4.5 Article

Association of Image-Defined Risk Factors with Clinical, Biological Features and Outcome in Neuroblastoma

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children9111707

关键词

neuroblastoma; pediatric; surgery; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the impact of risk factors on the prognosis of neuroblastoma patients, finding a clear correlation between positive IDRF status at diagnosis and other prognostic factors such as high NSE levels, MYCN amplification status, large tumor size, incomplete tumor resection, and unfavorable outcomes.
Background: Neuroblastoma (NB) is the most common pediatric extracranial solid tumor and the most common cancer encountered in children younger than 12 months of age. Localized tumors have a good prognosis, but some cases undergo treatment failure and recurrence. The aim of the study was to analyze the link between the neuroblastoma risk factors and the prognosis for patients diagnosed with NB. Method: All patients admitted to the department of Pediatric Surgery, Grigore Alexandrescu Clinical Emergency Hospital for Children, between 1 January 2010 and 1 July 2022 were included in this analysis when diagnosed with neuroblastoma. Results: Thirty-one patients with NB were admitted to the surgical department, 20 boys and 11 girls. We observed an association between large tumors and positive imaging-defined risk factor (IDRF) status; The Fisher test showed an association between the tumor's diameter when bigger than 8 cm and a positive IDRF status, with p < 0.001. We supposed that positive IDRF status at diagnosis may be linked to other prognostic factors. We discovered that an NSE value over 300 was associated with IDRF status (p < 0.001, phi = 0.692) and death. Conclusions: This study confirms the impact of IDRF status at diagnosis as it can be clearly correlated with other risk factors, such as a high level of NSE, MYCN amplification status, large tumor size, incomplete tumor resection, and an unfavorable outcome.

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

4.5
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