Literature DB >> 2313336

A comparison of four staging systems for localized and regional neuroblastoma: a report from the Childrens Cancer Study Group.

A E Evans1, G J D'Angio, H N Sather, A A de Lorimier, A Dalton, R S Ungerleider, J Z Finklestein, G D Hammond.   

Abstract

Four major staging systems have been used to estimate the prognosis for children with local and regional neuroblastoma (NBL). Data obtained at diagnosis for 251 neuroblastoma patients from two Childrens Cancer Study Group (CCSG) studies were analyzed according to staging systems of the CCSG, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, the Pediatric Oncology Group (POG), and the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) tumor-nodes-metastasis (TNM) system. The most significant variables were found to be age, tumor stage, extent of tumor removal, transgression of the midline by tumor infiltration, and site of primary tumor. Involvement of lymph nodes per se was not a bad prognostic sign unless associated with extension beyond the midline, the latter being the single most important prognostic variable. All four staging systems had value for prognostication and all identified with accuracy the low stage patient (stage I, stage A) who fares well (greater than or equal to 87% survival). The CCSG definition of stages II and III disease discriminated prognostic groups best among the remaining patients, and was able to identify the child with local-regional NBL with poor survival. The estimated 5-year survival rates for children with regional tumor (stage III, IIIA[N]), according to the four systems were 44%, 74%, 74%, and 74% for the CCSG, St Jude, POG, and UICC methods, respectively. We conclude that all four staging systems effectively define good-prognosis patients with localized disease but that the CCSG staging system most accurately identifies patients with regional tumor who have a poor outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2313336     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1990.8.4.678

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  7 in total

Review 1.  [Neuroblastoma].

Authors:  Victoria Castel; Adela Cañete; Rosa Noguera; Samuel Navarro; Silvestre Oltra
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.405

2.  Prognostic importance of DNA flow cytometrical, histopathological and immunohistochemical parameters in neuroblastomas.

Authors:  N L Carlsen; K Ornvold; I J Christensen; H Laursen; J K Larsen
Journal:  Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol       Date:  1992

3.  Neuroblastoma arising from the celiac ganglion.

Authors:  F Ito; T Ito; H Ando; T Seo
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 1.827

4.  A murine model for bone marrow metastasis established by an i.v. injection of C-1300 neuroblastoma in A/J mice.

Authors:  M Iwakawa; K Ando; H Ohkawa; S Koike; Y J Chen
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 5.150

5.  Diagnosis and follow-up of neuroblastoma by means of iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy and bone scan, and the influence of histology.

Authors:  N L Hadj-Djilani; N E Lebtahi; A B Delaloye; R Laurini; D Beck
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1995-04

Review 6.  Neuroblastoma stage IV-S.

Authors:  T D Miale; K Kirpekar
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.064

7.  Unresectable localized neuroblastoma: improved survival after primary chemotherapy including carboplatin-etoposide. Neuroblastoma Study Group of the Société Française d'Oncologie Pédiatrique (SFOP).

Authors:  H Rubie; J Michon; D Plantaz; M C Peyroulet; C Coze; D Frappaz; P Chastagner; M C Baranzelli; F Méchinaud; P Boutard; P Lutz; Y Perel; G Leverger; L de Lumley; F Millot; J L Stéphan; G Margueritte; O Hartmann
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 7.640

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.