Steven G DuBois1, Rajen Mody2, Arlene Naranjo3, Collin Van Ryn3, Douglas Russ4, Derek Oldridge4, Susan Kreissman5, David L Baker6, Marguerite Parisi7, Barry L Shulkin8, Harrison Bai4, Sharon J Diskin4, Vandana Batra4, John M Maris4, Julie R Park7, Katherine K Matthay9, Gregory Yanik2. 1. Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. CS Mott Children's Hospital, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Children's Oncology Group Statistics and Data Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 4. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Princess Margaret Hospital for Children, Perth, Australia. 7. Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 8. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. 9. UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest that neuroblastomas that do not accumulate metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) on diagnostic imaging (MIBG non-avid) may have more favorable features compared with MIBG avid tumors. We compared clinical features, biologic features, and clinical outcomes between patients with MIBG nonavid and MIBG avid neuroblastoma. PROCEDURE: Patients had metastatic high- or intermediate-risk neuroblastoma and were treated on Children's Oncology Group protocols A3973 or A3961. Comparisons of clinical and biologic features according to MIBG avidity were made with chi-squared or Fisher exact tests. Event-free (EFS) and overall (OS) survival compared using log-rank tests and modeled using Cox models. RESULTS: Thirty of 343 patients (8.7%) had MIBG nonavid disease. Patients with nonavid tumors were less likely to have adrenal primary tumors (34.5 vs. 57.2%; P = 0.019), bone metastases (36.7 vs. 61.7%; P = 0.008), or positive urine catecholamines (66.7 vs. 91.0%; P < 0.001) compared with patients with MIBG avid tumors. Nonavid tumors were more likely to be MYCN amplified (53.8 vs. 32.6%; P = 0.030) and had lower norepinephrine transporter expression. Patients with MIBG nonavid disease had a 5-year EFS of 50.0% compared with 38.7% for patients with MIBG avid disease (P = 0.028). On multivariate testing in high-risk patients, MIBG avidity was the sole adverse prognostic factor for EFS identified (hazard ratio 1.77; 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.99; P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MIBG nonavid neuroblastoma have lower rates of adrenal primary tumors, bone metastasis, and catecholamine secretion. Despite being more likely to have MYCN-amplified tumors, these patients have superior outcomes compared with patients with MIBG avid disease.
BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest that neuroblastomas that do not accumulate metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) on diagnostic imaging (MIBG non-avid) may have more favorable features compared with MIBG avid tumors. We compared clinical features, biologic features, and clinical outcomes between patients with MIBG nonavid and MIBG avid neuroblastoma. PROCEDURE: Patients had metastatic high- or intermediate-risk neuroblastoma and were treated on Children's Oncology Group protocols A3973 or A3961. Comparisons of clinical and biologic features according to MIBG avidity were made with chi-squared or Fisher exact tests. Event-free (EFS) and overall (OS) survival compared using log-rank tests and modeled using Cox models. RESULTS: Thirty of 343 patients (8.7%) had MIBG nonavid disease. Patients with nonavid tumors were less likely to have adrenal primary tumors (34.5 vs. 57.2%; P = 0.019), bone metastases (36.7 vs. 61.7%; P = 0.008), or positive urine catecholamines (66.7 vs. 91.0%; P < 0.001) compared with patients with MIBG avid tumors. Nonavid tumors were more likely to be MYCN amplified (53.8 vs. 32.6%; P = 0.030) and had lower norepinephrine transporter expression. Patients with MIBG nonavid disease had a 5-year EFS of 50.0% compared with 38.7% for patients with MIBG avid disease (P = 0.028). On multivariate testing in high-risk patients, MIBG avidity was the sole adverse prognostic factor for EFS identified (hazard ratio 1.77; 95% confidence interval 1.04-2.99; P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with MIBG nonavid neuroblastoma have lower rates of adrenal primary tumors, bone metastasis, and catecholamine secretion. Despite being more likely to have MYCN-amplified tumors, these patients have superior outcomes compared with patients with MIBG avid disease.
Authors: J Treuner; U Feine; D Niethammer; W Müller-Schaumburg; J Meinke; E Eibach; R Dopfer; T Klingebiel; S Grumbach Journal: Lancet Date: 1984-02-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: H Shimada; I M Ambros; L P Dehner; J Hata; V V Joshi; B Roald; D O Stram; R B Gerbing; J N Lukens; K K Matthay; R P Castleberry Journal: Cancer Date: 1999-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Henriette Ingrid Melzer; Christoph Walz; Dietrich von Schweinitz; Eva Coppenrath; Irene Schmid; Peter Bartenstein; Thomas Pfluger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sean Carlin; Rob J Mairs; Anthony G McCluskey; Deborah A Tweddle; Alan Sprigg; Christine Estlin; Julian Board; Rani E George; Caroline Ellershaw; Andrew D J Pearson; John Lunec; Paolo G Montaldo; Mirco Ponzoni; Berthe L van Eck-Smit; Cees A Hoefnagel; Marieke D van den Brug; Godelieve A M Tytgat; Huib N Caron Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Susan G Kreissman; Robert C Seeger; Katherine K Matthay; Wendy B London; Richard Sposto; Stephan A Grupp; Daphne A Haas-Kogan; Michael P Laquaglia; Alice L Yu; Lisa Diller; Allen Buxton; Julie R Park; Susan L Cohn; John M Maris; C Patrick Reynolds; Judith G Villablanca Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Steven G Dubois; Ethan Geier; Vandana Batra; Sook Wah Yee; John Neuhaus; Mark Segal; Daniel Martinez; Bruce Pawel; Greg Yanik; Arlene Naranjo; Wendy B London; Susan Kreissman; David Baker; Edward Attiyeh; Michael D Hogarty; John M Maris; Kathleen Giacomini; Katherine K Matthay Journal: Int J Mol Imaging Date: 2012-09-25
Authors: Gitta Bleeker; Berthe L van Eck-Smit; Koos H Zwinderman; Rogier Versteeg; Max M van Noesel; Boen L Kam; Gertjan J Kaspers; Annelies van Schie; Susan G Kreissman; Gregory Yanik; Barbara Hero; Matthias Schmidt; Geneviève Laureys; Bieke Lambert; Ingrid Øra; Johannes H Schulte; Huib N Caron; Godelieve A Tytgat Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Venkatraman Radhakrishnan; Anand Raja; Manikandan Dhanushkodi; T S Ganesan; G Selvaluxmy; T G Sagar Journal: Indian J Pediatr Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Anoop Mayampurath; Siddhi Ramesh; Diana Michael; Liu Liu; Nicholas Feinberg; Meaghan Granger; Arlene Naranjo; Susan L Cohn; Samuel L Volchenboum; Mark A Applebaum Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2021-12
Authors: Stephen Turnock; David R Turton; Carlos Daniel Martins; Louis Chesler; Thomas C Wilson; Véronique Gouverneur; Graham Smith; Gabriela Kramer-Marek Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Laura Privitera; Patrick W Hales; Layla Musleh; Elizabeth Morris; Natalie Sizer; Giuseppe Barone; Paul Humphries; Kate Cross; Lorenzo Biassoni; Stefano Giuliani Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-12-06 Impact factor: 5.119