4.4 Article

Pattern of loco-regional relapses and treatment in pediatric esthesioneuroblastoma: The French very rare tumors group (Fracture) contribution

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 67, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.28154

关键词

children; esthesioneuroblastoma; leptomeningeal relapse; olfactory neuroblastoma; radiotherapy; rare tumor

资金

  1. Enfant, cancers et sante association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB) is a rare neuroectodermal tumor that seldom occurs during childhood. Multimodal treatments are currently proposed, but the place of each therapy is still in debate. Our objective is to describe clinical evolution, especially the pattern of relapses and determine contributors to tumor progression. Procedure Medical charts of all children (<= 18 years) affected by ENB treated in France from January 1990 to December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Results Eighteen patients were selected (10 males). Median age at diagnosis was 12.2 years (0.9-18). Tumor extension was Kadish stage A (n = 1), B (n = 3), C (n = 10), and D (n = 4). Hyams histological grades were I (n = 1), II (n = 3), III (n = 6), and IV (n = 6) (in two cases not defined). Initial cervical nodal spread was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (n = 15), computed tomography scan (n = 16), fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-computed tomography (n = 7), and cytological/histological analysis (n = 2). N1 stage was confirmed by imaging in two of 18 cases and one of two cases had cervical node dissection with neck irradiation (58 Gy). After a median follow-up of survivors of 7.6 years (3.8-17.9), 10 patients developed neuromeningeal progression, whereas no cervical nodal relapse occurred and only eight survived. Both 5-year overall and event-free survival rates were 44.4% (+/- 11.7%). Conclusions The poor prognosis is mainly related to neuromeningeal dissemination that should be considered during treatment strategy. However, cervical lymph node relapse is rare.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据