Search

OBJECTIVE The optimal management of pediatric craniopharyngioma patients remains controversial, shifting from radical resection (gross-total resection [GTR]) to a more conservative approach with partial resection/biopsy followed by radiotherapy (PR+RT). To the authors’ knowledge, no previous studies have compared neurocognitive and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes between the two main treatments. In this study, the authors compared changes in intellectual, adaptive, and QOL scores in children treated for craniopharyngioma with GTR and those treated with PR+RT. METHODS Patients underwent annual neurocognitive and QOL evaluations for up to 10 years posttreatment, including the Full-Scale IQ, Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI), Working Memory Index (WMI), and Processing Speed Index (PSI). Child- and parent-reported QOL scores and adaptive behavior in different domains were assessed. General linear mixed models were used to examine change in scores over time by treatment group with adjustment for significant covariates. RESULTS Scores from 43 patients treated between 2009 and 2019 (21 GTR, 22 PR+RT) were examined. Within the PR+RT group, 9 patients had intensity-modulated RT and 13 had proton beam therapy. The treatment groups were similar in sex (44% male) and age (median 7.3 years). There were no significant differences in the trajectory of intellectual functioning or QOL scale scores between the two groups. However, patients who underwent GTR exhibited significant improvement over time in overall adaptive behavior (p = 0.04) and conceptual skills (p = 0.01), which was not observed in patients treated with PR+RT. CONCLUSIONS Long-term pediatric craniopharyngioma survivors treated with GTR and PR+RT have similar intellectual function and QOL. Larger studies are needed to explore small but clinically significant differences between the two groups.

PedCRIN is a Horizon 2020 project aimed to develop a paediatric component of ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) including tools supporting the conduct of neonatal and paediatric trials. A structured, cross-sectional, closed-ended questionnaire was electronically administered from April to May 2017 to stakeholders involved in paediatric clinical research to capture their needs to receive infrastructural support to cover specific research gaps. The questionnaire included 6 headings and 29 subheadings. Each item was evaluated using a Likert-scale. 147 questionnaires were returned (response rate of 24.6%). The application of innovative study design and the preparation of protocols for paediatric interventional clinical trials had the highest frequency of high need for support (123 and 117 respondents, respectively). Similarly, the identification and applications to relevant calls for funding was acknowledged as an area in which support is needed (123 respondents declaring high need). In 14 out of 29 activities, need for support was significantly higher in the respondents not being part of a Paediatric Research Network or Consortium (especially for regulatory expertise, pharmacovigilance and GCP training). Conclusions: These results document that the achievement of PedCRIN objectives would greatly advantage the paediatric research community.

Legislative initiatives have been successful in increasing the availability of approved therapies for paediatric patients. However, additional measures to ensure the timely completion of paediatric studies are necessary to further increase the number of medicines available to children. Over the last 3 years, international experts convened to revise the ICH E11 guideline on clinical investigations of medicinal products in paediatric populations to harmonize approaches to paediatric extrapolation, striving to reduce substantial differences between regions in the acceptance of data for global paediatric medicine development programmes. Several areas of therapeutics development in children, such as human immunodeficiency virus and partial-onset seizures, have been streamlined and require fewer children enrolled in clinical trials because of the appropriate application of paediatric extrapolation. Based on this experience, it is clear that for paediatric extrapolation strategies to reach their full potential there is the need to understand the quality and quantity of data, often collected in adult patients, that will inform the appropriateness of the use of paediatric extrapolation, as well as to identify gaps in knowledge with respect to disease pathophysiology, organ maturation or drug target ontogeny. The generation of information that enhances our current understanding of these gaps in knowledge can further decrease the need for larger, paediatric clinical trials and can increase the efficiency of paediatric therapeutics development as well as protect children from participation in unnecessary studies. We hope that this publication will increase awareness, input and support from all the stakeholders involved in paediatric therapeutics development.

The European framework surrounding clinical trials on medicinal products for human use is going to change as demonstrated by the large debate at European institutional level. One of the major challenges is to overcome the lack of harmonisation of clinical trial procedures among countries. This aspect is gaining more and more importance, considering the increasing number of multicentre and multinational studies. In this work, the actual European rules governing the Clinical Trial Application have been analysed throughout the different steps including the registration of the trial in the European database; the preparation of documents to be submitted and their contents; the preparation of documents related to the information and consent process; the submission to competent bodies. Specific issues related to paediatric research and trials involving non EU/EEA countries have been addressed as well. Results reveal that the European legislation offers a well defined set of European rules covering different aspects of a Clinical Trial Application. However, these are not suitable to meet the challenges from multicentre and multinational clinical studies. A stronger set of rules, such as is available in a composite European Regulation has been adopted and is expected to harmonise practices and enable sponsors to carry out well conducted trials. But will the new regulation overcome the existing criticisms of Directive 2001/20/EC?

The prognosis of beta-Thalassemia major and other congenital hemoglobinopathies has profoundly changed over the last decades. Moreover, only few countries in Europe provide dedicated services and the description of the measures for patients monitoring and treatment is overall very scarce. The HTA-Thal project is aimed to identify the services available in Italy and to collect epidemiological and clinical data on the thalassemic population (HTA-Thal Registry).A map of the existing centers was created and two electronic questionnaires were completed with information on the services and patients.On 182 centers identified, 60 completed the two questionnaires. Centers resulted to be extremely heterogeneous in terms of size, age of patients in care, and services availability. The transition of pediatric patients to adult centers was not guaranteed. Thousand eight hundred and seventy-three beta-Thalassemia major patients (of which 259 pediatrics), regularly transfused, were registered. Deferasirox is the most used chelator as monotherapy (616 patients) and its use prevails in younger patients. A higher number of patients (847 patients) use Deferoxamine, either alone (448 patients) or in combination with DFP (399 patients), while 782 patients use Deferiprone alone (383 patients) or in combination (399 patients). 31.6 and 66.6% of centers were not equipped for specialized visits or local MRI, respectively. Centers with 30-80 patients show the high percentage of patients appropriately monitored when compared to smaller or bigger centers.This analysis confirms the importance of patients' registries for the collection of large datasets and the need for dedicated 'specialized centers' equipped to provide the best standard treatment to patients.