Lumbosacral ependymomas: a review of the management of intradural and extradural tumors

Journal ArticleObject. The goal of this study was to review the management of intra- and extradural ependymomas. Spinal ependymomas most commonly occur as intramedullary tumors throughout the spinal axis. In the lumbosacral region, ependymomas are most commonly associated with the conus medullaris and cauda equina, but can also occur extradurally in the sacrum, presacral tissues, or subcutaneous tissues over the sacrum. These two tumor locations produce different management concerns. Intradural ependymomas, especially those in the lumbosacral region, are now recognized for their potential to spread throughout the central nervous system (CNS), whereas extradural tumors elicit more concern for their association with extraneural metastases. Methods. The authors have reviewed the literature regarding both of these distinct tumors and have summarized recommendations for the management of intra- and extradural lumbosacral ependymomas. For both tumors, it appears that gross-total resection is the treatment of choice when feasible. The role of radiation therapy has not been adequately studied for either tumor location, but most clinicians use this modality in patients with subtotal resection of intradural ependymomas, local recurrence, or CNS dissemination. Data supporting the use of radiation therapy for extradural ependymomas are lacking. There does not appear to be a significant role for chemotherapy in either tumor location. Conclusions. Despite the risk for local recurrence and CNS dissemination, the prognosis for intradural lumbosacral ependymomas is good, with a greater than 90% 10-year patient survival in most series. The prognosis for extradural ependymomas does not appear to be as good. Much depends on extradural tumor location, however; the outlook is better for dorsal sacral tumors than presacral tumors

The politics of regulatory enforcement and compliance: Theorizing and operationalizing political influences

There is broad consensus in the literature on regulatory enforcement and compliance that politics matters. However, there is little scholarly convergence on what politics is or rigorous theorization and empirical testing of how politics matters. Many enforcement and compliance studies omit political variables altogether. Among those that address political influences on regulatory outcomes, politics has been defined in myriad ways and, too often, left undefined. Even when political constructs are explicitly operationalized, the mechanisms by which they influence regulatory outcomes are thinly hypothesized or simply ignored. If politics is truly as important to enforcement and compliance outcomes as everyone in the field seems to agree, regulatory scholarship must make a more sustained and systematic effort to understand their relationship, because overlooking this connection risks missing what is actually driving regulatory outcomes. This article examines how the construct of “politics” has been conceptualized in regulatory theory and analyzes how it has been operationalized in empirical studies of regulatory enforcement and compliance outcomes. It brings together scholarship across disciplines that rarely speak but have much to say to one another on this subject in order to constitute a field around the politics of regulation. The goal is to sharpen theoretical and empirical understandings of when and how regulation works by better accounting for the role politics plays in its enforcement

Gliosarcoma: a study of four cases

Gliosarcomas (GS) are highly malignant and rare tumors of the central nervous system with a poor prognosis. We report here on four patients with GS, the median survival for whom was 9.25 months. Prognosis of GS remains poor, and a multidisciplinary approach (surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy) seems to be associated with slightly more prolonged survival times