Next Article in Journal
Merging Two Models of One-Dimensional Convolutional Neural Networks to Improve the Differential Diagnosis between Acute Asthma and Bronchitis in Preschool Children
Previous Article in Journal
A Rapid On-Line Evaluation (ROLE) Protocol in the Diagnostic Performance Improvement in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinico-Radiological Outcomes in WNT-Subgroup Medulloblastoma
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Existing and Evolving Landscape of Medulloblastoma: Towards Optimization and Personalization

Department of Radiation Oncology, ACTREC/TMH, Tata Memorial Centre, HBNI, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410210, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diagnostics 2024, 14(6), 598; https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14060598
Submission received: 27 February 2024 / Accepted: 5 March 2024 / Published: 12 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Medulloblastoma—Existing and Evolving Landscape)
Advances in diagnostic imaging, pathology, and molecular biology coupled with improvements in neurosurgical approaches, radiotherapeutic techniques, and systemic therapies over the last two decades have vastly improved survival outcomes for medulloblastoma, the most common childhood malignant tumor [1] involving the brain and central nervous system (CNS).
One hundred years ago, Harvey Cushing and Percival Bailey presented their research on the tumor ‘spongioblastoma cerebelli’ at an American Neurological Association meeting [2], describing a ‘small round blue-cell tumor’, which they believed arose from embryonal rests of undifferentiated cells within the roof and ependymal lining of the fourth ventricle. The term spongioblastoma aptly described the soft and suckable consistency of the tumor, but was later replaced by ‘medulloblastoma’ based on the premise that medulloblasts are one of five types of stem cells in the primitive neural tube. In the 1950s, the high propensity of the disease to spread along the neuraxis via the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pathways [3] and the realization of the susceptibility of these primitive embryonal cells to X-rays [4] ushered in an era of adjuvant craniospinal irradiation (CSI) for sustained tumor control [5]. The last forty years have witnessed the evolution of systemic chemotherapy approaches in the curative-intent contemporary management of medulloblastoma [6]. From initially being considered a nearly fatal disease without any adjuvant therapy despite gross total resection to its current status as a childhood cancer that is highly curable with post-operative risk-stratified adjuvant radio(chemo)therapy (Figure 1), the treatment of medulloblastoma has emerged as one of the most remarkable success stories in pediatric neuro-oncology [7]. Aggressive multi-modal management cures a substantial proportion of patients with medulloblastoma; however, such therapies are associated with a significant burden of dose-dependent treatment-related toxicities and resultant chronic health conditions that have a detrimental impact on health-related quality of life, including long-term survivorship [8,9].
Ground-breaking global research conducted by various dedicated neuro-oncology groups working in parallel has finally led to the consensus that medulloblastoma is a heterogenous disease [10] comprising four broad molecular subgroups—wingless (WNT), sonic hedgehog (SHH), Group 3, and Group 4 medulloblastoma, respectively—with subgroup-specific developmental origins, distinct clinico-demographic presentation, unique genetic profiles, and diverse clinical outcomes; this has led to the incorporation of molecular/genetic information in contemporary risk-stratification schema [11], as well as the fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors involving the brain and CNS (WHO CNS 5) [12]. The existence of heterogeneity within each broad subgroup has resulted in a consensus on second-generation molecular subgrouping [13], with various subtypes being described within each broad subgroup further increasing the complexity of diagnosis and classification.
This Special Issue on medulloblastoma provides a broad overview of diagnostic imaging, including the evolving role of radiomics/radiogenomics; discusses its basic pathobiology and molecular genetics, including contemporary risk stratification; summarizes the existing evidence base for current standard-of-care therapies, including the emerging role of proton beam therapy; and navigates through the clinical trial landscape based on molecular subgrouping for the optimization of adjuvant therapy. The translation of emerging biological and molecular information into tangible benefits for patients in the clinic represents a formidable challenge for the pediatric neuro-oncology community. Rechberger and colleagues (contributor 1) discuss the four broad molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma, provide recent updates on its molecular landscape and complexity, explore the role of epigenetic regulation and the mechanism of resistance to therapy, and delve into the latest developments in targeted therapy and immunotherapy. The recommended gold-standard method for molecular subgroup assignment, i.e., DNA methylation profiling [14], has issues in terms of its availability, affordability, and accessibility. The differential expression of a set of protein-coding genes using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain (RT-PCR) for molecular subgroup assignment in medulloblastoma [15,16], though robust, can be a difficult test to perform, particularly in resource-constrained low–middle-income countries (LMICs) [17]. Therein lies the utility of extracting semantic [18] and/or radiomic features [19] from pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which can potentially predict the broad molecular subgroups with reasonable accuracy [18,19,20]. Further confirmation of molecular subgrouping can be achieved using simpler, cheaper, and more widely available tool like immunohistochemical panels [17,21] of commercially available antibodies. Ongoing research suggests that such radiomic features can also be used either alone or in combination with clinical features to predict survival in medulloblastoma. Ismail et al. (contributor 2) provide a comprehensive overview of radiomic and radiogenomic analysis for tumor segmentation, molecular subgroup classification, and survival prognostication in the context of pediatric medulloblastoma. Further, they shed light on existing challenges in current radiomic approaches and highlight future directions and opportunities for more refined and nuanced computational analysis. Radiotherapy (RT) in the form of CSI plus boosts to primary-site and metastatic deposits (if any), delivered using high-energy photons from a linear accelerator, forms the backbone and cornerstone of adjuvant therapy in non-infantile medulloblastoma. The planning and delivery of CSI remains one of the most difficult and challenging processes in RT due to the target volume being large, irregularly shaped, complex, and surrounded by normal critical structures that need to be spared the detrimental impact of irradiation. The advent of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), particularly rotational IMRT techniques, due to advances in physics and technology have vastly improved the process of the photon-based treatment planning, delivery, and verification of CSI in contemporary neuro-oncologic practice [22,23]. The emergence of proton-beam therapy with superior depth–dose characteristics (compared to photons) and resultant improvements in dosimetry provides an opportunity to further sculpt the dose away from surrounding normal structures conforming to the defined target volumes, thereby further reducing the incidence and severity of treatment-related toxicity in clinical practice [24]. Das and associates (contributor 3) report a preliminary study from South East Asia’s first proton therapy centre on the topic of image-guided, intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) using pencil-beam scanning technology in their patient cohort of medulloblastoma (n = 40), with a focus on dosimetry, acute toxicity, and early survival outcomes. While the dosimetric superiority of protons compared to photons is now well established, an unequivocal clinical benefit is yet to be demonstrated in the context of a randomized controlled trial. Furthermore, the availability, accessibility, and affordability of modern proton beam therapy technology remain major challenges throughout the world, especially in LMIC settings.
With the development of systemic chemotherapy protocols aimed at improving survival and reducing the long-term toxicity of high-dose CSI, the management of medulloblastoma in children has dramatically changed over the past four decades [6]. This includes the use of irradiation-sparing approaches, such as intraventricular methotrexate-based chemotherapy in medulloblastoma with extensive nodularity (MBEN) and high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue in infantile (<3–5 years) medulloblastoma. The use of targeted therapy such as SHH inhibitors also represents as attractive paradigm in patient with SHH-subgroup medulloblastoma. The evolution of systemic therapies, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, is reviewed in detail by Mushtaq and colleagues (contributor 4). Of all the subgroups, patients with WNT-pathway medulloblastoma have the best survival outcomes (5-year survival exceeding 90%), with appropriate radio(chemo)therapy leading to systematic attempts at treatment de-intensification to reduce the late morbidity associated with this treatment [25]. Prados (contributor 5) reviews the clinical trial landscape in medulloblastoma through a brief summary of recently reported randomized controlled trials in an upfront setting and introduces some of the ongoing prospective studies integrating molecular/genetic information with standard clinico-radiological factors for risk stratification. The incurable nature of relapsed medulloblastoma with current salvage regimens and exciting novel combinatorial approaches targeting multiple pathways, including cytotoxic therapies, small-molecule inhibitors, and immunotherapy strategies to improve outcomes in recurrent/progressive disease, are also briefly discussed. Finally, Mani et al. (contributor 6) report a single-institution audit of clinical outcomes in a molecularly characterized cohort of WNT-subgroup medulloblastoma (n = 67), confirming excellent long-term survival with adequate and appropriate upfront treatment using post-operative adjuvant radio(chemo)therapy. This retrospective audit also briefly discusses the premature termination of two de-escalation studies in low-risk WNT-activated medulloblastoma (one omitting upfront CSI and another using a post-surgery primary chemotherapy-only approach) due to an unacceptably high risk of relapse.
In conclusion, our fundamental understanding of medulloblastoma biology has vastly improved over time, leading to continued refinements in risk stratification and prognostication. In parallel, aggressive multi-modal therapy cures a substantial proportion of children with medulloblastoma; however, these long-term survivors experience various late effects of treatment affecting their quality of life. The next decade of research in medulloblastoma should focus on finding the right balance between survival and survivorship through the optimization and personalization of therapy.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

As Guest Editor of “Medulloblastoma—Existing and Evolving Landscape”, I acknowledge and appreciate the hard work and valuable contributions of all corresponding authors and co-authors whose manuscripts have been published in this Special Issue.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

List of Contributions

  • Rechberger, J.S.; Toll, S.A.; Vanbilloen, W.J.F.; Daniels, D.J.; Khatua, S. Exploring the Molecular Complexity of Medulloblastoma: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2398. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13142398.
  • Ismail, M.; Craig, S.; Ahmed, R.; de Blank, P.; Tiwari, P. Opportunities and Advances in Radiomics and Radiogenomics for Pediatric Medulloblastoma Tumors. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172727.
  • Das, A.; Gaikwad, U.; Krishnan, G.; Rajendran, A.; Patil, S.; Subramaniam, P.; Krishna, U.; Wakde, M.G.; Chilukuri, S.; Jalali, R. Successful Implementation of Image-Guided Pencil-Beam Sanning Proton Therapy in Medulloblastomas. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 3378. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13213378.
  • Mushtaq, N.; Ul Ain, R.; Hamid, S.A.; Bouffet, E. Evolution of Systemic Therapy in Medulloblastoma Including Irradiation-Sparing Approaches. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 3680. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13243680.
  • Prados, M.D. Current Strategies for Management of Medulloblastoma. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2622. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13162622.
  • Mani, S.; Chatterji, A.; Dasgupta, A.; Shirsat, N.; Pawar, A.; Epari, S.; Sahay, A.; Sahu, A.; Moiyadi, A.; Prasad, M.; Chinnaswamy, G.; Gupta, T. Clinico-Radiological Outcomes in WNT-Subgroup Medulloblastoma. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14040358.

References

  1. Ostrom, Q.T.; Price, M.; Neff, C.; Cioffi, G.; Waite, K.A.; Kruchko, C.; Barnholtz-Sloan, J.S. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Other Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2016–2020. Neuro Oncol. 2023, 25 (Suppl. 4), iv1–iv99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Cushing, H. Experiences with cerebellar medulloblastomas: Critical review. Acta Path. Microbiol. Scandinav. 1930, 1, 1–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chang, C.H.; Housepian, E.M.; Herbert, C.J. An operative staging system and a megavoltage radiotherapeutic technic for cerebellar medulloblastomas. Radiology 1969, 93, 1351–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bailey, P. Further Notes on Cerebellar Medulloblastomas: The Effect of Roentgen Radiation. Am. J. Pathol. 1930, 6, 125–136. [Google Scholar]
  5. Patterson, R.; Farr, R.F. Cerebellar medulloblastomas: Treatment by irradiation of the whole central nervous system. Acta Radiol. 1953, 39, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Quaglietta, L.; Vitale, V.; Verrico, A.; Migliorati, R. Treatment of medulloblastoma: Chemotherapy. In Posterior Fossa Tumors in Children; Özek, M., Cinalli, G., Maixner, W., Sainte-Rose, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 349–361. [Google Scholar]
  7. Jackson, K.; Packer, R. Recent Advances in Pediatric Medulloblastoma. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2023, 23, 841–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Salloum, R.; Chen, Y.; Yasui, Y.; Packer, R.; Leisenring, W.; Wells, E.; King, A.; Howell, R.; Gibson, T.M.; Krull, K.R.; et al. Late Morbidity and Mortality Among Medulloblastoma Survivors Diagnosed Across Three Decades: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 37, 731–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Baqai, M.W.S.; Tariq, R.; Shah, Z.; Bajwa, M.H.; Shamim, M.S. Quality of life in survivors of pediatric medulloblastoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Childs Nerv. Syst. 2023, 39, 1159–1171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Taylor, M.D.; Northcott, P.A.; Korshunov, A.; Remke, M.; Cho, Y.-J.; Clifford, S.C.; Eberhart, C.G.; Parsons, D.W.; Rutkowski, S.; Gajjar, A.; et al. Molecular subgroups of medulloblastoma: The current consensus. Acta Neuropathol. 2012, 123, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ramaswamy, V.; Remke, M.; Bouffet, E.; Bailey, S.; Clifford, S.C.; Doz, F.; Kool, M.; Dufour, C.; Vassal, G.; Milde, T.; et al. Risk stratification of childhood medulloblastoma in the molecular era: The current consensus. Acta Neuropathol. 2016, 131, 821–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Louis, D.N.; Perry, A.; Wesseling, P.; Brat, D.J.; Cree, I.A.; Figarella-Branger, D.; Hawkins, C.; Ng, H.K.; Pfister, S.M.; Reifenberger, G.; et al. The 2021 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: A summary. Neuro Oncol. 2021, 23, 1231–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hovestadt, V.; Ayrault, O.; Swartling, F.J.; Robinson, G.W.; Pfister, S.M.; Northcott, P.A. Medulloblastomics revisited: Biological and clinical insights from thousands of patients. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2020, 20, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Korshunov, A.; Chavez, L.; Northcott, P.A.; Sharma, T.; Ryzhova, M.; Jones, D.T.W.; von Deimling, A.; Pfister, S.M.; Kool, M. DNA-methylation profiling discloses significant advantages over NanoString method for molecular classification of medulloblastoma. Acta Neuropathol. 2017, 134, 965–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Northcott, P.A.; Korshunov, A.; Witt, H.; Hielscher, T.; Eberhart, C.G.; Mack, S.; Bouffet, E.; Clifford, S.C.; Hawkins, C.E.; French, P.; et al. Medulloblastoma comprises four distinct molecular variants. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 1408–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kunder, R.; Jalali, R.; Sridhar, E.; Moiyadi, A.; Goel, N.; Goel, A.; Gupta, T.; Krishnatry, R.; Kannan, S.; Kurkure, P.; et al. Real-time PCR assay based on the differential expression of microRNAs and protein-coding genes for molecular classification of formalin-fixed paraffin embedded medulloblastomas. Neuro Oncol. 2013, 15, 1644–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kaur, K.; Jha, P.; Pathak, P.; Suri, V.; Sharma, M.C.; Garg, A.; Suri, A.; Sarkar, C. Approach to molecular subgrouping of medulloblastomas: Comparison of NanoString nCounter assay versus combination of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in-situ hybridization in resource constrained centres. J. Neurooncol. 2019, 143, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dasgupta, A.; Gupta, T. Radiogenomics of medulloblastoma: Imaging surrogates of molecular biology. J. Transl. Genet Genom. 2018, 2, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, M.; Wong, S.W.; Wright, J.N.; Wagner, M.W.; Toescu, S.; Han, M.; Tam, L.T.; Zhou, Q.; Ahmadian, S.S.; Shpanskaya, K.; et al. MRI Radiogenomics of Pediatric Medulloblastoma: A Multicenter Study. Radiology 2022, 304, 406–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Karabacak, M.; Ozkara, B.B.; Ozturk, A.; Kaya, B.; Cirak, Z.; Orak, E.; Ozcan, Z. Radiomics-based machine learning models for prediction of medulloblastoma subgroups: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic test performance. Acta Radiol. 2023, 64, 1994–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Ellison, D.W.; Kocak, M.; Dalton, J.; Megahed, H.; Lusher, M.E.; Ryan, S.L.; Zhao, W.; Nicholson, S.L.; Taylor, R.E.; Bailey, S.; et al. Definition of disease-risk stratification groups in childhood medulloblastoma using combined clinical, pathologic, and molecular variables. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 1400–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Sharma, D.S.; Gupta, T.; Jalali, R.; Master, Z.; Phurailatpam, R.D.; Sarin, R. High-precision radiotherapy for craniospinal irradiation: Evaluation of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy and helical TomoTherapy. Br. J. Radiol. 2009, 82, 1000–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Prabhu, R.S.; Dhakal, R.; Piantino, M.; Bahar, N.; Meaders, K.S.; Fasola, C.E.; Ward, M.C.; Heinzerling, J.H.; Sumrall, A.L.; Burri, S.H. Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) Craniospinal Irradiation (CSI) for Children and Adults: A Practical Guide for Implementation. Pract. Radiat. Oncol. 2022, 12, e101–e109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Young, S.; Phaterpekar, K.; Tsang, D.S.; Boldt, G.; Bauman, G.S. Proton Radiotherapy for Management of Medulloblastoma: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2023, 8, 101189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Thompson, E.M.; Ashley, D.; Landi, D. Current medulloblastoma subgroup specific clinical trials. Transl. Pediatr. 2020, 9, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Milestones and timeline of the evolving landscape of medulloblastoma.
Figure 1. Milestones and timeline of the evolving landscape of medulloblastoma.
Diagnostics 14 00598 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gupta, T.; Chatterjee, A. Existing and Evolving Landscape of Medulloblastoma: Towards Optimization and Personalization. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 598. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14060598

AMA Style

Gupta T, Chatterjee A. Existing and Evolving Landscape of Medulloblastoma: Towards Optimization and Personalization. Diagnostics. 2024; 14(6):598. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14060598

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gupta, Tejpal, and Abhishek Chatterjee. 2024. "Existing and Evolving Landscape of Medulloblastoma: Towards Optimization and Personalization" Diagnostics 14, no. 6: 598. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14060598

APA Style

Gupta, T., & Chatterjee, A. (2024). Existing and Evolving Landscape of Medulloblastoma: Towards Optimization and Personalization. Diagnostics, 14(6), 598. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14060598

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop