Kevin Campbell1, Arlene Naranjo2, Emily Hibbitts2, Julie M Gastier-Foster3, Rochelle Bagatell4, Meredith S Irwin5, Hiroyuki Shimada6, Michael Hogarty4, Julie R Park7, Steven G DuBois8. 1. Dana-Farber / Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Children's Oncology Group Statistics and Data Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 3. Institute for Genomic Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Departments of Pathology and Pediatrics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. 6. Department of Pathology, Stanford University, USA. 7. Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Dana-Farber / Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: steven_dubois@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: MYCN amplification (MNA) is associated with poor outcomes in neuroblastoma. Less is known about heterogeneous MNA within a tumour. We compared clinical characteristics, biologic features and clinical outcomes of patients with heterogeneous MNA to patients with either homogeneous MNA or MYCN wild-type tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we categorized patients as having tumours with MYCN wild-type, homogeneous MNA (>20% amplified tumour cells) or heterogeneous MNA (≤20% amplified tumour cells). We used chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests to compare features between groups. We used log-rank tests and Cox models to compare event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) between groups. RESULTS: MYCN status and heterogeneity status (if amplified) could be ascertained in diagnostic tumour samples from 5975 patients, including 57 (1%) with heterogeneous MNA, 981 (16.4%) with homogeneous MNA, and 4937 (82.6%) with MYCN wild-type tumours. Multiple clinical and biological features differed between patients with heterogeneous vs. homogeneous MNA, including enrichment for thoracic primary sites and paucity of 1p loss of heterozygosity with heterogeneous MNA (p < 0.0001). Importantly, EFS and OS were not significantly different between patients with heterogeneous vs. homogeneous MNA. Further, EFS and OS for patients with heterogeneous MNA were significantly inferior to patients with wild-type MYCN. CONCLUSION: Although neuroblastomas with heterogeneous MNA demonstrate significantly different biological and clinical patterns compared with homogeneous MNA, prognosis is similar between the two groups. These results support current practice that treats patients with heterogeneous MNA similarly to patients with homogeneous MNA.
PURPOSE:MYCN amplification (MNA) is associated with poor outcomes in neuroblastoma. Less is known about heterogeneous MNA within a tumour. We compared clinical characteristics, biologic features and clinical outcomes of patients with heterogeneous MNA to patients with either homogeneous MNA or MYCN wild-type tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we categorized patients as having tumours with MYCN wild-type, homogeneous MNA (>20% amplified tumour cells) or heterogeneous MNA (≤20% amplified tumour cells). We used chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests to compare features between groups. We used log-rank tests and Cox models to compare event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) between groups. RESULTS:MYCN status and heterogeneity status (if amplified) could be ascertained in diagnostic tumour samples from 5975 patients, including 57 (1%) with heterogeneous MNA, 981 (16.4%) with homogeneous MNA, and 4937 (82.6%) with MYCN wild-type tumours. Multiple clinical and biological features differed between patients with heterogeneous vs. homogeneous MNA, including enrichment for thoracic primary sites and paucity of 1p loss of heterozygosity with heterogeneous MNA (p < 0.0001). Importantly, EFS and OS were not significantly different between patients with heterogeneous vs. homogeneous MNA. Further, EFS and OS for patients with heterogeneous MNA were significantly inferior to patients with wild-type MYCN. CONCLUSION: Although neuroblastomas with heterogeneous MNA demonstrate significantly different biological and clinical patterns compared with homogeneous MNA, prognosis is similar between the two groups. These results support current practice that treats patients with heterogeneous MNA similarly to patients with homogeneous MNA.
Authors: Kieuhoa T Vo; Katherine K Matthay; John Neuhaus; Wendy B London; Barbara Hero; Peter F Ambros; Akira Nakagawara; Doug Miniati; Kate Wheeler; Andrew D J Pearson; Susan L Cohn; Steven G DuBois Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edward F Attiyeh; Wendy B London; Yael P Mossé; Qun Wang; Cynthia Winter; Deepa Khazi; Patrick W McGrady; Robert C Seeger; A Thomas Look; Hiroyuki Shimada; Garrett M Brodeur; Susan L Cohn; Katherine K Matthay; John M Maris Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-11-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lisa A Moreau; Patrick McGrady; Wendy B London; Hiroyuki Shimada; Susan L Cohn; John M Maris; Lisa Diller; A Thomas Look; Rani E George Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jessica Theissen; Marc Boensch; Ruediger Spitz; David Betts; Sabine Stegmaier; Holger Christiansen; Felix Niggli; Freimut Schilling; Manfred Schwab; Thorsten Simon; Frank Westermann; Frank Berthold; Barbara Hero Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daria Thompson; Kieuhoa T Vo; Wendy B London; Matthias Fischer; Peter F Ambros; Akira Nakagawara; Garrett M Brodeur; Katherine K Matthay; Steven G DuBois Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Clare J Twist; Mary Lou Schmidt; Arlene Naranjo; Wendy B London; Sheena C Tenney; Araz Marachelian; Hiroyuki Shimada; Margaret H Collins; Natia Esiashvili; E Stanton Adkins; Peter Mattei; Michael Handler; Howard Katzenstein; Edward Attiyeh; Michael D Hogarty; Julie Gastier-Foster; Elizabeth Wagner; Katherine K Matthay; Julie R Park; John M Maris; Susan L Cohn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P F Ambros; I M Ambros; G M Brodeur; M Haber; J Khan; A Nakagawara; G Schleiermacher; F Speleman; R Spitz; W B London; S L Cohn; A D J Pearson; J M Maris Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ana P Berbegall; Dominik Bogen; Ulrike Pötschger; Klaus Beiske; Nick Bown; Valérie Combaret; Raffaella Defferrari; Marta Jeison; Katia Mazzocco; Luigi Varesio; Ales Vicha; Shifra Ash; Victoria Castel; Carole Coze; Ruth Ladenstein; Cormac Owens; Vassilios Papadakis; Ellen Ruud; Gabriele Amann; Angela R Sementa; Samuel Navarro; Peter F Ambros; Rosa Noguera; Inge M Ambros Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Atif Zafar; Wei Wang; Gang Liu; Xinjie Wang; Wa Xian; Frank McKeon; Jennifer Foster; Jia Zhou; Ruiwen Zhang Journal: Med Res Rev Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 12.944