (GH) secretion abnormality was diagnosed in 24% of tested patients, and 12% had precocious puberty. The 10-year cumulative incidence of GH replacement was 48.9%; of thyroid hormone replacement, 64.0%; of glucocorticoid replacement, 19.2%; and of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog therapy, 34.2%. The mean ± standard errors of the cumulative incidence of hearing loss at 10 years did not exceed 5.7% ± 3.3% at any frequency. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest series of prospectively followed children with LGG to undergo irradiation. Adverse effects are limited and predictable for most patients; however, this study provides additional evidence that CRT should be delayed for young patients and identifies the potential benefits of reducing radiation dose to normal brain.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2008.21.2738

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Merchant, T. E., Conklin, H. M., Wu, S., Lustig, R. H., & Xiong, X.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2009-08-01
Volume
27
Issue
22
Pages
3691-3697
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2119449786
Cited by
417
References
0
FWCI
8.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.