Response assessment in pediatric neurooncology (RAPNO) criteria revisited: a practical navigation guide for neuroradiologists
- PMID: 39446196
- DOI: 10.1007/s00234-024-03493-x
Response assessment in pediatric neurooncology (RAPNO) criteria revisited: a practical navigation guide for neuroradiologists
Abstract
The Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) Working Group is an international, collaborative network of experts dedicated to pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors that was created in 2011. Since then, six RAPNO articles with imaging guidelines for response assessment in diverse pediatric tumor subgroups have been published, namely: 1) medulloblastomas and leptomeningeal seeding tumors (2018), 2) pediatric high-grade gliomas (2020), 3) pediatric low-grade gliomas (2020), 4) diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas (2020), 5) pediatric intracranial ependymomas (2022) and 6) pediatric craniopharyngiomas (2023). The purpose of this article is to review all current available RAPNO criteria using a systematized and comparative approach centered on the role of neuroradiologists and supported by neuroimaging examples. Special emphasis will be placed on clarification of core concepts as well as practical adoption aspects of the RAPNO guidelines, namely how and when to image the brain and/or the spine; how to interpret the imaging findings; which other clinical, therapeutic and laboratory variables to consider; and finally how to apply the information to attribute the final appropriate response assessment classification.
Keywords: Brain tumor; Central Nervous System Neoplasms; Neuroimaging; Pediatrics; Spinal cord tumor.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent: For this type of study formal consent is not required. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
-
- Warren KE, Poussaint TY, Vezina G et al (2013) Challenges with defining response to antitumor agents in pediatric neuro-oncology: A report from the response assessment in pediatric neuro-oncology. Pediatr Blood Cancer 60:1397–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.24562 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Wen PY, Macdonald DR, Reardon DA et al (2010) Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: Response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 28:1963–1972. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.26.3541 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Ostrom QT, Price M, Neff C et al (2022) CBTRUS Statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the united states in 2015–2019. Neuro Oncol 24:V1–V95. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noac202 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Warren KE, Vezina G, Poussaint TY et al (2018) Response assessment in medulloblastoma and leptomeningeal seeding tumors: Recommendations from the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology committee. Neuro Oncol 20:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nox087 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Fangusaro J, Witt O, Hernáiz Driever P et al (2020) Response assessment in paediatric low-grade glioma: recommendations from the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) working group. Lancet Oncol 21:e305–e316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30064-4 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
