An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis on Characteristics and Outcome of Patients with Papillary Glioneuronal Tumor, Rosette Glioneuronal Tumor with Neuropil-Like Islands and Rosette Forming Glioneuronal Tumor of the Fourth Ventricle

Abstract

Background and Purpose: In 2007, the WHO classification of brain tumors was extended by three new entities of glioneuronal tumors: papillary glioneuronal tumor (PGNT), rosette-forming glioneuronal tumor of the fourth ventricle (RGNT) and glioneuronal tumor with neuropil-like islands (GNTNI). Focusing on clinical characteristics and outcome, the authors performed a comprehensive individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of the cases reported in literature until December 2012. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed articles reporting on PGNT, RGNT, and GNTNI using predefined keywords. Results: 95 publications reported on 182 patients (PGNT, 71; GNTNI, 26; RGNT, 85). Median age at diagnosis was 23 years (range 4-75) for PGNT, 27 years (range 6-79) for RGNT, and 40 years (range 2-65) for GNTNI. Ninety-seven percent of PGNT and 69% of GNTNI were located in the supratentorial region, 23% of GNTNI were in the spinal cord, and 80% of RGNT were localized in the posterior fossa. Complete resection was reported in 52 PGNT (73%), 36 RGNT (42%), and 7 GNTNI (27%) patients. Eight PGNT, 3 RGNT, and 12 GNTNI patients were treated with chemo- and/or radiotherapy as the primary postoperative treatment. Follow-up data were available for 132 cases. After a median follow-up time of 1.5 years (range 0.2-25) across all patients, 1.5-year progression-free survival rates were 52 +/- 12% for GNTNI, 86 +/- 5% for PGNT, and 100% for RGNT. The 1.5-year overall-survival were 95 +/- 5%, 98 +/- 2%, and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: The clinical understanding of the three new entities of glioneuronal tumors, PGNT, RGNT and GNTNI, is currently emerging. The present meta-analysis will hopefully contribute to a delineation of their diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic profiles. However, the available data do not provide a solid basis to define the optimum treatment approach. Hence, a central register should be established.