10 likes | 98 Views
Grammel et al. Suppl. Figure 1. a. b. CN contact (n=21). CN contact (n=21). p=<0.0001. p=0.287. No CN contact (n=42). No CN contact (n=42). 100. 40. 80. 30. 60. Survival [%]. Case density [%]. 20. 40. 10. 20. 0. 0. 0. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 6. 7. 8. 0-3. 3-6. 6-9. 9-12.
E N D
Grammel et al. Suppl. Figure 1 a b CN contact (n=21) CN contact (n=21) p=<0.0001 p=0.287 No CN contact (n=42) No CN contact (n=42) 100 40 80 30 60 Survival [%] Case density [%] 20 40 10 20 0 0 0 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15 15-18 18-20 Age [years] Follow up [years] c d Cases w/ residual disease [%] Cases w/ macro. metastases [%] Cases w/o residual disease [%] Cases w/o macro. metastases [%] p=0.1531 p=0.3688 100 100 80 80 60 60 Frequency [%] Frequency [%] 40 40 20 20 0 0 Cases w/ CN contact (n=20) Cases w/ CN contact (n=19) Cases w/o CN contact (n=38) Cases w/o CN contact (n=33) Supplementary Figure 1: Clinicopathological features of desmoplastic medulloblastoma (MB). Age distribution of MB with contact (n=21) and without contact (n=42) to the cochlear nucleus (CN) in our tumor cohort (n=63) (a). Kaplan-Meier analysis of MB with and without contact to the CN (b). Metastatic status (c) and residual disease incidence (d) in MB with and without contact to the CN. Reduced case numbers in graphs for metastatic and residual disease status are due to unavailibility of the respective data.