4.4 Article

Outcome of renal tumors registered in Japan Wilms Tumor Study-2 (JWiTS-2): A report from the Japan Children's Cancer Group (JCCG)

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 65, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.27056

关键词

JCCG; JWiTS; pediatric; renal tumor; Wilms tumor

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [JP17H04356]
  2. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17H04356, 16K10050] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundJapan Wilms Tumor Study-2 (JWiTS-2) mandated central pathology review for all case registrations. The study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with unilateral Wilms tumor enrolled on the JWiTS-1 and JWiTS-2 trials. ProcedureThe JWiTS-2 trial (2006-2014), a prospective, single-arm study, required compulsory submission of histologic slides to central pathology, while in the JWiTS-1 trial, such submission was not compulsory. Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) versus cases in the JWiTS-1 trial (1996-2005) were statistically evaluated. ResultsOf 277 enrolled patients with primary renal tumors diagnosed by the central pathology review system, 225 patients with unilateral renal tumors were followed up over 9 years. The RFS and OS of Wilms tumor (n=178) were 90.4% (P=0.0003) and 96.8% (P=0.054), respectively, as compared to 74.9% and 89.4% in JWiTS-1. RFS rates of stages I-III Wilms tumor in JWiTS-2 were more than 90%, although the outcome of stage IV Wilms tumor was significantly poorer (RFS: 66.2%) (P=0.0094). RFS and OS of clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK; n=31) were 82.4% (P=0.30) and 91.3% (P=0.42), respectively, as compared to 68.8% and 81.3% in JWiTS-1, and those of rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (RTK; n=16) were 18.8% (P=0.88) and 25.0% (P=0.80), respectively, as compared to 23.5% and 23.5% in JWiTS-1. ConclusionsRFS and OS for stages I-III Wilms tumor were improved in JWiTS-2 compared to JWiTS-1, whereas outcomes for stage IV Wilms tumor, CCSK, and RTK did not improve.

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