4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Treatment of anaplastic histology Wilms' tumor: Results from the fifth National Wilms' Tumor Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 15, 页码 2352-2358

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.7852

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-42326] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose objective of the fifth National Wilms' Tumor Study (NWTS-5) was to evaluate the efficacy of treatment regimens for anaplastic histology Wilms' tumor (AH). Patients and Methods Prospective single-arm studies were conducted. Patients with stage I AH were treated with vincristine and dactinomycin for 18 weeks. Patients with stages II to IV diffuse AH were treated with vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide for 24 weeks plus flank/abdominal radiation. Results A total of 2,596 patients with Wilms' tumor were enrolled onto NWTS-5, of whom 281 (10.8%) had AH. Four-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) estimates for assessable patients with stage I AH (n = 29) were 69.5% (95% Cl, 46.9 to 84.0) and 82.6% (95% Cl, 63.1 to 92.4). In comparison, 4-year EFS and OS estimates for patients with stage I favorable histology (FH; n = 473) were 92.4% (95% Cl, 89.5 to 94.5) and 98.3% (95% Cl, 96.4 to 99.2). Four-year EFS estimates for patients who underwent immediate nephrectomy with stages 11 (n = 23), 111 (n = 43), and IV (n = 15) diffuse AH were 82.6% (95% Cl, 60.1 to 93.1), 64.7% (95% Cl, 48.3 to 77.7), and 33.3% (95% CI, 12.2 to 56.4), respectively. OS was similar to EFS for these groups. There were no local recurrences among patients with stage 11 AH. Four-year EFS and OS estimates for patients with bilateral AH (n = 29) were 43.8% (95% Cl, 24.2 to 61.8) and 55.2% (95% Cl, 34.8 to 71.7), respectively. Conclusion The prognosis for patients with stage I AH is worse than that for patients with stage I FH. Novel treatment strategies are needed to improve outcomes for patients with AH, especially those with stage III to V disease.

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

4.7
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