Matthew J Ferris1, Hasan Danish2, Jeffrey M Switchenko3, Claudia Deng2, Bradley A George4, Kelly C Goldsmith4, Karen J Wasilewski4, W Thomas Cash4, Mohammad K Khan2, Bree R Eaton2, Natia Esiashvili2. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: mjferri@emory.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia.
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.
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 neuroblastomapatients 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.
Authors: Brian R Englum; Kristy L Rialon; Paul J Speicher; Brian Gulack; Timothy A Driscoll; Susan G Kreissman; Henry E Rice Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: G M Brodeur; J Pritchard; F Berthold; N L Carlsen; V Castel; R P Castelberry; B De Bernardi; A E Evans; M Favrot; F Hedborg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alexander F Bagley; David R Grosshans; Nancy V Philip; Jennifer Foster; Mary Frances McAleer; Susan L McGovern; Yasmin Lassen-Ramshad; Anita Mahajan; Arnold C Paulino Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Jaques van Heerden; Mariana Kruger; Tonya Esterhuizen; Marc Hendricks; Jennifer Geel; Ané Büchner; Gita Naidu; Jan du Plessis; Barry Vanemmenes; Ronelle Uys; G P Hadley Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Kevin X Liu; Arlene Naranjo; Fan F Zhang; Steven G DuBois; Steve E Braunstein; Stephan D Voss; Geetika Khanna; Wendy B London; John J Doski; James D Geiger; Susan G Kreissman; Stephan A Grupp; Lisa R Diller; Julie R Park; Daphne A Haas-Kogan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ji Hwan Jo; Seung Do Ahn; Minji Koh; Jong Hoon Kim; Sang-Wook Lee; Si Yeol Song; Sang Min Yoon; Young Seok Kim; Su Ssan Kim; Jin-Hong Park; Jinhong Jung; Eun Kyung Choi Journal: Radiat Oncol J Date: 2019-09-30
Authors: Danny Jazmati; Sarina Butzer; Barbara Hero; Dalia Ahmad Khalil; Julien Merta; Christian Bäumer; Gina Plum; Jörg Fuchs; Friederike Koerber; Theresa Steinmeier; Sarah Peters; Jerome Doyen; Theresa Thole; Matthias Schmidt; Christoph Blase; Stephan Tippelt; Angelika Eggert; Rudolf Schwarz; Thorsten Simon; Beate Timmermann Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 6.244