| Literature DB >> 33912462 |
Marek Ussowicz1, Aleksandra Wieczorek2, Agnieszka Dłużniewska3, Anna Pieczonka4, Robert Dębski5, Katarzyna Drabko6, Jolanta Goździk3, Walentyna Balwierz2, Daria Handkiewicz-Junak7, Jacek Wachowiak4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neuroblastoma is the most common pediatric extracranial tumor with varied prognoses, but the survival of treated refractory or relapsing patients remains poor.Entities:
Keywords: MIBG; busulfan and melphalan; hematopoietic stem cell transplant; high-dose chemotherapy; pediatric; treosulfan-based conditioning
Year: 2021 PMID: 33912462 PMCID: PMC8075349 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.647361
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Patient characteristics.
| Category | Value | |
|---|---|---|
|
| Patients | 55 |
| MIBG therapies | 59 | |
|
| Male | 32 |
| Female | 23 | |
|
| Median | 78.4 |
| Range | 18.3-193.2 | |
|
| Amplified | 10 |
| Non-amplified | 26 | |
| Unknown | 19 | |
|
| Stage 3 | 2 |
| Stage 4 | 53 | |
|
| Relapsed | 22 |
| Resistant | 27 | |
| Unknown | 6 | |
|
| Median | 15.6 |
| Range | 5.8-133 | |
|
| Median | 300 |
| Range | 100-500 | |
|
| Median | 17.85 |
| Range | 6.25-26.6 | |
|
| Median | 4 |
| Range | 0-30 | |
|
| Standard risk ≤2 | 25 |
| High risk >2 | 28 | |
|
| Yes | 16 |
| No | 35 | |
|
| None | 15 |
| Standard dose | 3 | |
| HDCT | 37 | |
|
| Busulfan-melfalan | 24 |
| Treosulfan-melfalan-thiotepa | 9 | |
| Treosulfan-cyclophosphamide | 3 | |
| Fludarabine-melphalan-thiotepa | 1 | |
|
| Yes | 5 |
| No | 50 | |
|
| Median | 22 |
| Range | 13-103 | |
|
| None | 11 |
| Autologous | 37 | |
| Allogeneic, | 2 | |
| Allogeneic, | 2 | |
| Allogeneic, | 6 | |
| syngeneic | 1 | |
HDCT, high-dose chemotherapy; MIBG, meta-iodobenzylguanidine; SOS/VOD, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome/veno-occlusive disease.
Figure 1Distribution of patients treated with MIBG therapy.
Survival after MIBG therapy.
| Number of patients | 5 year OS | log rank p | 5 year EFS | log rank p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | 55 | 38% | n/a | 25.2% | n/a | |
| Sex | Male | 32 | 51.9% | ns | 31.3% | ns |
| Female | 23 | 29% | 19.7% | |||
| Disease status | Resistant | 27 | 58.7% | p=0.0045 | 45% | p=0.0003 |
| Relapsed | 22 | 21.2% | 11.4% | |||
| Not specified | 6 | 0% | 0% | |||
| MYCN status | Amplified | 10 | 26.7% | p=0.02 | 26.7% | p=0.0036 |
| Not amplified | 26 | 58.6% | 39.1% | |||
| Unknown | 19 | 19.8% | 6.3% | |||
| Post-MIBG | ≤2 | 25 | 42.2% | ns | 32.1% | ns |
| >2 | 28 | 36.7% | 25.7% | |||
| Extraosseus | Yes | 17 | 41.7% | ns | 30% | ns |
| No | 36 | 36.8% | 27.4% | |||
| Chemotherapy | No | 15 | 0% | p<0.0001 | 0% | p<0.001 |
| Standard | 3 | 0% | 0% | |||
| HDCT | 37 | 53.8% | 37.1% | |||
| HDCT | Busulfan | 24 | 43.9% | ns | 31% | ns |
| Treosulfan | 12 | 66.7% | 50% | |||
| SCT | No | 9 | 0% | p=0.03 | 0% | ns |
| Auto | 35 | 47.1% | 31.2% | |||
| Allo/haplo/syn | 11 | 43.6% | 27.3% | |||
| Anti-GD2 | No | 20 | 32.7% | p=0.003 | 32.9% | ns |
| Yes, after MIBG | 31 | 55.2% | 25.6% | |||
| Yes, prior to MIBG | 4 | 0 | 0 | |||
Allo, allogeneic; auto, autologous; HDCT, high-dose chemotherapy; n/a, not applicable; ns, not significant; SCT, stem cell transplantation; syn, syngeneic.
Figure 2The OS and EFS probabilities of patients treated with MIBG therapy (A), OS in relapsing or resistant disease (B), impact of MYCN status on OS (C) and EFS (D).
Figure 3The effect of chemotherapy on OS (A) and EFS (B). OS in patients with or without HDCT (C), and impact of different donor types on OS (D). The effect of immune therapy (IT) on OS (E), and EFS (F).
Figure 4Probability of thyroid failure after MIBG therapy.