1
|
Espinoza AF, Bagatell R, McHugh K, Naranjo AH, Van Ryn C, Rojas Y, Lyons K, Guillerman RP, Kirby C, Brock P, Volchenboum S, Simon T, States L, Miller A, Krug B, Sarnacki S, Irtan S, Brisse HJ, Valteau-Couanet D, von Schweinitz D, Kammer B, Granata C, Pio L, Park JR, Nuchtern JG. A subset of image-defined risk factors predict completeness of resection in children with high-risk neuroblastoma: An international multicenter study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2024; 71:e31218. [PMID: 39072986 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.31218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2024] [Revised: 06/16/2024] [Accepted: 07/10/2024] [Indexed: 07/30/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Image-defined risk factors (IDRFs) were promulgated for predicting the feasibility and safety of complete primary tumor resection in children with neuroblastoma (NB). There is limited understanding of the impact of individual IDRFs on resectability of the primary tumor or patient outcomes. A multicenter database of patients with high-risk NB was interrogated to answer this question. DESIGN/METHODS Patients with high-risk NB (age <20 years) were eligible if cross-sectional imaging was performed at least twice prior to resection. IDRFs and primary tumor measurements were recorded for each imaging study. Extent of resection was determined from operative reports. RESULTS There were 211 of 229 patients with IDRFs at diagnosis, and 171 patients with IDRFs present pre-surgery. A ≥90% resection was significantly more likely in the absence of tumor invading or encasing the porta hepatis, hepatoduodenal ligament, superior mesenteric artery (SMA), renal pedicles, abdominal aorta/inferior vena cava (IVC), iliac vessels, and/or diaphragm at diagnosis or an overlapping subset of IDRFs (except diaphragm) at pre-surgery. There were no significant differences in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) when patients were stratified by the presence versus absence of any IDRF either at diagnosis or pre-surgery. CONCLUSION Two distinct but overlapping subsets of IDRFs present either at diagnosis or after induction chemotherapy significantly influence the probability of a complete resection in children with high-risk NB. The presence of IDRFs was not associated with significant differences in OS or EFS in this cohort.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andres F Espinoza
- Department of Surgery, Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Rochelle Bagatell
- Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Kieran McHugh
- Radiology Department, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK
| | - Arlene H Naranjo
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida Colleges of Medicine and Public Health & Health Professions, Children's Oncology Group Statistics & Data Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Collin Van Ryn
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida Colleges of Medicine and Public Health & Health Professions, Children's Oncology Group Statistics & Data Center, Gainesville, Florida, USA
| | - Yesenia Rojas
- Department of Surgery, Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Karen Lyons
- Department of Radiology, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Pediatric Radiology, British Columbia Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - R Paul Guillerman
- Department of Radiology, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
| | - Chaim Kirby
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Penelope Brock
- Paediatric Oncology, Great Ormand Street Hospital for Children, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Thorsten Simon
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lisa States
- Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Alexandra Miller
- Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Barbara Krug
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Sabine Sarnacki
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital - APHP and Université de Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Sabine Irtan
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, Necker-Enfants Malades Hospital - APHP and Université de Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | | | - Dominique Valteau-Couanet
- Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Oncology, Gustave-Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Dietrich von Schweinitz
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, Munich University Hospital, Dr. von Hauner Children's Hospital, Munich, Germany
| | - Birgit Kammer
- Department of Radiology, LMU University Hospital, LMU, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Claudio Granata
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS Giannina. Gaslini, Genoa, Italy
| | - Luca Pio
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, Giannina Gaslini Children's Hospital, Genoa, Italy
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
| | - Julie R Park
- Department of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
| | - Jed G Nuchtern
- Department of Surgery, Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lu X, Li C, Wang S, Yin Y, Fu H, Wang H, Cheng W, Chen S. The prognostic role of 18F-FDG PET/CT-based response evaluation in children with stage 4 neuroblastoma. Eur Radiol 2024:10.1007/s00330-024-10781-w. [PMID: 38758254 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10781-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2023] [Revised: 03/11/2024] [Accepted: 04/04/2024] [Indexed: 05/18/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the association between metabolic response on 18F-FDG PET/CT and long-term survival in children with neuroblastoma (NB). METHODS A total of 39 consecutive children with newly diagnosed stage 4 NB undergoing both 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging at baseline and after chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. The associations between metabolic parameters, including SUVmax of the lesion with the most intense 18F-FDG uptake at baseline (SUVb), after chemotherapy (SUVe), and the percentage change between SUVb and SUVe, and long-term survival were evaluated. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 56 months, 22 patients who had achieved complete resolution on PET (no residual 18F-FDG uptake higher than the surrounding backgrounds) after chemotherapy had superior 5-year overall survival (OS) (73.6% vs. 39.0%, p = 0.044). SUVb > 6.9 indicated significantly poorer 5-year event-free survival (EFS) (12.5% vs. 59.3%, p = 0.005), as did SUVe > 1.2 (18.8% vs. 41.7%, p = 0.041). Children with SUVe > 1.2 had shorter 5-year OS (33.9% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.018). Multivariate analysis identified SUVe > 1.2 as an independent predictor for both EFS [hazard ratio (HR), 3.479, 95% CI, 1.381-8.761, p = 0.008] and OS (HR, 6.948, 95% CI, 1.663-29.025, p = 0.008), while SUVb > 6.9 was a predictor for EFS (HR, 2.889, 95% CI, 1.064-7.842, p = 0.037). Among 11 children with both SUVb > 6.9 and SUVe > 1.2, all experienced disease progression or relapse within 2 years since diagnosis. CONCLUSION 18F-FDG PET/CT could be of useful to evaluate treatment response in children with stage 4 NB. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT 18F-FDG PET/CT after chemotherapy exhibits prognostic significance in neuroblastoma and holds potential as an alternative imaging modality for response evaluation, especially in cases with metaiodobenzylguanidine-nonavid or persistent avid disease. KEY POINTS The prognostic value of chemotherapy response on 18F-FDG PET/CT in advanced neuroblastoma is unknown. Higher 18F-FDG uptake after chemotherapy was associated with worse long-term event-free survival and overall survival. 18F-FDG PET/CT after chemotherapy holds prognostic significance in children with stage 4 neuroblastoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xueyuan Lu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Chao Li
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Shaoyan Wang
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Yafu Yin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Hongliang Fu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Hui Wang
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Weiwei Cheng
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
| | - Suyun Chen
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Borau C, Wertheim KY, Hervas-Raluy S, Sainz-DeMena D, Walker D, Chisholm R, Richmond P, Varella V, Viceconti M, Montero A, Gregori-Puigjané E, Mestres J, Kasztelnik M, García-Aznar JM. A multiscale orchestrated computational framework to reveal emergent phenomena in neuroblastoma. COMPUTER METHODS AND PROGRAMS IN BIOMEDICINE 2023; 241:107742. [PMID: 37572512 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107742] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Revised: 07/19/2023] [Accepted: 07/31/2023] [Indexed: 08/14/2023]
Abstract
Neuroblastoma is a complex and aggressive type of cancer that affects children. Current treatments involve a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and stem cell transplantation. However, treatment outcomes vary due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease. Computational models have been used to analyse data, simulate biological processes, and predict disease progression and treatment outcomes. While continuum cancer models capture the overall behaviour of tumours, and agent-based models represent the complex behaviour of individual cells, multiscale models represent interactions at different organisational levels, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the system. In 2018, the PRIMAGE consortium was formed to build a cloud-based decision support system for neuroblastoma, including a multi-scale model for patient-specific simulations of disease progression. In this work we have developed this multi-scale model that includes data such as patient's tumour geometry, cellularity, vascularization, genetics and type of chemotherapy treatment, and integrated it into an online platform that runs the simulations on a high-performance computation cluster using Onedata and Kubernetes technologies. This infrastructure will allow clinicians to optimise treatment regimens and reduce the number of costly and time-consuming clinical trials. This manuscript outlines the challenging framework's model architecture, data workflow, hypothesis, and resources employed in its development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Borau
- Multiscale in Mechanical and Biological Engineering (M2BE), Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
| | - K Y Wertheim
- Department of Computer Science and InsigneoInstitute for In Silico Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; Centre of Excellence for Data Science, Artificial Intelligence and Modelling and School of Computer Science, University of Hull, Kingston upon Hull, United Kingdom
| | - S Hervas-Raluy
- Multiscale in Mechanical and Biological Engineering (M2BE), Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - D Sainz-DeMena
- Multiscale in Mechanical and Biological Engineering (M2BE), Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - D Walker
- Department of Computer Science and InsigneoInstitute for In Silico Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - R Chisholm
- Department of Computer Science and InsigneoInstitute for In Silico Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - P Richmond
- Department of Computer Science and InsigneoInstitute for In Silico Medicine, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - V Varella
- Department of Industrial Engineering, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Medical Technology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
| | - M Viceconti
- Department of Industrial Engineering, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Medical Technology Lab, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy
| | - A Montero
- Chemotargets SL, Baldiri Reixac 4, Parc Cientific de Barcelona (PCB), Barcelona, Spain
| | - E Gregori-Puigjané
- Chemotargets SL, Baldiri Reixac 4, Parc Cientific de Barcelona (PCB), Barcelona, Spain
| | - J Mestres
- Chemotargets SL, Baldiri Reixac 4, Parc Cientific de Barcelona (PCB), Barcelona, Spain
| | - M Kasztelnik
- ACC Cyfronet, AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland
| | - J M García-Aznar
- Multiscale in Mechanical and Biological Engineering (M2BE), Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Veiga-Canuto D, Cerdà-Alberich L, Jiménez-Pastor A, Carot Sierra JM, Gomis-Maya A, Sangüesa-Nebot C, Fernández-Patón M, Martínez de las Heras B, Taschner-Mandl S, Düster V, Pötschger U, Simon T, Neri E, Alberich-Bayarri Á, Cañete A, Hero B, Ladenstein R, Martí-Bonmatí L. Independent Validation of a Deep Learning nnU-Net Tool for Neuroblastoma Detection and Segmentation in MR Images. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15051622. [PMID: 36900410 PMCID: PMC10000775 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15051622] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2023] [Revised: 02/22/2023] [Accepted: 03/05/2023] [Indexed: 03/08/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To externally validate and assess the accuracy of a previously trained fully automatic nnU-Net CNN algorithm to identify and segment primary neuroblastoma tumors in MR images in a large children cohort. METHODS An international multicenter, multivendor imaging repository of patients with neuroblastic tumors was used to validate the performance of a trained Machine Learning (ML) tool to identify and delineate primary neuroblastoma tumors. The dataset was heterogeneous and completely independent from the one used to train and tune the model, consisting of 300 children with neuroblastic tumors having 535 MR T2-weighted sequences (486 sequences at diagnosis and 49 after finalization of the first phase of chemotherapy). The automatic segmentation algorithm was based on a nnU-Net architecture developed within the PRIMAGE project. For comparison, the segmentation masks were manually edited by an expert radiologist, and the time for the manual editing was recorded. Different overlaps and spatial metrics were calculated to compare both masks. RESULTS The median Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was high 0.997; 0.944-1.000 (median; Q1-Q3). In 18 MR sequences (6%), the net was not able neither to identify nor segment the tumor. No differences were found regarding the MR magnetic field, type of T2 sequence, or tumor location. No significant differences in the performance of the net were found in patients with an MR performed after chemotherapy. The time for visual inspection of the generated masks was 7.9 ± 7.5 (mean ± Standard Deviation (SD)) seconds. Those cases where manual editing was needed (136 masks) required 124 ± 120 s. CONCLUSIONS The automatic CNN was able to locate and segment the primary tumor on the T2-weighted images in 94% of cases. There was an extremely high agreement between the automatic tool and the manually edited masks. This is the first study to validate an automatic segmentation model for neuroblastic tumor identification and segmentation with body MR images. The semi-automatic approach with minor manual editing of the deep learning segmentation increases the radiologist's confidence in the solution with a minor workload for the radiologist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diana Veiga-Canuto
- Grupo de Investigación Biomédica en Imagen, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
- Área Clínica de Imagen Médica, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
- Correspondence: (D.V.-C.); (L.M.-B.)
| | - Leonor Cerdà-Alberich
- Grupo de Investigación Biomédica en Imagen, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Ana Jiménez-Pastor
- Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers in Medicine, QUIBIM SL, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - José Miguel Carot Sierra
- Departamento de Estadística e Investigación Operativa Aplicadas y Calidad, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camí de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
| | - Armando Gomis-Maya
- Grupo de Investigación Biomédica en Imagen, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Cinta Sangüesa-Nebot
- Área Clínica de Imagen Médica, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Matías Fernández-Patón
- Grupo de Investigación Biomédica en Imagen, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Blanca Martínez de las Heras
- Unidad de Oncohematología Pediátrica, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Sabine Taschner-Mandl
- St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Zimmermannplatz 10, 1090 Vienna, Austria
| | - Vanessa Düster
- St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Zimmermannplatz 10, 1090 Vienna, Austria
| | - Ulrike Pötschger
- St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Zimmermannplatz 10, 1090 Vienna, Austria
| | - Thorsten Simon
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, University Children’s Hospital of Cologne, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
| | - Emanuele Neri
- Academic Radiology, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Via Roma, 67, 56126 Pisa, Italy
| | | | - Adela Cañete
- Unidad de Oncohematología Pediátrica, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Barbara Hero
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, University Children’s Hospital of Cologne, Medical Faculty, University of Cologne, 50937 Cologne, Germany
| | - Ruth Ladenstein
- St. Anna Children’s Cancer Research Institute, Zimmermannplatz 10, 1090 Vienna, Austria
| | - Luis Martí-Bonmatí
- Grupo de Investigación Biomédica en Imagen, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
- Área Clínica de Imagen Médica, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 Torre A 7planta, 46026 Valencia, Spain
- Correspondence: (D.V.-C.); (L.M.-B.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Seo ES, Lim H, Cho HW, Ju HY, Lee JW, Yoo KH, Lee S, Lim DH, Sung KW, Koo HH. Postchemotherapy gross residual tumor in non-high-risk neuroblastoma: Clinical significance and the role of adjuvant therapy. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2022; 69:e29840. [PMID: 35735763 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.29840] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2022] [Revised: 05/17/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although survival rate among patients with non-high-risk neuroblastoma is excellent, a gross residual tumor (GRT) is often present at the end of treatment. However, reliable data do not exist on the relevance of a GRT for the risk of progression and the role of adjuvant therapy for patients with GRT. METHODS A retrospective review of 131 patients with non-high-risk neuroblastoma who underwent chemotherapy was performed. GRT was defined as >1 cm3 residual soft tissue density on end-of-chemotherapy scans. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared between patients with GRT and those without GRT. A proportional hazards model was also used to assess the effects of GRT and adjuvant therapies, including radiation and isotretinoin therapy on outcomes. RESULTS GRT was found in 52 (40%) patients in the study cohort. Correlation was not found between GRT and outcomes (PFS; p = .954, OS; p = .222). In multivariable analysis, GRT remained a nonsignificant predictor of outcome after adjusting for confounders. Local radiation and isotretinoin therapy did not affect outcome for patients with GRT. However, within GRT subgroups, the degree of volume reduction, as well as absolute residual volume in the primary tumor after induction treatment, were significantly associated with outcomes. CONCLUSION GRT in non-high-risk neuroblastoma may not indicate active disease that requires additional treatment. However, risk of progression is increased in patients with GRT whose response to treatment was less prominent, thus adjuvant therapy should be reserved only for those patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun Seop Seo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hana Lim
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hee Won Cho
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hee Young Ju
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ji Won Lee
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Keon Hee Yoo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sanghoon Lee
- Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Do Hoon Lim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ki Woong Sung
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hong Hoe Koo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Yu S, Qian Z, Liu H, Fan R, Long X, Li B, Zhang Q, Wang Y, Cao L, Zhou R, Hou D, Gao D, Liu L, Chen X. Optimized low-dose positron emission tomography/computed tomography schemes in pediatric tumor patients: a randomized clinical trial. Transl Pediatr 2022; 11:1510-1520. [PMID: 36247895 PMCID: PMC9561506 DOI: 10.21037/tp-22-371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2022] [Accepted: 09/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND It's clinically relevant to reduce the radiation dose to children while ensuring their positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) image quality. The optimal protocol for whole-body PET/CT imaging in children (non-model) has been less studied. In this study, we investigated the optimal protocol for PET/CT imaging of pediatric oncology by analyzing the radiation dose and image quality in18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT imaging of children with oncology. METHODS One hundred children with tumors who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT were included. CT grouping: randomly divided into 18 groups A-R according to the combination of three parameters: tube voltage (80/120 kV), automatic milliamp range (20-39/40-59/60-80 mA), and noise index (NI) (8/12/14). PET grouping: randomly divided into 9 groups a-i according to the combination of two parameters: the pharmaceuticals injection dose (0.08/0.12/0.15 mCi/kg) and time per bed (120/150/180 s). The effective radiation dose (ED) was calculated separately for each group and the image quality of CT and PET was evaluated subjectively using standard deviation (SD) and coefficient of variation (CV) objective evaluation and 5-point evaluation method, respectively. RESULTS Ninety-seven images in CT and 57 images in PET were included. The best quality of CT images was in group K (120 kV/40-59 mA/8); there are 9 groups had good image quality and lower dose length product (DLP) than group K (SD ±10), while the difference in DLP between groups was large. The Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) test showed that the difference in image quality between the 9 groups was not statistically significant. The best PET image quality was in group i [0.15 (mCi/kg)/180 s]; there are four groups had good image quality and lower EDPET than group i (CV ±3.5%), while the difference in EDPET between groups was large (4.4-6.5 mSv), and the K-W test showed that the difference in image quality between the four groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05), with the lowest EDPET being in the g group. CONCLUSIONS The optimal protocols for CT scanning and PET imaging in this experiment were group H (80 kV/40-59 mA/14) and group g [0.08 (mCi/kg)/180 s], respectively.Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200061386.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Songke Yu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Zhongjie Qian
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Hongli Liu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Rongqin Fan
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Xueqin Long
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Bo Li
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Qian Zhang
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Yumei Wang
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Lin Cao
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Rui Zhou
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Dingyou Hou
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Daiqiang Gao
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Lisheng Liu
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| | - Xiaoliang Chen
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Szychot E, Morgenstern D, Chopra M, Sorrentino S, Arthurs O, Sebire N, Arfeen F, Brodkiewicz A, Humphries P, Biassoni L. Clinical impact of primary tumour 123ImIBG response to induction chemotherapy in children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Int J Clin Oncol 2021; 27:253-261. [PMID: 34626287 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-021-02039-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/29/2020] [Accepted: 09/23/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND More than 50% children with high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NBL) experience disease progression, which we hypothesise is due to non-response of primary tumour to treatment. Current imaging techniques are unable to characterise response in primary tumour (necrotic versus viable tissue) at diagnosis or follow-up. OBJECTIVES Compare clinico-histological characteristics between primary 123ImIBG-avid tumours that became entirely 123ImIBG-non-avid (responders) after induction chemotherapy (IC) versus primary 123ImIBG-avid tumour that remained 123ImIBG-avid (non-responders). METHODS Retrospective review of clinico-radiological data of children diagnosed with 123ImIBG-avid HR-NBL at our centre (2005-2016). Patients received Rapid COJEC IC and two additional courses of TVD if metastatic response was inadequate. Primary tumour 123ImIBG response was assessed qualitatively as positive, negative or intermediate at diagnosis and after IC. Post-surgical histopathology slices were marked considering percentage of viable tissue. RESULTS Sixteen of 61 patients showed complete primary tumour 123ImIBG response, 20 partial response, while 25 no response. There was no statistically significant difference between clinical demographics of complete responders and group of non- or partial responders. Mean percentage of viable tumour cells was higher in non-responders than in complete responders (44.6% vs 20.6%; p = 0.05). Five-year EFS was significantly higher in complete responders than non-responders (43 ± 15% vs 7 ± 6%; p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS 123ImIBG response in primary HR-NBL correlates with amount of necrotic tissue, skeletal metastatic 123ImIBG response and outcome. An entirely 123ImIBG non-avid tumour can still harbour viable tumour cells. Therefore, our findings do not support utility of primary tumour 123ImIBG response in decision making regarding residual tumour surgery. Combining both, primary and metastatic 123ImIBG response will improve interpretability of clinical trial results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elwira Szychot
- Clinical Studies, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK. .,Oak Centre for Children and Young People, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, SM2 5PT, UK. .,Department of Paediatrics, Paediatric Oncology and Immunology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland.
| | - Daniel Morgenstern
- Departments of Haematology/Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
| | - Mark Chopra
- Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Stefania Sorrentino
- Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.,Unit of Paediatric Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy
| | - Owen Arthurs
- Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Neil Sebire
- Department of Pathology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Farrukh Arfeen
- Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Andrzej Brodkiewicz
- Department of Paediatrics, Child's Nephrology, Dialysis Therapy and Acute Poisoning, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Paul Humphries
- Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Lorenzo Biassoni
- Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Identification of Prognostic Genes in Neuroblastoma in Children by Weighted Gene Coexpression Network Analysis. Biochem Res Int 2021; 2021:9987990. [PMID: 34354842 PMCID: PMC8331277 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9987990] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2021] [Accepted: 07/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Neuroblastoma is a malignant neuroendocrine tumor from the sympathetic nervous system, the most common extracranial tumor in children. Identifying potential prognostic markers of neuroblastoma can provide clues for early diagnosis, recurrence, and treatment. Methods RNA sequence data and clinical features of 147 neuroblastomas were obtained from the TARGET (Therapeutically Applicable Research to Generate Effective Treatments project) database. Application weighted gene coexpression network analysis (WGCNA) was used to construct a free-scale gene coexpression network, to study the interrelationship between its potential modules and clinical features, and to identify hub genes in the module. We performed Lasso regression and Cox regression analyses to identify the three most important genes and develop a new prognostic model. Data from the GSE85047 cohort verified the predictive accuracy of the prognostic model. Results 14 coexpression modules were constructed using WGCNA. Brown coexpression modules were found to be significantly associated with disease survival status. Multivariate Cox analysis was performed on genes from univariate Cox regression and Lasso regression analyses using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Finally, we constructed a three-gene prognostic model: risk score = (0.003812659∗CKB) + (−0.152376975∗expDST) + (0.032032815∗expDUT). The prognosis of samples in the high-risk group was significantly poorer than that of samples in the low-risk group (P=1.225e − 06). The risk model was also regarded as an independent predictor of prognosis (HR = 1.632; 95% CI = 1.391–1.934; P < 0.001). Conclusion Our study constructed a neuroblastoma coexpressing gene module and identified a prognostic potential risk model for prognosis in neuroblastoma.
Collapse
|
9
|
Lee JW, Bae JS, Kim JH, Cho HW, Ju HY, Yoo KH, Koo HH, Woo SY, Kim S, Sung KW. Absolute Neutrophil Count after the First Chemotherapy Cycle as a Surrogate Marker for Treatment Outcomes in Patients with Neuroblastoma. Cancer Res Treat 2021; 54:259-268. [PMID: 33848412 PMCID: PMC8756108 DOI: 10.4143/crt.2021.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose We performed this study to determine whether the degree of neutropenia after the first chemotherapy cycle can be used as a surrogate marker of individual susceptibility to chemotherapeutic agents affecting treatment outcome in patients with neuroblastoma. Materials and Methods The study included 313 patients who received the first cycle chemotherapy with a CEDC (cisplatin+etoposide+doxorubicin+cyclophosphamide) regimen and had absolute neutrophil count (ANC) data available. The cumulative incidences of progression and treatment-related mortality (TRM) were estimated. To identify genetic variations associated with the ANC, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed. Results An ANC of 32.5/μL was determined as the cutoff point to categorize patients into the good and poor prognosis subgroups in terms of progression. Patients with a high nadir ANC had a higher cumulative incidence of progression than those with a low nadir ANC (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, high nadir ANC, age, bone marrow involvement, and unfavorable histology were poor prognostic factors. With regard to the TRM, patients with a low nadir ANC (ANC < 51.0/μL) had a higher cumulative incidence of TRM than those with a high nadir ANC (p=0.010). In GWAS, single-nucleotide polymorphisms of LPHN2 and CRHR1 were significantly associated with the nadir ANC. Conclusion In neuroblastoma patients, the degree of neutropenia after the first chemotherapy cycle can be used as a surrogate marker to predict an individual’s susceptibility to chemotherapeutic agents. Tailoring of treatment based on the degree of neutropenia needs to be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ji Won Lee
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Joon Seol Bae
- Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jin Ho Kim
- Clinical Precision Medicine Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Hee Won Cho
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hee Young Ju
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Keon Hee Yoo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hong Hoe Koo
- Statistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sook-Young Woo
- Statistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seonwoo Kim
- Statistics and Data Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ki Woong Sung
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Sezen P, Prayer F, Prayer D, Kasprian G, Metzelder M. Is fetal magnetic resonance imaging volumetry of eventrated organs in gastroschisis predictive for surgical treatment? Pediatr Radiol 2021; 51:1818-1825. [PMID: 33950269 PMCID: PMC8426252 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-021-05066-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2020] [Revised: 01/06/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fetal MRI is increasingly used in congenital abdominal wall defects. In gastroschisis, the role of fetal MRI in surgical therapy is poorly understood. Currently, the type of repair is determined primarily by clinical presentation and institutional preference. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the feasibility of fetal MRI volumetry in gastroschisis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS We included 22 cases of gastroschisis in this retrospective single-center study. Routine fetal MRI scans were acquired between Jan. 1, 2006, and July 1, 2018, at gestational ages of 19-34 postmenstrual weeks. Fetal-MRI-based manual segmentation and volumetry were performed utilizing steady-state free precision and T2-weighted sequences. Acquired parameters included intraabdominal volume, eventrated organ volume and total fetal body volume, and we calculated a volume ratio between eventrated organ volume and intraabdominal volume (E/I ratio). RESULTS Primary closure was conducted in 13 cases and silo bag treatment with delayed closure in 9 cases. Prenatal MRI volumetry showed a significantly higher E/I ratio in patients with silo bag treatment with delayed closure (mean [M]=0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30, 0.40) than in primary closure (M=0.23, 95% CI 0.19, 0.27; P=0.004). We propose a volume ratio cutoff value of 0.27 for predicting silo bag treatment. CONCLUSION Fetal MRI predicted silo bag treatment in patients with gastroschisis in 90% of the cases in our cohort and might facilitate prenatal counseling and treatment planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick Sezen
- Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria
| | - Florian Prayer
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Daniela Prayer
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Gregor Kasprian
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Martin Metzelder
- Department of Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Pictorial review of the clinical applications of MIBG in neuroblastoma: current practices. Clin Transl Imaging 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s40336-020-00392-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
|
12
|
Barr EK, Laurie K, Wroblewski K, Applebaum MA, Cohn SL. Association between end-induction response according to the revised International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria (INRC) and outcome in high-risk neuroblastoma patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2020; 67:e28390. [PMID: 32710697 PMCID: PMC7722196 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.28390] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2020] [Revised: 04/05/2020] [Accepted: 04/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The 1993 International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria (INRC) were revised in 2017 to include modern functional imaging studies and methods for quantifying disease in bone marrow. We hypothesized the 2017 INRC would enable more precise assessment of response to treatment and provide superior prognostic information compared with the 1993 criteria. METHODS High-risk (HR) neuroblastoma patients from two institutions in Chicago diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 were identified. Patients were assessed post induction chemotherapy via the 1993 and 2017 INRC and classified as responder (≥ mixed response [MXR] or ≥ minor response [MR], respectively) or nonresponder (< MXR or < MR). Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) for responders versus nonresponders were determined from end induction and stratified by Cox regression. Patients with progressive disease at end induction were eliminated from the EFS analyses but included in the OS analysis. RESULTS The 1993 criteria classified 52 of the 60 HR patients as responders, whereas 54 responders were identified using the 2017 criteria (Spearman correlation r = 0.82, P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference in EFS was observed for responders versus nonresponders using either criteria (P = 0.48 and P = 0.08). However, superior OS was observed for responders (P = 0.01) using either criteria. Both criteria were sensitive in identifying responders among those with good outcomes. The specificity to identify nonresponders among those with poor outcomes was poor. CONCLUSIONS In HR neuroblastoma, end-induction response defined by the 1993 or 2017 INRC is associated with survival. Larger cohorts are needed to determine if the 2017 INRC provides more precise prognostication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin K. Barr
- Department of Pediatrics, Texas Tech University Health Sciences, Lubbock, Texas
| | - Kathryn Laurie
- Pediatric Hematology, Oncology & Stem Cell Transplantation, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Kristen Wroblewski
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - Susan L. Cohn
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Gassenmaier S, Tsiflikas I, Maennlin S, Urla C, Warmann SW, Schaefer JF. Retrospective accuracy analysis of MRI based lesion size measurement in neuroblastic tumors: which sequence should we choose? BMC Med Imaging 2020; 20:105. [PMID: 32912148 PMCID: PMC7487996 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-020-00503-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2020] [Accepted: 08/25/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND MR imaging of neuroblastic tumors is widely used for assessing the effect of chemotherapy on tumor size. However, there are some concerns that MRI might falsely estimate lesion diameters due to calcification and fibrosis. Therefore, the aim of our study was to compare neuroblastic tumor size based on MRI measurements to histopathology measurements of the resected specimens as standard of reference. METHODS Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of a neuroblastic tumor, MR imaging within 100 days to surgery and gross total resection without fragmentation of the tumor between 2008 and 2019. Lesion diameters were measured by two radiologists according to RECIST 1.1 in axial plane in T2w turbo spin echo (TSE), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and in T1w pre- and postcontrast sequences. Furthermore, the largest lesion size in three-dimensions was noted. The largest diameter of histopathology measurements of each specimen was used for comparison with MRI. RESULTS Thirty-seven patients (mean age: 5 ± 4 years) with 38 lesions (neuroblastoma: n = 17; ganglioneuroblastoma: n = 11; ganglioneuroma: n = 10) were included in this retrospective study. There was excellent intra-class correlation coefficient between both readers for all sequences (> 0.9) Tumor dimensions of reader 1 based on axial MRI measurements were significantly smaller with the following median differences (cm): T1w precontrast - 1.4 (interquartile range (IQR): 1.8), T1w postcontrast - 1.0 (IQR: 1.9), T2w TSE: -1.0 (IQR: 1.6), and DWI -1.3 (IQR: 2.2) (p < 0.001 for all sequences). However, the evaluation revealed no significant differences between the three-dimensional measurements and histopathology measurements of the resected specimens regardless of the applied MRI sequence. CONCLUSIONS Axial MRI based lesion size measurements are significantly smaller than histopathological measurements. However, there was no significant difference between three-dimensional measurements and histopathology measurements of the resected specimens. T2w TSE and T1w postcontrast images provided the lowest deviation and might consequently be preferred for measurements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Gassenmaier
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
| | - Ilias Tsiflikas
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Simon Maennlin
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Cristian Urla
- Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology, University Children's Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Steven W Warmann
- Department of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Urology, University Children's Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Juergen F Schaefer
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Seo ES, Lee EJ, Lee B, Shin M, Cho YS, Hyun JK, Cho HW, Ju HY, Yoo KH, Koo HH, Lee JW, Sung KW. Metastatic Burden Defines Clinically and Biologically Distinct Subgroups of Stage 4 High-Risk Neuroblastoma. J Clin Med 2020; 9:jcm9092730. [PMID: 32847064 PMCID: PMC7565784 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9092730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2020] [Accepted: 08/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the prognostic subgroups of stage 4 high-risk neuroblastoma based on metastatic burden and explore their distinct clinical and genomic features. Patients aged ≥18 months with stage 4 and metaiodobenzylguanidine-avid neuroblastoma were enrolled. One hundred and thirty eligible patients were treated under the tandem high-dose chemotherapy scheme. Prognostic significance of metastatic burden measured by the modified Curie score was analyzed using a competing risk approach, and the optimal cut-point was determined. Metastasis-specific subgroups (cut-point: 26) were compared using clinicopathological variables, and differential gene expression analysis and gene set variation analysis (GSVA) were performed using RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). Metastatic burden at diagnosis showed a progressive association with relapse/progression. After applying the cut-point, patients with high metastatic burden showed >3-fold higher risk of relapse/progression than those with low metastatic burden. Moreover, patients with high metastatic burden showed smaller primary tumors and higher biochemical marker levels than those with low metastatic burden. In the genomic analysis, 51 genes were found to be differentially expressed based on the set criteria. GSVA revealed 55 gene sets, which significantly distinguished patients with high metastatic burden from those with low metastatic burden at a false discovery rate <0.25. The results indicated the prognostic significance of metastatic burden in stage 4 high-risk neuroblastoma, and we identified the distinct clinicopathological and genomic features based on metastatic burden. This study may aid in the better understanding and risk-stratification of stage 4 high-risk neuroblastoma patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun Seop Seo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.S.S.); (J.K.H.); (H.W.C.); (H.Y.J.); (K.H.Y.); (H.H.K.)
| | - Eun-jin Lee
- Samsung Genome Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.-j.L.); (B.L.)
| | - Boram Lee
- Samsung Genome Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.-j.L.); (B.L.)
| | - Muheon Shin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (M.S.); (Y.-S.C.)
| | - Young-Seok Cho
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (M.S.); (Y.-S.C.)
| | - Ju Kyung Hyun
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.S.S.); (J.K.H.); (H.W.C.); (H.Y.J.); (K.H.Y.); (H.H.K.)
| | - Hee Won Cho
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.S.S.); (J.K.H.); (H.W.C.); (H.Y.J.); (K.H.Y.); (H.H.K.)
| | - Hee Young Ju
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.S.S.); (J.K.H.); (H.W.C.); (H.Y.J.); (K.H.Y.); (H.H.K.)
| | - Keon Hee Yoo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.S.S.); (J.K.H.); (H.W.C.); (H.Y.J.); (K.H.Y.); (H.H.K.)
| | - Hong Hoe Koo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.S.S.); (J.K.H.); (H.W.C.); (H.Y.J.); (K.H.Y.); (H.H.K.)
| | - Ji Won Lee
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.S.S.); (J.K.H.); (H.W.C.); (H.Y.J.); (K.H.Y.); (H.H.K.)
- Correspondence: (J.W.L.); (K.W.S.); Tel.: +82-2-3410-0659 (J.W.L.); +82-2-3410-3529 (K.W.S.); Fax: +82-2-3410-0049 (K.W.S.)
| | - Ki Woong Sung
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Korea; (E.S.S.); (J.K.H.); (H.W.C.); (H.Y.J.); (K.H.Y.); (H.H.K.)
- Correspondence: (J.W.L.); (K.W.S.); Tel.: +82-2-3410-0659 (J.W.L.); +82-2-3410-3529 (K.W.S.); Fax: +82-2-3410-0049 (K.W.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Holmes K, Pötschger U, Pearson ADJ, Sarnacki S, Cecchetto G, Gomez-Chacon J, Squire R, Freud E, Bysiek A, Matthyssens LE, Metzelder M, Monclair T, Stenman J, Rygl M, Rasmussen L, Joseph JM, Irtan S, Avanzini S, Godzinski J, Björnland K, Elliott M, Luksch R, Castel V, Ash S, Balwierz W, Laureys G, Ruud E, Papadakis V, Malis J, Owens C, Schroeder H, Beck-Popovic M, Trahair T, Forjaz de Lacerda A, Ambros PF, Gaze MN, McHugh K, Valteau-Couanet D, Ladenstein RL. Influence of Surgical Excision on the Survival of Patients With Stage 4 High-Risk Neuroblastoma: A Report From the HR-NBL1/SIOPEN Study. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:2902-2915. [PMID: 32639845 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.03117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the impact of surgeon-assessed extent of primary tumor resection on local progression and survival in patients in the International Society of Pediatric Oncology Europe Neuroblastoma Group High-Risk Neuroblastoma 1 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients recruited between 2002 and 2015 with stage 4 disease > 1 year or stage 4/4S with MYCN amplification < 1 year who had completed induction without progression, achieved response criteria for high-dose therapy (HDT), and had no resection before induction were included. Data were collected on the extent of primary tumor excision, severe operative complications, and outcome. RESULTS A total of 1,531 patients were included (median observation time, 6.1 years). Surgeon-assessed extent of resection included complete macroscopic excision (CME) in 1,172 patients (77%) and incomplete macroscopic resection (IME) in 359 (23%). Surgical mortality was 7 (0.46%) of 1,531. Severe operative complications occurred in 142 patients (9.7%), and nephrectomy was performed in 124 (8.8%). Five-year event-free survival (EFS) ± SE (0.40 ± 0.01) and overall survival (OS; 0.45 ± 0.02) were significantly higher with CME compared with IME (5-year EFS, 0.33 ± 0.03; 5-year OS, 0.37 ± 0.03; P < .001 and P = .004). The cumulative incidence of local progression (CILP) was significantly lower after CME (0.17 ± 0.01) compared with IME (0.30 ± 0.02; P < .001). With immunotherapy, outcomes were still superior with CME versus IME (5-year EFS, 0.47 ± 0.02 v 0.39 ± 0.04; P = .038); CILP was 0.14 ± 0.01 after CME and 0.27 ± 0.03 after IME (P < .002). A hazard ratio of 1.3 for EFS associated with IME compared with CME was observed before and after the introduction of immunotherapy (P = .030 and P = .038). CONCLUSION In patients with stage 4 high-risk neuroblastoma who have responded to induction therapy, CME of the primary tumor is associated with improved survival and local control after HDT, local radiotherapy (21 Gy), and immunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keith Holmes
- Paediatric Surgery, St George's Hospital London and Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | - Ulrike Pötschger
- Children's Cancer Research Institute, Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Andrew D J Pearson
- Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | - Sabine Sarnacki
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, Necker Enfants-Malades Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, University de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Giovanni Cecchetto
- Pediatric Surgery, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Javier Gomez-Chacon
- Paediatric Oncology, Paediatric Surgical Oncology Unit, Hospital Universitario La FE, Valencia, Spain
| | - Roly Squire
- Paediatric Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Enrique Freud
- Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Petach, Tikvah, Israel.,Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Adam Bysiek
- Department of Pediatric Surgery, University Children's Hospital, Kraków, Poland
| | - Lucas E Matthyssens
- Department of Gastrointestinal and Paediatric Surgery, Princess Elisabeth Children's Hospital, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Martin Metzelder
- Paediatric Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Tom Monclair
- Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Michal Rygl
- University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Lars Rasmussen
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology A, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Sabine Irtan
- Sorbonne University, Department of Visceral and Neonatal Pediatric Surgery, Armand Trousseau Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Stefano Avanzini
- Pediatric Surgery Unit, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy
| | - Jan Godzinski
- Department of Paediatric Surgery, Marciniak Hospital, and Department of Paediatric Traumatology and Emergency Medicine, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
| | - Kristin Björnland
- Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.,University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Martin Elliott
- Paediatric Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Roberto Luksch
- Paediatric Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Victoria Castel
- Paediatric Oncology, Paediatric Surgical Oncology Unit, Hospital Universitario La FE, Valencia, Spain
| | - Shifra Ash
- Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Petach, Tikvah, Israel
| | | | - Geneviève Laureys
- Department of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Princess Elisabeth Children's Hospital, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Ellen Ruud
- Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.,University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Josef Malis
- University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Cormac Owens
- Paediatric Haematology/Oncology, Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
| | | | | | - Toby Trahair
- Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Peter F Ambros
- Children's Cancer Research Institute, Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Mark N Gaze
- University College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kieran McHugh
- Paediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Ruth Lydia Ladenstein
- St Anna Children's Hospital and Children's Cancer Research Institute, Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Chui C. Effects of preoperative chemotherapy on neuroblastoma with MYCN amplification: a surgeon’s perspective. WORLD JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY 2020; 3:e000129. [DOI: 10.1136/wjps-2020-000129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2020] [Revised: 05/11/2020] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundPreoperative chemotherapy plays an important role in the surgical management of unresectable neuroblastoma. Its response to chemotherapy has been variable due to the tumor’s heterogeneity. We aimed to evaluate the effects of preoperative chemotherapy on MYCN-amplified (MYCNA) neuroblastoma that would impact on surgical resection.MethodsPatients with MYCNA neuroblastoma who received preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgical resection performed at our center were included. The tools of response evaluated included tumor volume reduction (TVR), reduction in image-defined risk factors (IDRFs), percentage tumor necrosis (Nec), and surgical complications.ResultsAmong 62 patients evaluated, mean age was 3.0 (range, 0.9–11.8) years, and primary tumors were distributed in the abdomen (n=59), pelvis (n=2), and thorax (n=1). The patients were in stages L2 (n=14) and M (n=48). Surgery was performed after median of 4 (range, 2–10) cycles of chemotherapy. On completion of preoperative chemotherapy, 41 (66.1%) patients had TVR >65%, 24 (42.9%) responded with reduced IDRFs, 47 (75.8%) tumors had Nec >50%, and 27 patients suffered 31 surgical complications. Majority (83.9%) continued to have IDRFs at surgery. IDRFs commonly encountered were encasement of renal pedicles (n=50), superior mesenteric artery (n=46), celiac axis (n=45), and aorta/vena cava (n=44), and most remained refractory to resolution. Patients with TVR >65% were associated with Nec >50% (87.5% vs 54.5%, p=0.004) and reduced IDRFs (46.3% vs 19%, p=0.035), but not with the incidence of surgical complications.ConclusionsMajority of MYCNA neuroblastomas were highly chemosensitive as they experienced high TVR, reduced IDRFs, and high Nec, and hence created favorable conditions for surgical resection. Poor responders and persistent IDRFs that were commonly refractory to preoperative chemotherapy remained a surgical challenge.
Collapse
|
17
|
de Rojas T, Neven A, Towbin AJ, Carceller F, Bautista F, Riedl D, Sodergren S, Darlington AS, Fernandez-Teijeiro A, Moreno L. Clinical research tools in pediatric oncology: challenges and opportunities. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2020; 39:149-160. [DOI: 10.1007/s10555-020-09856-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
18
|
Abstract
Although intensive multimodal treatment has improved outcomes for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, the specific role of primary tumor resection remains controversial. Many studies have been designed to determine whether the extent of surgical resection impacts survival; however, these reports have demonstrated conflicting results. There is also ongoing debate regarding the timing of primary tumor resection, with subtle differences in the approach between the large pediatric oncology cooperative consortia. Most of the published literature to date has been approached from a surgical viewpoint. Although most evidence supports surgery as part of the local control approach for high-risk neuroblastoma, recommendations for timing and extent of surgical resection are not consistent. This review summarizes our current understanding from the perspectives of both the pediatric oncologist and pediatric surgeons and discusses how the objectives of neuroblastoma primary surgical resection are different from that of other malignancies. Furthermore, this commentary will address how retrospective surgical outcome data may be interpreted in the setting of modern era high-risk neuroblastoma treatment.
Collapse
|
19
|
Kreitz K, Ernst A, Schmidt R, Simon T, Fischer M, Volland R, Hero B, Berthold F. A new risk score for patients after first recurrence of stage 4 neuroblastoma aged ≥18 months at first diagnosis. Cancer Med 2019; 8:7236-7243. [PMID: 31631570 PMCID: PMC6885891 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2562] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2019] [Revised: 08/22/2019] [Accepted: 08/23/2019] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prognosis of patients with recurrences from stage 4 neuroblastoma is not uniformly dismal. The evaluation of new therapies therefore needs to consider the individual risks of the treated patients. This study aims to define clinically useful risk criteria. PATIENTS AND METHODS Inclusion criteria were: first recurrence of neuroblastoma stage 4 aged ≥18 months and enrollment in first line trials between 1997 and 2016. Patients were randomized into a training set (N = 310) and an independent validation set (N = 159). The primary endpoint was secondary event-free survival. The individual treatment elements the patients received during initial and recurrent disease were analyzed as binary and time-dependent variables. A five-step multiple time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed on the training set to identify prognostic variables adjusted for the individual frontline treatment. The selected variables resulted in a prognostic index (PI) and were used to build a risk score system. The score was validated with the validation set. RESULTS Of the 469 patients, 372 were treated with curative intent and 97 with palliative intent. The PI included the variables number of recurrence organs (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.27), time to recurrence (HR = 2.03), liver metastasis at diagnosis (HR = 1.77), first recurrence at site of the primary tumor (HR = 1.55), and age (HR = 1.29). Three risk groups were built and confirmed in the validation set. The scoring system was likewise useful for the curatively or palliatively treated subgroups. CONCLUSION A new risk score system for patients with first recurrence of stage 4 neuroblastoma aged ≥18 months at diagnosis is proposed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kiana Kreitz
- Institute of Medical Statistics and Clinical Research, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
| | - Angela Ernst
- Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - René Schmidt
- Institute of Medical Statistics and Clinical Research, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
| | - Thorsten Simon
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Matthias Fischer
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Ruth Volland
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Barbara Hero
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Frank Berthold
- Department of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
The new international neuroblastoma response criteria. Pediatr Radiol 2019; 49:1433-1440. [PMID: 31620844 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-019-04397-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2018] [Revised: 02/27/2019] [Accepted: 03/26/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
Over recent years significant advances in histopathology and functional imaging techniques for the diagnosis and restaging of children with neuroblastoma have led to better quantification of disease and assessment of disease response, allowing for better treatment stratification. In this review we summarise recent changes to the International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria including the use of RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) guidance for measurable soft-tissue disease, replacement of technetium-99 m-methylene diphosphonate (MDP) bone scans with metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan or [F-18]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning, and a new category of minimal residual bone marrow disease.
Collapse
|
21
|
Lee JW, Son MH, Cho HW, Ma YE, Yoo KH, Sung KW, Koo HH. Clinical significance of MYCN amplification in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018; 65:e27257. [PMID: 29797634 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.27257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2018] [Revised: 05/03/2018] [Accepted: 05/07/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study investigated the clinical significance of MYCN amplification within high-risk neuroblastoma (NB). METHODS Medical records of 135 patients who were diagnosed with high-risk NB from 2004 to 2016 were reviewed. RESULTS Fifty-one (38%) patients had MYCN amplified tumors, and the remaining 84 (62%) had nonamplified tumors. MYCN amplification was associated with abdominal primary site, less differentiated pathology, higher levels of lactate dehydrogenase and neuron-specific enolase (NSE), lower vanillylmandelic acid level, and larger primary tumor volume at diagnosis. MYCN amplification was associated with a better early response (faster reduction of primary tumor volume and NSE level). The proportion of patients in complete response or very good partial response after induction treatment was relatively higher in MYCN amplified tumors than in nonamplified tumors; however, all progressions during induction treatment occurred only in MYCN amplified tumors (P = 0.007). The time to progression was shorter (median 1.5 years vs. 1.9 years, P = 0.037) and survival after relapse/progression was worse in MYCN amplified tumors (3 year overall survival: 7.7 ± 7.4% vs. 20.5 ± 8.8%, P = 0.046). There was no difference in event-free survival and overall survival between MYCN amplified and nonamplified tumors. CONCLUSION MYCN amplification was associated with more aggressive features at diagnosis and a better early response, but a higher progression rate during induction treatment and lower chance of survival after relapse/progression. There was no difference in survival rates according to MYCN amplification in patients with high-risk NB.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ji Won Lee
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Meong Hi Son
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hee Won Cho
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Young Eun Ma
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Keon Hee Yoo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Ki Woong Sung
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hong Hoe Koo
- Department of Pediatrics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Voss SD. Staging and following common pediatric malignancies: MRI versus CT versus functional imaging. Pediatr Radiol 2018; 48:1324-1336. [PMID: 30078040 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-018-4162-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2018] [Revised: 03/23/2018] [Accepted: 05/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Most pediatric malignancies require some form of cross-sectional imaging, either for staging or response assessment. The majority of these are solid tumors and this review addresses the role of MRI, as well as other cross-sectional and functional imaging techniques, for evaluating the most common pediatric solid tumors. The primary emphasis is on neuroblastoma, hepatoblastoma and Wilms tumor, three of the most common non-central-nervous-system (CNS) pediatric solid tumors encountered in young children. The initial focus will be a review of the imaging techniques and approaches used for diagnosis, staging and early post-treatment response assessment, followed by a discussion of the role surveillance imaging plays in pediatric oncology and a brief review of other emerging imaging techniques. The lessons learned here can be applied to most other pediatric tumors, including rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma and osteosarcoma, as well as germ cell tumors, neurofibromatosis and other rare tumors. Although lymphoma, in particular Hodgkin lymphoma, represents one of the more common pediatric malignancies, this is not discussed in detail here. Rather, many of the lessons that we have learned from lymphoma, specifically with regard to how we integrate both anatomical imaging and functional imaging techniques, is applied to the discussion of the other pediatric solid tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephan D Voss
- Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Alexander N, Sullivan K, Shaikh F, Irwin MS. Characteristics and management of ganglioneuroma and ganglioneuroblastoma-intermixed in children and adolescents. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018; 65:e26964. [PMID: 29369484 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.26964] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2017] [Revised: 12/07/2017] [Accepted: 12/08/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ganglioneuromas (GNs) usually demonstrate favorable histological and clinical features. Surgery is often performed due to clinical symptoms and/or theoretical concerns that GN may transform into neuroblastoma (NB); however, several studies have identified significant GN-surgical morbidities. OBJECTIVES We compared the natural history, biological and clinical features of GN and ganglioneuroblastoma-intermixed (GNB-I) managed by surgery or observation to inform management and surveillance. PROCEDURES This retrospective study includes patients (n = 67) with histological diagnosis of GN (50/67) and GNB-I (17/67) at the Hospital for Sick Children between 1990 and 2014. Clinical, pathological features, tumor dimensions, and management were recorded. RESULTS Median age and maximal tumor diameter were 6 years (1.3-17.8) and 6.3 cm (1.4-16.9), respectively. Of the 67 patients, 46 (69%) had upfront surgery and 21 (31%) were observed. Of the 21 observed patients 4 later underwent resection. There were post-operative complications in 15 of the 50 (30%) surgical patients. The presence of imaging-defined risk factors correlated with complications (P = 0.005). Observed patients were older (median 8.4 vs. 5.3 years) and diagnosed more recently. Median growth was 0.3 cm/year and 6 of 21 had progressive disease (PD). At median follow-up of 2.2 years (0.2-14.3), all patients were alive and for those with evaluable imaging there were 27 complete and 10 partial responses, 19 stable and 6 PD. Pathology classification changed at resection for three cases, but no GN was reclassified to NB. CONCLUSIONS GN and GNB-I have a slow growth rate and resection can be associated with significant morbidity. Watch and wait approaches should be considered for some GN and GNB-I.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natasha Alexander
- Division of Haematology & Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Katie Sullivan
- Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Furqan Shaikh
- Division of Haematology & Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Meredith S Irwin
- Division of Haematology & Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Park JR, Bagatell R, Cohn SL, Pearson AD, Villablanca JG, Berthold F, Burchill S, Boubaker A, McHugh K, Nuchtern JG, London WB, Seibel NL, Lindwasser OW, Maris JM, Brock P, Schleiermacher G, Ladenstein R, Matthay KK, Valteau-Couanet D. Revisions to the International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria: A Consensus Statement From the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35:2580-2587. [PMID: 28471719 PMCID: PMC5676955 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2016.72.0177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 205] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose More than two decades ago, an international working group established the International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria (INRC) to assess treatment response in children with neuroblastoma. However, this system requires modification to incorporate modern imaging techniques and new methods for quantifying bone marrow disease that were not previously widely available. The National Cancer Institute sponsored a clinical trials planning meeting in 2012 to update and refine response criteria for patients with neuroblastoma. Methods Multidisciplinary investigators from 13 countries reviewed data from published trials performed through cooperative groups, consortia, and single institutions. Data from both prospective and retrospective trials were used to refine the INRC. Monthly international conference calls were held from 2011 to 2015, and consensus was reached through review by working group leadership and the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting leadership council. Results Overall response in the revised INRC will integrate tumor response in the primary tumor, soft tissue and bone metastases, and bone marrow. Primary and metastatic soft tissue sites will be assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and iodine-123 (123I) -metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scans or [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans if the tumor is MIBG nonavid. 123I-MIBG scans, or [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans for MIBG-nonavid disease, replace technetium-99m diphosphonate bone scintigraphy for osteomedullary metastasis assessment. Bone marrow will be assessed by histology or immunohistochemistry and cytology or immunocytology. Bone marrow with ≤ 5% tumor involvement will be classified as minimal disease. Urinary catecholamine levels will not be included in response assessment. Overall response will be defined as complete response, partial response, minor response, stable disease, or progressive disease. Conclusion These revised criteria will provide a uniform assessment of disease response, improve the interpretability of clinical trial results, and facilitate collaborative trial designs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie R. Park
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Rochelle Bagatell
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Susan L. Cohn
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Andrew D. Pearson
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Judith G. Villablanca
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Frank Berthold
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Susan Burchill
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ariane Boubaker
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Kieran McHugh
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Jed G. Nuchtern
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Wendy B. London
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Nita L. Seibel
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - O. Wolf Lindwasser
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - John M. Maris
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Penelope Brock
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Gudrun Schleiermacher
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Ruth Ladenstein
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Katherine K. Matthay
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| | - Dominique Valteau-Couanet
- Julie R. Park, Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA; Rochelle Bagatell and John M. Maris, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Susan L. Cohn, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Andrew D. Pearson, Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey; Susan Burchill, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds; Kieran McHugh and Penelope Brock, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom; Judith G. Villablanca, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles; Katherine K. Matthay, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Frank Berthold, Children’s Hospital and University of Cologne, Köln, Germany; Ariane Boubaker, Institute of Radiology, Clinique de La Source, Lausanne, Switzerland; Jed G. Nuchtern, Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Wendy B. London, Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorder Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Nita L. Seibel and O. Wolf Lindwasser, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Gudrun Schleiermacher, Institut Curie, Paris; Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; and Ruth Ladenstein, Children’s Cancer Research Institute, St Anna Children’s Hospital, Vienna, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Trout AT, Towbin AJ, Klingbeil L, Weiss BD, von Allmen D. Single and multidimensional measurements underestimate neuroblastoma response to therapy. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017; 64:18-24. [PMID: 27440309 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.26159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2016] [Revised: 06/26/2016] [Accepted: 06/28/2016] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Changes in three-dimensional (3D) measurements of neuroblastoma are used to assess response. Linear measurements may not accurately characterize tumor size due to the infiltrative character of these tumors. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of one-dimensional (1D), two-dimensional (2D), and 3D measurements in characterizing neuroblastoma response compared to a reference standard of tumor volume. PROCEDURE We retrospectively reviewed imaging for 34 patients with stage 3 or 4 neuroblastoma. Blinded readers contoured or made linear measurements of tumors. Correlation coefficients were used to compare linear measurements to volumetric and 3D measurements. Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess bias between measurements. Sensitivity and specificity for patient events and survival were calculated for each measurement technique. RESULTS Mean patient age was 2.9 ± 3.0 years (range 0-15 years). There was strong correlation between volumetric and 1D (r = 0.78, P < 0.0001), 2D (r = 0.86, P < 0.0001), and 3D (r = 0.88, P < 0.0001) measurements. Mean bias between volumetric measurements and 1D, 2D, and 3D measurements was 37.1% (95% limits: 6.2-67.9%), 16.1% (95% limits: -11.7-43.8%), and 7.7% (95% limits: -19.7-35.1%), respectively. 1D and 2D measurements undercategorized response versus volumetric change in 88.2% (30/34) and 29.4% (10/34) of cases. 3D measurements incorrectly characterized response in 16.7% (4/24) of cases versus volumetric change. 3D measurements were highly sensitive for patient events and survival, but all measurement techniques had poor specificity. CONCLUSIONS 3D measurements most accurately quantify neuroblastoma size response versus volumetric change in patients with stage 3 and 4 neuroblastoma. 1D and 2D measurements underrepresent tumor response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew T Trout
- Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Alexander J Towbin
- Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Lindsey Klingbeil
- Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Brian D Weiss
- Cancer and Blood Disease Institute, Division of Oncology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| | - Daniel von Allmen
- Department of Pediatric and Thoracic Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Angelini P, Irwin MS. Measuring primary tumor response in neuroblastoma: More than using a ruler. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017; 64:11-12. [PMID: 27762062 DOI: 10.1002/pbc.26274] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2016] [Accepted: 08/24/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Paola Angelini
- Division of Haematology-Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Meredith S Irwin
- Division of Haematology-Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Ferris MJ, Danish H, Switchenko JM, Deng C, George BA, Goldsmith KC, Wasilewski KJ, Cash WT, Khan MK, Eaton BR, Esiashvili N. Favorable Local Control From Consolidative Radiation Therapy in High-Risk Neuroblastoma Despite Gross Residual Disease, Positive Margins, or Nodal Involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 97:806-812. [PMID: 28244417 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.11.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2016] [Revised: 10/27/2016] [Accepted: 11/21/2016] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report the influence of radiation therapy (RT) dose and surgical pathology variables on disease control and overall survival (OS) in patients treated for high-risk neuroblastoma at a single institution. METHODS AND MATERIALS We conducted a retrospective study of 67 high-risk neuroblastoma patients who received RT as part of definitive management from January 2003 until May 2014. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 26 patients (38.8%) failed distantly; 4 of these patients also failed locally. One patient progressed locally without distant failure. Local control was 92.5%, and total disease control was 59.5%. No benefit was demonstrated for RT doses over 21.6 Gy with respect to local relapse-free survival (P=.55), disease-free survival (P=.22), or OS (P=.72). With respect to local relapse-free survival, disease-free survival, and OS, no disadvantage was seen for positive lymph nodes on surgical pathology, positive surgical margins, or gross residual disease. Of the patients with gross residual disease, 75% (6 of 8) went on to have no evidence of disease at time of last follow-up, and the 2 patients who failed did so distantly. CONCLUSIONS Patients with high-risk neuroblastoma in this series maintained excellent local control, with no benefit demonstrated for radiation doses over 21.6 Gy, and no disadvantage demonstrated for gross residual disease after surgery, positive surgical margins, or pathologic lymph node positivity. Though the limitations of a retrospective review for an uncommon disease must be kept in mind, with small numbers in some of the subgroups, it seems that dose escalation should be considered only in exceptional circumstances.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Ferris
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
| | - Hasan Danish
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Jeffrey M Switchenko
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Claudia Deng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Bradley A George
- Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Kelly C Goldsmith
- Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Karen J Wasilewski
- Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - W Thomas Cash
- Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Mohammad K Khan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Bree R Eaton
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Natia Esiashvili
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Casey DL, Kushner BH, Cheung NKV, Modak S, LaQuaglia MP, Wolden SL. Local Control With 21-Gy Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Neuroblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96:393-400. [PMID: 27473818 PMCID: PMC5476959 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.05.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/29/2016] [Revised: 04/27/2016] [Accepted: 05/19/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate local control after 21-Gy radiation therapy (RT) to the primary site in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS After receiving dose-intensive chemotherapy and gross total resection (GTR), 246 patients (aged 1.2-17.9 years, median 4.0 years) with high-risk neuroblastoma underwent RT to the primary site at Memorial Sloan Kettering from 2000 to 2014. Radiation therapy consisted of 21 Gy in twice-daily fractions of 1.5 Gy each. Local failure (LF) was correlated with biologic prognostic factors and clinical findings at the time of diagnosis and start of RT. RESULTS Median follow-up of surviving patients was 6.4 years. Cumulative incidence of LF was 7.1% at 2 years after RT and 9.8% at 5 years after RT. The isolated LF rate was 3.0%. Eighty-six percent of all local failures were within the RT field. Local control was worse in patients who required more than 1 surgical resection to achieve GTR (22.4% vs 8.3%, P=.01). There was also a trend toward inferior local control with MYCN-amplified tumors or serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥1500 U/L (P=.09 and P=.06, respectively). CONCLUSION After intensive chemotherapy and maximal surgical debulking, hyperfractionated RT with 21 Gy in high-risk neuroblastoma results in excellent local control. Given the young patient age, concern for late effects, and local control >90%, dose reduction may be appropriate for patients without MYCN amplification who achieve GTR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dana L Casey
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Brian H Kushner
- Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Nai-Kong V Cheung
- Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Shakeel Modak
- Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Michael P LaQuaglia
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Suzanne L Wolden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
| |
Collapse
|