4.6 Article

Outcome of Stage IV Completely Necrotic Wilms Tumour and Local Stage III Treated According to the SIOP 2001 Protocol

期刊

CANCERS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13050976

关键词

Wilms tumour; nephroblastoma; completely necrotic; metastatic disease

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [C1188/A8687]
  2. Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group (CCLG)
  3. Association Leon Berard Enfant Cancereux and Enfant et Sante
  4. Deutsche Krebschilfe [50-2709-Gr2]
  5. Sociedade Brasileira de Oncologia Pediatrica
  6. Spanish Association Against Cancer
  7. SIOP-NL
  8. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre
  9. UK National Cancer Research Network
  10. Societe Francaise des Cancers de l'Enfant
  11. Gesellschaft fur Padiatrische Onkologie und Hamatologie
  12. Grupo Cooperativo Brasileiro para o Tratamento do Tumor de Wilms
  13. Spanish Society of Pediatric Haematology and Oncology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to explore the outcomes of metastatic patients with completely necrotic local stage III Wilms tumours, in relation to the application of postoperative radiotherapy. The results indicated excellent 5-year event-free survival and overall survival rates in this patient category, suggesting that abdominal irradiation may not be necessary in first-line treatment for these patients.
Simple Summary Around 15-20% of all Wilms tumour (WT) patients present with metastatic disease. Approximately 10% of these patients achieve complete necrosis after preoperative chemotherapy, which is associated with a favourable prognosis. The aim of this observational study is to describe the outcome of metastatic patients with completely necrotic (low-risk histology), local stage III WT treated according to the SIOP 2001 protocol, whether or not postoperative radiotherapy was applied. Objective: Wilms tumour (WT) patients with a localised completely necrotic nephroblastoma after preoperative chemotherapy are a favourable outcome group. Since the introduction of the SIOP 2001 protocol, the SIOP- Renal Tumour Study Group (SIOP-RTSG) has omitted radiotherapy for such patients with low-risk, local stage III in an attempt to reduce treatment burden. However, for metastatic patients with local stage III, completely necrotic WT, the recommendations led to ambiguous use. The purpose of this descriptive study is to demonstrate the outcomes of patients with metastatic, completely necrotic and local stage III WT in relation to the application of radiotherapy or not. Methods and materials: all metastatic patients with local stage III, completely necrotic WT after 6 weeks of preoperative chemotherapy who were registered in the SIOP 2001 study were included in this analysis. The pattern of recurrence according to the usage of radiation treatment and 5 year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) was analysed. Results: seven hundred and three metastatic WT patients were registered in the SIOP 2001 database. Of them, 47 patients had a completely necrotic, local stage III WT: 45 lung metastases (11 combined localisations), 1 liver/peritoneal, and 1 tumour thrombus in the renal vein and the inferior vena cava with bilateral pulmonary arterial embolism. Abdominal radiotherapy was administered in 29 patients (62%; 29 flank/abdominal irradiation and 9 combined with lung irradiation). Eighteen patients did not receive radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 6.6 years (range 1-151 months). Two of the 47 patients (4%) developed disease recurrence in the lung (one combined with abdominal relapse) and eventually died of the disease. Both patients had received abdominal radiotherapy, one of them combined with lung irradiation. Five-year EFS and OS were 95% and 95%, respectively. Conclusions: the outcome of patients with stage IV, local stage III, completely necrotic Wilms tumours is excellent. Our results suggest that abdominal irradiation in this patient category may not be of added value in first-line treatment, consistent with the current recommendation in the SIOP-RTSG 2016 UMBRELLA protocol.

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

4.6
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