4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Surgical implications for liver metastases in nephroblastoma -: Data from the SIOP/GPOH study

Journal

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 33-40

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2007.08.011

Keywords

nephroblastoma; Wilms' tumor; surgery; treatment; metastases; hepatic; liver; recurrence; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In children with Wilms' tumor, the 5-year overall survival rate is over 90% in the SIOP/GPOH study group. However, a small group of patients have tumor lesions in the liver at the time of initial diagnosis or as a recurrence. This group seems to have a worse prognosis in terms of survival. The treatment and outcome of patients with a hepatic recurrence were analyzed compared to previously published data of patients with primary hepatic metastases. Patients and methods: We reviewed the records of 45 out of 1365 patients enrolled in the SIOP 93-01/GPOH study and the SIOP 2001/GPOH study between April 1, 1994 and September 30, 2004. Median age at diagnosis was 6.49 years (1.37-34.16 years) in 29 patients who were initially presented with hepatic metastases (group I) with 9 mates and 20 females. In 16 children who had a recurrence of a nephroblastoma in the liver (group II), median age at diagnosis was 4.62 years (1.84-31.08 years) with 9 mates and 7 females. Results: In group I out of 29 patients, 11 died at a median of 13.07 months. Overall survival in group I was 62.58%. In group II, 9 patients died at a median 52 months. Overall survival in group II was 54.7%. Conclusion: This report suggests that when complicated by metastases of the liver, Wilms' tumor has a less favorable outcome. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy play a definitive role in the treatment of these children. The importance of complete resection of hepatic lesions in both groups should be emphasized. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available