PURPOSE: Relapse-free survival (RFS) is a powerful measure of treatment efficacy. We describe the sensitivity of standard surveillance studies for detecting relapse of neuroblastoma (NB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients were in complete/very good partial remission of high-risk NB; routine monitoring revealed asymptomatic and, therefore, unsuspected relapses in 113 patients, whereas 41 patients had symptoms prompting urgent evaluations. Assessments every 2 to 4 months included computed tomography, iodine-131-metaiodobenzylguanidine (131)I-MIBG; through November 1999) or iodine-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) scan, urine catecholamines, and bone marrow (BM) histology. Bone scan was routine through 2002. RESULTS: (123)I-MIBG scan was the most reliable study for revealing unsuspected relapse; it had an 82% detection rate, which was superior to the rates with (131)I-MIBG scan (64%; P = .1), bone scan (36%; P < .001), and BM histology (34%; P < .001). Among asymptomatic patients, (123)I-MIBG scan was the sole positive study indicating relapse in 25 (27%) of 91 patients compared with one (4.5%) of 22 patients for (131)I-MIBG scan (P = .04) and 0% to 6% of patients for each of the other studies (P < .001). Patients whose monitoring included (123)I-MIBG scan were significantly less likely than patients monitored by (131)I-MIBG scan to have an extensive osteomedullary relapse and had a significantly longer survival from relapse (P < .001) and from diagnosis (P = .002). They also had significantly longer survival than patients with symptomatic relapses (P = .002). CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG scan is essential for valid estimation of the duration of RFS of patients with high-risk NB. Without monitoring that includes (123)I-MIBG scan, caution should be used when comparing RFS between institutions and protocols.
PURPOSE: Relapse-free survival (RFS) is a powerful measure of treatment efficacy. We describe the sensitivity of standard surveillance studies for detecting relapse of neuroblastoma (NB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients were in complete/very good partial remission of high-risk NB; routine monitoring revealed asymptomatic and, therefore, unsuspected relapses in 113 patients, whereas 41 patients had symptoms prompting urgent evaluations. Assessments every 2 to 4 months included computed tomography, iodine-131-metaiodobenzylguanidine (131)I-MIBG; through November 1999) or iodine-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) scan, urine catecholamines, and bone marrow (BM) histology. Bone scan was routine through 2002. RESULTS: (123)I-MIBG scan was the most reliable study for revealing unsuspected relapse; it had an 82% detection rate, which was superior to the rates with (131)I-MIBG scan (64%; P = .1), bone scan (36%; P < .001), and BM histology (34%; P < .001). Among asymptomatic patients, (123)I-MIBG scan was the sole positive study indicating relapse in 25 (27%) of 91 patients compared with one (4.5%) of 22 patients for (131)I-MIBG scan (P = .04) and 0% to 6% of patients for each of the other studies (P < .001). Patients whose monitoring included (123)I-MIBG scan were significantly less likely than patients monitored by (131)I-MIBG scan to have an extensive osteomedullary relapse and had a significantly longer survival from relapse (P < .001) and from diagnosis (P = .002). They also had significantly longer survival than patients with symptomatic relapses (P = .002). CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG scan is essential for valid estimation of the duration of RFS of patients with high-risk NB. Without monitoring that includes (123)I-MIBG scan, caution should be used when comparing RFS between institutions and protocols.
Authors: S G DuBois; Y Kalika; J N Lukens; G M Brodeur; R C Seeger; J B Atkinson; G M Haase; C T Black; C Perez; H Shimada; R Gerbing; D O Stram; K K Matthay Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 1999 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: K K Matthay; J G Villablanca; R C Seeger; D O Stram; R E Harris; N K Ramsay; P Swift; H Shimada; C T Black; G M Brodeur; R B Gerbing; C P Reynolds Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-10-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth Fox; John M Maris; Brigitte C Widemann; Kysa Meek; Anne Goodwin; Wendy Goodspeed; Marie Kromplewski; Molly E Fouts; Diane Medina; Steve Y Cho; Susan L Cohn; Andrew Krivoshik; Anne E Hagey; Peter C Adamson; Frank M Balis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Brian H Kushner; Stephen S Roberts; Danielle N Friedman; Deborah Kuk; Irina Ostrovnaya; Shakeel Modak; Kim Kramer; Ellen M Basu; Nai-Kong V Cheung Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-02-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Erin K Barr; Kathryn Laurie; Kristen Wroblewski; Mark A Applebaum; Susan L Cohn Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Henriette Ingrid Melzer; Eva Coppenrath; Irene Schmid; Michael H Albert; Dietrich von Schweinitz; Coral Tudball; Peter Bartenstein; Thomas Pfluger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Dana L Casey; Brian H Kushner; Nai-Kong V Cheung; Shakeel Modak; Michael P LaQuaglia; Suzanne L Wolden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Brian H Kushner; Irene Y Cheung; Shakeel Modak; Kim Kramer; Govind Ragupathi; Nai-Kong V Cheung Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: K K Matthay; B Shulkin; R Ladenstein; J Michon; F Giammarile; V Lewington; A D J Pearson; S L Cohn Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Hanwen Zhang; Ruimin Huang; Nai-Kong V Cheung; Hongfen Guo; Pat B Zanzonico; Howard T Thaler; Jason S Lewis; Ronald G Blasberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531