PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the prognostic impact of lymph node (LN) involvement and sampling in patients with Wilms tumor (WT) and the minimum number of LNs needed for accurate staging. METHODS: We reviewed all patients with unilateral, nonmetastatic WT enrolled in the National Wilms Tumor Study 4 or 5. Data were abstracted on patient demographics, tumor histology, staging, number of LNs sampled, and disease-specific and overall patient outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3409 patients had complete information on LN sampling. Five-year event-free survival (EFS) was lower in patients with nodal disease (P < .001); the effect of LN positivity was greater for patients with anaplastic (P = .047) than with favorable histology (P = .02). The likelihood of obtaining a positive LN was higher when sampling at least 7 LNs. However, after controlling for tumor histology and stage, the number of LNs sampled did not predict EFS variations (P = .75). Among patients with stage II disease, patients with LN sampling (P = .055) had improved EFS, largely reflecting poorer EFS in patients with anaplastic tumors (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node sampling is particularly important for patients with stage II anaplastic WT. Although the likelihood of finding a positive LN was greater when more than 7 LNs were sampled, EFS was not impacted by the number of LNs sampled.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the prognostic impact of lymph node (LN) involvement and sampling in patients with Wilms tumor (WT) and the minimum number of LNs needed for accurate staging. METHODS: We reviewed all patients with unilateral, nonmetastatic WT enrolled in the National Wilms Tumor Study 4 or 5. Data were abstracted on patient demographics, tumor histology, staging, number of LNs sampled, and disease-specific and overall patient outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3409 patients had complete information on LN sampling. Five-year event-free survival (EFS) was lower in patients with nodal disease (P < .001); the effect of LN positivity was greater for patients with anaplastic (P = .047) than with favorable histology (P = .02). The likelihood of obtaining a positive LN was higher when sampling at least 7 LNs. However, after controlling for tumor histology and stage, the number of LNs sampled did not predict EFS variations (P = .75). Among patients with stage II disease, patients with LN sampling (P = .055) had improved EFS, largely reflecting poorer EFS in patients with anaplastic tumors (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Lymph node sampling is particularly important for patients with stage II anaplastic WT. Although the likelihood of finding a positive LN was greater when more than 7 LNs were sampled, EFS was not impacted by the number of LNs sampled.
Authors: Ying Zhuge; Michael C Cheung; Relin Yang; Leonidas G Koniaris; Holly L Neville; Juan E Sola Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: N Breslow; G Churchill; J B Beckwith; D J Fernbach; H B Otherson; M Tefft; G J D'Angio Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1985-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: B Jereb; M F Tournade; J Lemerle; P A Voûte; J F Delemarre; L Ahstrom; R Flamant; R Gérard-Marchant; B Sandstedt Journal: Cancer Date: 1980-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J E Tepper; M J O'Connell; D Niedzwiecki; D Hollis; C Compton; A B Benson; B Cummings; L Gunderson; J S Macdonald; R J Mayer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harry W Herr; Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; S Machele Donat; Victor E Reuter; Dean F Bajorin Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Janna A Hol; Kathy Pritchard-Jones; Harm van Tinteren; Rhoikos Furtwängler; Arnauld C Verschuur; Gordan M Vujanic; Ivo Leuschner; Jesper Brok; Christian Rübe; Anne M Smets; Geert O Janssens; Jan Godzinski; Gema L Ramírez-Villar; Beatriz de Camargo; Heidi Segers; Paola Collini; Manfred Gessler; Christophe Bergeron; Filippo Spreafico; Norbert Graf Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Deborah F Billmire; Frederick J Rescorla; Jonathan H Ross; Marc G Schlatter; Bryan J Dicken; Mark D Krailo; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Thomas A Olson; John W Cullen; A Lindsay Frazier Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Amanda F Saltzman; Derek E Smith; Dexiang Gao; Debashis Ghosh; Arya Amini; Jennifer H Aldrink; Roshni Dasgupta; Kenneth W Gow; Richard D Glick; Peter F Ehrlich; Nicholas G Cost Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Simone de Campos Vieira Abib; Chan Hon Chui; Sharon Cox; Abdelhafeez H Abdelhafeez; Israel Fernandez-Pineda; Ahmed Elgendy; Jonathan Karpelowsky; Pablo Lobos; Marc Wijnen; Jörg Fuchs; Andrea Hayes; Justin T Gerstle Journal: Ecancermedicalscience Date: 2022-02-17
Authors: Lauren N Parsons; Elizabeth A Mullen; James I Geller; Yueh-Yun Chi; Geetika Khanna; Richard D Glick; Jennifer H Aldrink; Kelly L Vallance; Yeonil Kim; Conrad V Fernandez; Jeffrey S Dome; Elizabeth J Perlman Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hsin-Hsiao S Wang; Michael R Abern; Nicholas G Cost; David I Chu; Sherry S Ross; John S Wiener; Jonathan C Routh Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan P Walker; Jared S Johnson; Megan M Eguchi; Amanda F Saltzman; Myles Cockburn; Nicholas G Cost Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 1.830