Incidence and Epidemiology

Neuroblastoma is the most common extracranial solid tumor in childhood. More than 650 cases are diagnosed each year in the United States.[4,5] The prevalence is about 1 case per 7,000 live births; the incidence is about 10.54 cases per 1 million per year in children younger than 15 years. About 37% of patients are diagnosed as infants, and 90% are younger than 5 years at diagnosis, with a median age at diagnosis of 19 months.[6] The data on age at diagnosis show that this is a disease of infancy, with the highest rate of diagnosis in the first month of life.[4-6]

The incidence of neuroblastoma in black children is slightly lower than the incidence in white children.[7] However, there are also racial differences in tumor biology, with African Americans more likely to have high-risk disease and fatal outcomes.[8,9]

Population-based studies of screening for infants with neuroblastoma have demonstrated that spontaneous regression of neuroblastoma without clinical detection in the first year of life is at least as prevalent as clinically detected neuroblastoma.[10-12]

Epidemiologic studies have shown that environmental or other exposures have not been unequivocally associated with increased or decreased incidences of neuroblastoma.[13]

Anatomy

Neuroblastoma originates in the adrenal medulla and paraspinal or periaortic regions where sympathetic nervous system tissue is present (refer to Figure 1).

Figure 1. Neuroblastoma may be found in the adrenal glands and paraspinal nerve tissue from the neck to the pelvis.

Neuroblastoma Screening (Genetic Predisposition and Familial Neuroblastoma)

Studies analyzing constitutional DNA in rare cohorts of familial neuroblastoma patients have provided insight into the complex genetic basis for tumor initiation. About 1% to 2% of patients with neuroblastoma have a family history of neuroblastoma. These children are, on average, younger (9 months at diagnosis) and about 20% have multifocal primary neuroblastoma.

Germline mutations. Several germline mutations have been associated with a genetic predisposition to neuroblastoma, including the following:

• ALK gene mutation. The primary cause of familial neuroblastoma (about 75% of familial cases) is aberrant activation of the germline ALK signaling pathway resulting from point mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the ALK gene.[14] Somatic activating point mutations in ALK are also seen in about 9% of sporadic neuroblastoma cases. In addition, in a small proportion of neuroblastoma cases with MYCN amplification, ALK is co-amplified (ALK is near MYCN on chromosome 2), which may also result in ALK activation. ALK is a tyrosine kinase receptor (refer to the Genomic and Biologic Features of Neuroblastoma section of this summary for more information about ALK mutations).
• PHOX2B gene mutation. Rarely, familial neuroblastoma may be associated with congenital central hypoventilation syndrome (Ondine curse), which is caused by a germline mutation of the PHOX2B gene.[15] Most PHOX2B mutations causing Ondine curse or Hirschsprung disease are polyalanine repeats and are not associated with familial neuroblastoma. However, germline loss-of-function PHOX2B mutations have been identified in rare patients with sporadic neuroblastoma and Ondine curse and/or Hirschsprung disease.[16] Aberration of PHOX2B has not been seen in patients with sporadic neuroblastoma without associated Ondine curse or Hirschsprung disease. Additionally, somatic PHOX2B mutations occur in about 2% of sporadic cases of neuroblastoma.[17,18]
• Deletion at the 1p36 or 11q14-23 locus. In case studies, germline deletion at the 1p36 or 11q14-23 locus has been associated with familial neuroblastoma, and the same deletions are found somatically in some sporadic neuroblastoma cases.[19,20]

Other cancer predisposition syndromes. Children with gene aberrations associated with other cancer predisposition syndromes can be at increased risk of developing neuroblastoma and other malignancies. The following syndromes primarily involve genes in the canonical RAS pathway:

• Costello syndrome.[21]
• Noonan syndrome.[22]
• Neurofibromatosis type 1.[23]

In addition, neuroblastoma has been described in patients with the following syndromes:

• Li-Fraumeni syndrome.
• Hereditary pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma syndromes.[24]
• ROHHAD syndrome (rapid-onset obesity, hypothalamic dysfunction, hypoventilation, and autonomic dysfunction).[25]
• Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome.[26]

Sporadic neuroblastoma may also have an increased incidence resulting from less potent germline predispositions. Genome-wide association studies have identified several common genomic variables (single nucleotide polymorphisms [SNPs]) with modest effect size that are associated with increased risks of developing neuroblastoma. Most of these genomic risk variables are significantly associated with distinct neuroblastoma phenotypes (i.e., high-risk vs. low-risk disease).[27]

Neuroblastoma Screening (General Population)

Current data do not support neuroblastoma screening in the general public. Screening at the ages of 3 weeks, 6 months, or 1 year did not lead to reduction in the incidence of advanced-stage neuroblastoma with unfavorable biological characteristics in older children, nor did it reduce overall mortality from neuroblastoma.[11,12] No public health benefits have been shown from screening infants for neuroblastoma at these ages. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Neuroblastoma Screening for more information.)

Evidence (against neuroblastoma screening):

1. A large population-based North American study, in which most infants in Quebec were screened at the ages of 3 weeks and 6 months, has shown that screening detects many neuroblastomas with favorable characteristics [10,11] that would never have been detected clinically, apparently because of spontaneous regression of the tumors.
2. Another study of infants screened at the age of 1 year showed similar results.[12]

Genomic and Biologic Features of Neuroblastoma

• Low-risk or intermediate-risk neuroblastoma patients. Patients classified as low-risk or intermediate-risk have a favorable prognosis, with survival rates exceeding 95%. Low-risk and intermediate-risk neuroblastoma usually occur in children younger than 18 months. These tumors commonly have gains of whole chromosomes and are hyperdiploid when examined by flow cytometry.[29,30]
• High-risk neuroblastoma patients. The prognosis is more guarded for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma, with less than a 50% long-term survival rate. High-risk neuroblastoma generally occurs in children older than 18 months, is often metastatic to bone, and segmental chromosome abnormalities (gains or losses) and/or MYCN gene amplification are usually detected in these tumors. They are near diploid or near tetraploid by flow cytometric measurement.[29-35] High-risk tumors may rarely harbor exonic mutations (refer to the Exonic mutations in neuroblastoma section of this summary for more information), but most high-risk tumors lack such gene mutations. Compared with adult cancers, neuroblastoma tumors show a low number of mutations per genome that affect protein sequence (10–20 per genome).[36]

Key genomic characteristics of high-risk neuroblastoma that are discussed below include the following:

• Segmental chromosomal aberrations.
• MYCN gene amplifications.
• Low rates of exonic mutations, with activating mutations in ALK being the most common recurring alteration.
• Genomic alterations that promote telomere lengthening.

Exonic mutations in neuroblastoma

Multiple reports have documented that a minority of high-risk neuroblastomas have a low incidence of recurrently mutated genes. The most commonly mutated gene is ALK, which is mutated in approximately 10% of patients (see below). Other genes with even lower frequencies of mutations include ATRX, PTPN11, ARID1A, and ARID1B.[44-50] As shown in Figure 2, most neuroblastoma cases lack mutations in genes that are altered in a recurrent manner.

Figure 2. Data tracks (rows) facilitate the comparison of clinical and genomic data across cases with neuroblastoma (columns). The data sources and sequencing technology used were whole-exome sequencing (WES) from whole-genome amplification (WGA) (light purple), WES from native DNA (dark purple), Illumina WGS (green), and Complete Genomics WGS (yellow). Striped blocks indicate cases analyzed using two approaches. The clinical variables included were sex (male, blue; female, pink) and age (brown spectrum). Copy number alterations indicates ploidy measured by flow cytometry (with hyperdiploid meaning DNA index >1) and clinically relevant copy number alterations derived from sequence data. Significantly mutated genes are those with statistically significant mutation counts given the background mutation rate, gene size, and expression in neuroblastoma. Germline indicates genes with significant numbers of germline ClinVar variants or loss-of-function cancer gene variants in our cohort. DNA repair indicates genes that may be associated with an increased mutation frequency in two apparently hypermutated tumors. Predicted effects of somatic mutations are color coded according to the legend. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature Genetics (Pugh TJ, Morozova O, Attiyeh EF, et al.: The genetic landscape of high-risk neuroblastoma. Nat Genet 45 (3): 279-84, 2013), copyright (2013).

ALK, the exonic mutation found most commonly in neuroblastoma, is a cell surface receptor tyrosine kinase, expressed at significant levels only in developing embryonic and neonatal brains. Germline mutations in ALK have been identified as the major cause of hereditary neuroblastoma. Somatically acquired ALK-activating exonic mutations are also found as oncogenic drivers in neuroblastoma.[49]

The presence of an ALK mutation correlates with significantly poorer survival in high-risk and intermediate-risk neuroblastoma patients. ALK mutations were examined in 1,596 diagnostic neuroblastoma samples and the following results were observed:[49]

• ALK tyrosine kinase domain mutations occurred in 8% of samples—at three hot spots and 13 minor sites—and correlated significantly with poorer survival in patients with high-risk and intermediate-risk neuroblastoma.
• ALK mutations were found in 10.9% of MYCN-amplified tumors versus 7.2% of those without MYCN amplification.
• ALK mutations occurred at the highest frequency (11%) in patients older than 10 years.
• The frequency of ALK aberrations was 14% in the high-risk neuroblastoma group, 6% in the intermediate-risk neuroblastoma group, and 8% in the low-risk neuroblastoma group.
• The high-risk group included tumors with ALK aberrations, consisting of ALK co-amplification with MYCN amplification, which may also result in ALK activation.

Small-molecule ALK kinase inhibitors such as crizotinib (added to conventional therapy) are being tested in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk neuroblastoma and activated ALK (COG ANBL1531).[49] (Refer to the Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Recurrent or Refractory Neuroblastoma section in the PDQ summary on Neuroblastoma Treatment for more information about crizotinib clinical trials.)

Genomic evolution of exonic mutations

There are limited data regarding the genomic evolution of exonic mutations from diagnosis to relapse for neuroblastoma. Whole-genome sequencing was applied to 23 paired diagnostic and relapsed neuroblastoma tumor samples to define somatic genetic alterations associated with relapse,[51] while a second study evaluated 16 paired diagnostic and relapsed specimens.[52] Both studies identified an increased number of mutations in the relapsed samples compared with the samples at diagnosis; this has been confirmed in a study of neuroblastoma tumor samples sent for next-generation sequencing.[53]

• In the first study, an increased incidence of mutations in genes associated with RAS-MAPK signaling were found in tumors at relapse compared with tumors from the same patient at diagnosis; 15 of 23 relapse samples contained somatic mutations in genes involved in this pathway and each mutation was consistent with pathway activation.[51]
  In addition, three relapse samples showed structural alterations involving MAPK pathway genes consistent with pathway activation, so aberrations in this pathway were detected in 18 of 23 relapse samples (78%). Aberrations were found in ALK (n = 10), NF1 (n = 2), and one each in NRAS, KRAS, HRAS, BRAF, PTPN11, and FGFR1. Even with deep sequencing, 7 of the 18 alterations were not detectable in the primary tumor, highlighting the evolution of mutations presumably leading to relapse and the importance of genomic evaluations of tissues obtained at relapse.
• In the second study, ALK mutations were not observed in either diagnostic or relapse specimens, but relapse-specific recurrent single-nucleotide variants were observed in 11 genes, including the putative CHD5 neuroblastoma tumor suppressor gene located at chromosome 1p36.[52]

In a deep-sequencing study, 276 neuroblastoma samples (comprised of all stages and from patients of all ages at diagnosis) underwent very deep (33,000X) sequencing of just two amplified ALK mutational hot spots, which revealed 4.8% clonal mutations and an additional 5% subclonal mutations, suggesting that subclonal ALK gene mutations are common.[54] Thus, deep sequencing can reveal the presence of mutations in tiny subsets of neuroblastoma tumor cells that may be able to survive during treatment and grow to constitute a relapse.

Clinical Presentation

The most frequent signs and symptoms of neuroblastoma are caused by tumor mass and metastases and include the following:

• Abdominal mass: This is the most common presentation of neuroblastoma.
• Proptosis and periorbital ecchymosis: Common in high-risk patients and arise from retrobulbar metastasis.
• Abdominal distention: May occur with respiratory compromise in infants because of massive liver metastases.
• Bone pain: Occurs in association with metastatic disease.
• Pancytopenia: May result from extensive bone marrow metastasis.
• Fever, hypertension, and anemia: Occasionally found in patients without metastasis.
• Paralysis: Neuroblastoma originating in paraspinal ganglia may invade through neural foramina and compress the spinal cord extradurally. Immediate treatment is given for symptomatic spinal cord compression. (Refer to the Treatment of Spinal Cord Compression section of this summary for more information.)
• Watery diarrhea: On rare occasions, children may have severe, watery diarrhea caused by the secretion of vasoactive intestinal peptide by the tumor, or they may have protein-losing enteropathy with intestinal lymphangiectasia.[62] Vasoactive intestinal peptide secretion may also occur with chemotherapeutic treatment, and tumor resection reduces vasoactive intestinal peptide secretion.[63]
• Presence of Horner syndrome: Horner syndrome is characterized by miosis, ptosis, and anhidrosis. It may be caused by neuroblastoma in the stellate ganglion, and children with Horner syndrome without other apparent cause are also examined for neuroblastoma and other tumors.[64]
• Subcutaneous skin nodules: Subcutaneous metastases of neuroblastoma often have bluish discoloration of the overlying skin and is usually seen only in infants.

The clinical presentation of neuroblastoma in adolescents is similar to the clinical presentation in children. The only exception is that bone marrow involvement occurs less frequently in adolescents, and there is a greater frequency of metastases in unusual sites such as lung or brain.[65]

Diagnosis

Diagnostic evaluation of neuroblastoma includes the following:

• Tumor imaging: Imaging of the primary tumor mass is generally accomplished by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with contrast. Paraspinal tumors that might threaten spinal cord compression are imaged using MRI.
  Metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scanning is a critical part of the standard diagnostic evaluation of neuroblastoma, for both the primary tumor and sites of metastases.[80,81] MIBG scanning is also critical to assess response to therapy.[81] About 90% of neuroblastoma cases are MIBG avid; fluorine F 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) scans are used to evaluate extent of disease in patients with tumors that are not MIBG avid.[82] (Refer to the Stage Information for Neuroblastoma section of this summary for more information about imaging of neuroblastoma.)
• Urine catecholamine metabolites: Urinary excretion of the catecholamine metabolites VMA and HVA per milligram of excreted creatinine is measured before therapy. Collection of urine for 24 hours is not needed. If they remain elevated, these markers can be used to suggest the persistence of disease.
  In contrast to urine, serum catecholamines are not routinely used in the diagnosis of neuroblastoma except in unusual circumstances.
• Biopsy: Tumor tissue is often needed to obtain all the biological data required for risk-group assignment and subsequent treatment stratification in current COG clinical trials. There is an absolute requirement for tissue biopsy to determine the International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification (INPC). In the risk/treatment group assignment schema for COG studies, INPC has been used to determine treatment for patients with International Neuroblastoma Staging System (INSS) stage 3 disease, patients with stage 4S disease, and patients aged 18 months or younger with stage 4 disease. Additionally, a significant number of tumor cells are needed to determine MYCN copy number, DNA index, and the presence of segmental chromosomal aberrations. Tissue from several core biopsies, or approximately 1 cm³ of tissue from an open biopsy, is needed for adequate biologic staging.
  For patients older than 18 months with stage 4 disease, bone marrow with extensive tumor involvement combined with elevated catecholamine metabolites may be adequate for diagnosis and assigning risk/treatment group; however, INPC cannot be determined from tumor metastatic to bone marrow. Testing for MYCN amplification may be successfully performed on involved bone marrow if there is at least 30% tumor involvement. However, every attempt should be made to obtain an adequate biopsy from the primary tumor.
  Diagnosis of fetal/neonatal neuroblastoma. In rare cases, neuroblastoma may be discovered prenatally by fetal ultrasonography.[83] Management recommendations are evolving regarding the need for immediate diagnostic biopsy in infants aged 6 months and younger with suspected neuroblastoma tumors that are likely to spontaneously regress. In a COG study of expectant observation of small adrenal masses of 3.1 cm or less in neonates, biopsy was not required for infants; 81% of patients avoided undergoing any surgery at all.[84] In a German clinical trial, 25 infants aged 3 months and younger with presumed localized neuroblastoma were observed without biopsy for periods of 1 to 18 months before biopsy or resection. There were no apparent ill effects from the delay.[85] Therefore, prenatally identified adrenal masses approximately 3.1 cm or less can be safely observed if no metastatic disease is identified and there is no involvement of large vessels or organs.[84]

The diagnosis of neuroblastoma requires the involvement of pathologists who are familiar with childhood tumors. Some neuroblastomas cannot be differentiated morphologically, via conventional light microscopy with hematoxylin and eosin staining alone, from other small round blue cell tumors of childhood, such as lymphomas, primitive neuroectodermal tumors, and rhabdomyosarcomas. In such cases, immunohistochemical and cytogenetic analysis may be needed to diagnose a specific small round blue cell tumor.

The minimum criterion for a diagnosis of neuroblastoma, as established by international agreement, is that diagnosis must be based on one of the following:

1. An unequivocal pathologic diagnosis made from tumor tissue by light microscopy (with or without immunohistology or electron microscopy).[86]
2. The combination of bone marrow aspirate or trephine biopsy containing unequivocal tumor cells (e.g., syncytia or immunocytologically positive clumps of cells) and increased levels of urinary catecholamine metabolites.[86]

Prognostic Factors

The prognosis for patients with neuroblastoma is related to the following:

• Treatment era.
• Age at diagnosis.
• Tumor histology.
• Biological features.
• Site of primary tumor.
• Stage of disease.
• Response to treatment.

Some of these prognostic factors have been combined to create risk groups to help define treatment. (Refer to the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Staging System section and the Children’s Oncology Group Neuroblastoma Risk Grouping section of this summary for more information.)

Spontaneous Regression of Neuroblastoma

The phenomenon of spontaneous regression has been well described in infants with neuroblastoma, especially in infants with the 4S pattern of metastatic spread.[112] (Refer to the Stage Information for Neuroblastoma section of this summary for more information.)

Spontaneous regression generally occurs only in tumors with the following features:[113]

• Near triploid number of chromosomes.
• No MYCN amplification.
• No loss of chromosome 1p.

Additional features associated with spontaneous regression include the lack of telomerase expression,[114,115] the expression of the H-Ras protein,[116] and the expression of the neurotrophin receptor TrkA, a nerve growth factor receptor.[117]

Studies have suggested that selected infants who appear to have asymptomatic, small, low-stage adrenal neuroblastoma detected by screening or during prenatal or incidental ultrasonography often have tumors that spontaneously regress and may be observed safely without surgical intervention or tissue diagnosis.[118-120]

Evidence (observation [spontaneous regression]):

1. In a COG study, 83 highly selected infants younger than 6 months with stage 1 small adrenal masses, as defined by imaging studies, were observed without biopsy. Surgical intervention was reserved for those with growth or progression of the mass or increasing concentrations of urinary catecholamine metabolites.[84]

   • Eighty-one percent of patients were spared surgery, and all were alive after 2 years of follow-up (refer to the Surgery subsection of this summary for more information).
2. In a German clinical trial, spontaneous regression and/or lack of progression occurred in 44 of 93 asymptomatic infants aged 12 months or younger with stage 1, 2, or 3 tumors without MYCN amplification. All were observed after biopsy and partial or no resection.[85] In some cases, regression did not occur until more than 1 year after diagnosis.
3. In neuroblastoma screening trials in Quebec and Germany, the incidence of neuroblastoma was twice that reported without screening, suggesting that many neuroblastomas are never noted and spontaneously regress.[10-12]

References

1. Childhood cancer by the ICCC. In: Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al., eds.: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2010. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute, 2013, Section 29. Also available online. Last accessed January 31, 2019.
2. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PMC free article: PMC4136455] [PubMed: 24853691]
3. Childhood cancer. In: Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al., eds.: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2010. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute, 2013, Section 28. Also available online. Last accessed January 31, 2019.
4. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al., eds.: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations). Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute, 2012. Also available online. Last accessed December 19, 2018.
5. Gurney JG, Ross JA, Wall DA, et al.: Infant cancer in the U.S.: histology-specific incidence and trends, 1973 to 1992. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 19 (5): 428-32, 1997 Sep-Oct. [PubMed: 9329464]
6. London WB, Castleberry RP, Matthay KK, et al.: Evidence for an age cutoff greater than 365 days for neuroblastoma risk group stratification in the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 23 (27): 6459-65, 2005. [PubMed: 16116153]
7. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PubMed: 24488779]
8. Henderson TO, Bhatia S, Pinto N, et al.: Racial and ethnic disparities in risk and survival in children with neuroblastoma: a Children's Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 29 (1): 76-82, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3055862] [PubMed: 21098321]
9. Latorre V, Diskin SJ, Diamond MA, et al.: Replication of neuroblastoma SNP association at the BARD1 locus in African-Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 21 (4): 658-63, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3319325] [PubMed: 22328350]
10. Takeuchi LA, Hachitanda Y, Woods WG, et al.: Screening for neuroblastoma in North America. Preliminary results of a pathology review from the Quebec Project. Cancer 76 (11): 2363-71, 1995. [PubMed: 8635044]
11. Woods WG, Gao RN, Shuster JJ, et al.: Screening of infants and mortality due to neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 346 (14): 1041-6, 2002. [PubMed: 11932470]
12. Schilling FH, Spix C, Berthold F, et al.: Neuroblastoma screening at one year of age. N Engl J Med 346 (14): 1047-53, 2002. [PubMed: 11932471]
13. Heck JE, Ritz B, Hung RJ, et al.: The epidemiology of neuroblastoma: a review. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 23 (2): 125-43, 2009. [PubMed: 19159399]
14. Mossé YP, Laudenslager M, Longo L, et al.: Identification of ALK as a major familial neuroblastoma predisposition gene. Nature 455 (7215): 930-5, 2008. [PMC free article: PMC2672043] [PubMed: 18724359]
15. Mosse YP, Laudenslager M, Khazi D, et al.: Germline PHOX2B mutation in hereditary neuroblastoma. Am J Hum Genet 75 (4): 727-30, 2004. [PMC free article: PMC1182065] [PubMed: 15338462]
16. Raabe EH, Laudenslager M, Winter C, et al.: Prevalence and functional consequence of PHOX2B mutations in neuroblastoma. Oncogene 27 (4): 469-76, 2008. [PubMed: 17637745]
17. van Limpt V, Schramm A, van Lakeman A, et al.: The Phox2B homeobox gene is mutated in sporadic neuroblastomas. Oncogene 23 (57): 9280-8, 2004. [PubMed: 15516980]
18. Serra A, Häberle B, König IR, et al.: Rare occurrence of PHOX2b mutations in sporadic neuroblastomas. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 30 (10): 728-32, 2008. [PubMed: 19011468]
19. Satgé D, Moore SW, Stiller CA, et al.: Abnormal constitutional karyotypes in patients with neuroblastoma: a report of four new cases and review of 47 others in the literature. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 147 (2): 89-98, 2003. [PubMed: 14623457]
20. Mosse Y, Greshock J, King A, et al.: Identification and high-resolution mapping of a constitutional 11q deletion in an infant with multifocal neuroblastoma. Lancet Oncol 4 (12): 769-71, 2003. [PubMed: 14662434]
21. Moroni I, Bedeschi F, Luksch R, et al.: Costello syndrome: a cancer predisposing syndrome? Clin Dysmorphol 9 (4): 265-8, 2000. [PubMed: 11045582]
22. Cotton JL, Williams RG: Noonan syndrome and neuroblastoma. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 149 (11): 1280-1, 1995. [PubMed: 7581766]
23. Gutmann DH, Ferner RE, Listernick RH, et al.: Neurofibromatosis type 1. Nat Rev Dis Primers 3: 17004, 2017. [PubMed: 28230061]
24. Kamihara J, Bourdeaut F, Foulkes WD, et al.: Retinoblastoma and Neuroblastoma Predisposition and Surveillance. Clin Cancer Res 23 (13): e98-e106, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC7266051] [PubMed: 28674118]
25. Bougnères P, Pantalone L, Linglart A, et al.: Endocrine manifestations of the rapid-onset obesity with hypoventilation, hypothalamic, autonomic dysregulation, and neural tumor syndrome in childhood. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93 (10): 3971-80, 2008. [PubMed: 18628522]
26. Maas SM, Vansenne F, Kadouch DJ, et al.: Phenotype, cancer risk, and surveillance in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome depending on molecular genetic subgroups. Am J Med Genet A 170 (9): 2248-60, 2016. [PubMed: 27419809]
27. Tolbert VP, Coggins GE, Maris JM: Genetic susceptibility to neuroblastoma. Curr Opin Genet Dev 42: 81-90, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5604862] [PubMed: 28458126]
28. Kratz CP, Rapisuwon S, Reed H, et al.: Cancer in Noonan, Costello, cardiofaciocutaneous and LEOPARD syndromes. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 157 (2): 83-9, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3086183] [PubMed: 21500339]
29. Cohn SL, Pearson AD, London WB, et al.: The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) classification system: an INRG Task Force report. J Clin Oncol 27 (2): 289-97, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2650388] [PubMed: 19047291]
30. Schleiermacher G, Mosseri V, London WB, et al.: Segmental chromosomal alterations have prognostic impact in neuroblastoma: a report from the INRG project. Br J Cancer 107 (8): 1418-22, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3494425] [PubMed: 22976801]
31. Janoueix-Lerosey I, Schleiermacher G, Michels E, et al.: Overall genomic pattern is a predictor of outcome in neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1026-33, 2009. [PubMed: 19171713]
32. Schleiermacher G, Michon J, Ribeiro A, et al.: Segmental chromosomal alterations lead to a higher risk of relapse in infants with MYCN-non-amplified localised unresectable/disseminated neuroblastoma (a SIOPEN collaborative study). Br J Cancer 105 (12): 1940-8, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3251887] [PubMed: 22146831]
33. Carén H, Kryh H, Nethander M, et al.: High-risk neuroblastoma tumors with 11q-deletion display a poor prognostic, chromosome instability phenotype with later onset. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107 (9): 4323-8, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC2840092] [PubMed: 20145112]
34. Schleiermacher G, Janoueix-Lerosey I, Ribeiro A, et al.: Accumulation of segmental alterations determines progression in neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 28 (19): 3122-30, 2010. [PubMed: 20516441]
35. Defferrari R, Mazzocco K, Ambros IM, et al.: Influence of segmental chromosome abnormalities on survival in children over the age of 12 months with unresectable localised peripheral neuroblastic tumours without MYCN amplification. Br J Cancer 112 (2): 290-5, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4453444] [PubMed: 25356804]
36. Pugh TJ, Morozova O, Attiyeh EF, et al.: The genetic landscape of high-risk neuroblastoma. Nat Genet 45 (3): 279-84, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3682833] [PubMed: 23334666]
37. Depuydt P, Boeva V, Hocking TD, et al.: Genomic Amplifications and Distal 6q Loss: Novel Markers for Poor Survival in High-risk Neuroblastoma Patients. J Natl Cancer Inst : , 2018. [PMC free article: PMC6186524] [PubMed: 29514301]
38. Ambros PF, Ambros IM, Brodeur GM, et al.: International consensus for neuroblastoma molecular diagnostics: report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Biology Committee. Br J Cancer 100 (9): 1471-82, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2694415] [PubMed: 19401703]
39. Kreissman SG, Seeger RC, Matthay KK, et al.: Purged versus non-purged peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation for high-risk neuroblastoma (COG A3973): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14 (10): 999-1008, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3963485] [PubMed: 23890779]
40. Bagatell R, Beck-Popovic M, London WB, et al.: Significance of MYCN amplification in international neuroblastoma staging system stage 1 and 2 neuroblastoma: a report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group database. J Clin Oncol 27 (3): 365-70, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2651034] [PubMed: 19047282]
41. Campbell K, Gastier-Foster JM, Mann M, et al.: Association of MYCN copy number with clinical features, tumor biology, and outcomes in neuroblastoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group. Cancer 123 (21): 4224-4235, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5650521] [PubMed: 28696504]
42. Plantaz D, Vandesompele J, Van Roy N, et al.: Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) analysis of stage 4 neuroblastoma reveals high frequency of 11q deletion in tumors lacking MYCN amplification. Int J Cancer 91 (5): 680-6, 2001. [PubMed: 11267980]
43. Maris JM, Hogarty MD, Bagatell R, et al.: Neuroblastoma. Lancet 369 (9579): 2106-20, 2007. [PubMed: 17586306]
44. Peifer M, Hertwig F, Roels F, et al.: Telomerase activation by genomic rearrangements in high-risk neuroblastoma. Nature 526 (7575): 700-4, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4881306] [PubMed: 26466568]
45. Valentijn LJ, Koster J, Zwijnenburg DA, et al.: TERT rearrangements are frequent in neuroblastoma and identify aggressive tumors. Nat Genet 47 (12): 1411-4, 2015. [PubMed: 26523776]
46. Cheung NK, Zhang J, Lu C, et al.: Association of age at diagnosis and genetic mutations in patients with neuroblastoma. JAMA 307 (10): 1062-71, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3527076] [PubMed: 22416102]
47. Molenaar JJ, Koster J, Zwijnenburg DA, et al.: Sequencing of neuroblastoma identifies chromothripsis and defects in neuritogenesis genes. Nature 483 (7391): 589-93, 2012. [PubMed: 22367537]
48. Sausen M, Leary RJ, Jones S, et al.: Integrated genomic analyses identify ARID1A and ARID1B alterations in the childhood cancer neuroblastoma. Nat Genet 45 (1): 12-7, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3557959] [PubMed: 23202128]
49. Bresler SC, Weiser DA, Huwe PJ, et al.: ALK mutations confer differential oncogenic activation and sensitivity to ALK inhibition therapy in neuroblastoma. Cancer Cell 26 (5): 682-94, 2014. [PMC free article: PMC4269829] [PubMed: 25517749]
50. Janoueix-Lerosey I, Lequin D, Brugières L, et al.: Somatic and germline activating mutations of the ALK kinase receptor in neuroblastoma. Nature 455 (7215): 967-70, 2008. [PubMed: 18923523]
51. Eleveld TF, Oldridge DA, Bernard V, et al.: Relapsed neuroblastomas show frequent RAS-MAPK pathway mutations. Nat Genet 47 (8): 864-71, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4775079] [PubMed: 26121087]
52. Schramm A, Köster J, Assenov Y, et al.: Mutational dynamics between primary and relapse neuroblastomas. Nat Genet 47 (8): 872-7, 2015. [PubMed: 26121086]
53. Padovan-Merhar OM, Raman P, Ostrovnaya I, et al.: Enrichment of Targetable Mutations in the Relapsed Neuroblastoma Genome. PLoS Genet 12 (12): e1006501, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC5172533] [PubMed: 27997549]
54. Bellini A, Bernard V, Leroy Q, et al.: Deep Sequencing Reveals Occurrence of Subclonal ALK Mutations in Neuroblastoma at Diagnosis. Clin Cancer Res 21 (21): 4913-21, 2015. [PubMed: 26059187]
55. Kurihara S, Hiyama E, Onitake Y, et al.: Clinical features of ATRX or DAXX mutated neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Surg 49 (12): 1835-8, 2014. [PubMed: 25487495]
56. Mac SM, D'Cunha CA, Farnham PJ: Direct recruitment of N-myc to target gene promoters. Mol Carcinog 29 (2): 76-86, 2000. [PubMed: 11074604]
57. Wang LL, Teshiba R, Ikegaki N, et al.: Augmented expression of MYC and/or MYCN protein defines highly aggressive MYC-driven neuroblastoma: a Children's Oncology Group study. Br J Cancer 113 (1): 57-63, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4647535] [PubMed: 26035700]
58. Maris JM, Matthay KK: Molecular biology of neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 17 (7): 2264-79, 1999. [PubMed: 10561284]
59. Forlenza CJ, Boudreau JE, Zheng J, et al.: KIR3DL1 Allelic Polymorphism and HLA-B Epitopes Modulate Response to Anti-GD2 Monoclonal Antibody in Patients With Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 34 (21): 2443-51, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC4962735] [PubMed: 27069083]
60. Venstrom JM, Zheng J, Noor N, et al.: KIR and HLA genotypes are associated with disease progression and survival following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for high-risk neuroblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 15 (23): 7330-4, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2788079] [PubMed: 19934297]
61. Erbe AK, Wang W, Carmichael L, et al.: Neuroblastoma Patients' KIR and KIR-Ligand Genotypes Influence Clinical Outcome for Dinutuximab-based Immunotherapy: A Report from the Children's Oncology Group. Clin Cancer Res 24 (1): 189-196, 2018. [PMC free article: PMC5754221] [PubMed: 28972044]
62. Citak C, Karadeniz C, Dalgic B, et al.: Intestinal lymphangiectasia as a first manifestation of neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 46 (1): 105-7, 2006. [PubMed: 16123987]
63. Bourdeaut F, de Carli E, Timsit S, et al.: VIP hypersecretion as primary or secondary syndrome in neuroblastoma: A retrospective study by the Société Française des Cancers de l'Enfant (SFCE). Pediatr Blood Cancer 52 (5): 585-90, 2009. [PubMed: 19143025]
64. Mahoney NR, Liu GT, Menacker SJ, et al.: Pediatric horner syndrome: etiologies and roles of imaging and urine studies to detect neuroblastoma and other responsible mass lesions. Am J Ophthalmol 142 (4): 651-9, 2006. [PubMed: 17011859]
65. Conte M, Parodi S, De Bernardi B, et al.: Neuroblastoma in adolescents: the Italian experience. Cancer 106 (6): 1409-17, 2006. [PubMed: 16475209]
66. Matthay KK, Blaes F, Hero B, et al.: Opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome in neuroblastoma a report from a workshop on the dancing eyes syndrome at the advances in neuroblastoma meeting in Genoa, Italy, 2004. Cancer Lett 228 (1-2): 275-82, 2005. [PubMed: 15922508]
67. Pang KK, de Sousa C, Lang B, et al.: A prospective study of the presentation and management of dancing eye syndrome/opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome in the United Kingdom. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 14 (2): 156-61, 2010. [PubMed: 19423368]
68. Rudnick E, Khakoo Y, Antunes NL, et al.: Opsoclonus-myoclonus-ataxia syndrome in neuroblastoma: clinical outcome and antineuronal antibodies-a report from the Children's Cancer Group Study. Med Pediatr Oncol 36 (6): 612-22, 2001. [PubMed: 11344492]
69. Pranzatelli MR: The neurobiology of the opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome. Clin Neuropharmacol 15 (3): 186-228, 1992. [PubMed: 1394242]
70. Mitchell WG, Davalos-Gonzalez Y, Brumm VL, et al.: Opsoclonus-ataxia caused by childhood neuroblastoma: developmental and neurologic sequelae. Pediatrics 109 (1): 86-98, 2002. [PubMed: 11773546]
71. Antunes NL, Khakoo Y, Matthay KK, et al.: Antineuronal antibodies in patients with neuroblastoma and paraneoplastic opsoclonus-myoclonus. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 22 (4): 315-20, 2000 Jul-Aug. [PubMed: 10959901]
72. Cooper R, Khakoo Y, Matthay KK, et al.: Opsoclonus-myoclonus-ataxia syndrome in neuroblastoma: histopathologic features-a report from the Children's Cancer Group. Med Pediatr Oncol 36 (6): 623-9, 2001. [PubMed: 11344493]
73. Connolly AM, Pestronk A, Mehta S, et al.: Serum autoantibodies in childhood opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome: an analysis of antigenic targets in neural tissues. J Pediatr 130 (6): 878-84, 1997. [PubMed: 9202608]
74. Bell J, Moran C, Blatt J: Response to rituximab in a child with neuroblastoma and opsoclonus-myoclonus. Pediatr Blood Cancer 50 (2): 370-1, 2008. [PubMed: 16652344]
75. Corapcioglu F, Mutlu H, Kara B, et al.: Response to rituximab and prednisolone for opsoclonus-myoclonus-ataxia syndrome in a child with ganglioneuroblastoma. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 25 (8): 756-61, 2008. [PubMed: 19065442]
76. Pranzatelli MR, Tate ED, Travelstead AL, et al.: Rituximab (anti-CD20) adjunctive therapy for opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 28 (9): 585-93, 2006. [PubMed: 17006265]
77. Ertle F, Behnisch W, Al Mulla NA, et al.: Treatment of neuroblastoma-related opsoclonus-myoclonus-ataxia syndrome with high-dose dexamethasone pulses. Pediatr Blood Cancer 50 (3): 683-7, 2008. [PubMed: 17226843]
78. Pranzatelli MR, Tate ED: Dexamethasone, Intravenous Immunoglobulin, and Rituximab Combination Immunotherapy for Pediatric Opsoclonus-Myoclonus Syndrome. Pediatr Neurol 73: 48-56, 2017. [PubMed: 28651977]
79. de Alarcon PA, Matthay KK, London WB, et al.: Intravenous immunoglobulin with prednisone and risk-adapted chemotherapy for children with opsoclonus myoclonus ataxia syndrome associated with neuroblastoma (ANBL00P3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2 (1): 25-34, 2018. [PMC free article: PMC5783315] [PubMed: 29376112]
80. Vik TA, Pfluger T, Kadota R, et al.: (123)I-mIBG scintigraphy in patients with known or suspected neuroblastoma: Results from a prospective multicenter trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer 52 (7): 784-90, 2009. [PubMed: 19185008]
81. Yang J, Codreanu I, Servaes S, et al.: I-131 MIBG post-therapy scan is more sensitive than I-123 MIBG pretherapy scan in the evaluation of metastatic neuroblastoma. Nucl Med Commun 33 (11): 1134-7, 2012. [PubMed: 22825037]
82. Sharp SE, Shulkin BL, Gelfand MJ, et al.: 123I-MIBG scintigraphy and 18F-FDG PET in neuroblastoma. J Nucl Med 50 (8): 1237-43, 2009. [PubMed: 19617326]
83. Jennings RW, LaQuaglia MP, Leong K, et al.: Fetal neuroblastoma: prenatal diagnosis and natural history. J Pediatr Surg 28 (9): 1168-74, 1993. [PubMed: 8308685]
84. Nuchtern JG, London WB, Barnewolt CE, et al.: A prospective study of expectant observation as primary therapy for neuroblastoma in young infants: a Children's Oncology Group study. Ann Surg 256 (4): 573-80, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC5665168] [PubMed: 22964741]
85. Hero B, Simon T, Spitz R, et al.: Localized infant neuroblastomas often show spontaneous regression: results of the prospective trials NB95-S and NB97. J Clin Oncol 26 (9): 1504-10, 2008. [PubMed: 18349403]
86. Brodeur GM, Pritchard J, Berthold F, et al.: Revisions of the international criteria for neuroblastoma diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 11 (8): 1466-77, 1993. [PubMed: 8336186]
87. Horner MJ, Ries LA, Krapcho M, et al.: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2006. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute, 2009. Also available online. Last accessed January 31, 2019.
88. Pinto NR, Applebaum MA, Volchenboum SL, et al.: Advances in Risk Classification and Treatment Strategies for Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 33 (27): 3008-17, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4567703] [PubMed: 26304901]
89. Strother DR, London WB, Schmidt ML, et al.: Outcome after surgery alone or with restricted use of chemotherapy for patients with low-risk neuroblastoma: results of Children's Oncology Group study P9641. J Clin Oncol 30 (15): 1842-8, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3383182] [PubMed: 22529259]
90. Baker DL, Schmidt ML, Cohn SL, et al.: Outcome after reduced chemotherapy for intermediate-risk neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 363 (14): 1313-23, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC2993160] [PubMed: 20879880]
91. Schmidt ML, Lukens JN, Seeger RC, et al.: Biologic factors determine prognosis in infants with stage IV neuroblastoma: A prospective Children's Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol 18 (6): 1260-8, 2000. [PubMed: 10715296]
92. Schmidt ML, Lal A, Seeger RC, et al.: Favorable prognosis for patients 12 to 18 months of age with stage 4 nonamplified MYCN neuroblastoma: a Children's Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol 23 (27): 6474-80, 2005. [PubMed: 16116154]
93. George RE, London WB, Cohn SL, et al.: Hyperdiploidy plus nonamplified MYCN confers a favorable prognosis in children 12 to 18 months old with disseminated neuroblastoma: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 23 (27): 6466-73, 2005. [PubMed: 16116152]
94. Mazzocco K, Defferrari R, Sementa AR, et al.: Genetic abnormalities in adolescents and young adults with neuroblastoma: A report from the Italian Neuroblastoma group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 62 (10): 1725-32, 2015. [PubMed: 25925003]
95. Mossé YP, Deyell RJ, Berthold F, et al.: Neuroblastoma in older children, adolescents and young adults: a report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group project. Pediatr Blood Cancer 61 (4): 627-35, 2014. [PubMed: 24038992]
96. Kushner BH, Kramer K, LaQuaglia MP, et al.: Neuroblastoma in adolescents and adults: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. Med Pediatr Oncol 41 (6): 508-15, 2003. [PubMed: 14595707]
97. Kubota M, Suita S, Tajiri T, et al.: Analysis of the prognostic factors relating to better clinical outcome in ganglioneuroblastoma. J Pediatr Surg 35 (1): 92-5, 2000. [PubMed: 10646782]
98. Peuchmaur M, d'Amore ES, Joshi VV, et al.: Revision of the International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification: confirmation of favorable and unfavorable prognostic subsets in ganglioneuroblastoma, nodular. Cancer 98 (10): 2274-81, 2003. [PubMed: 14601099]
99. Isaacs H Jr: Fetal and neonatal neuroblastoma: retrospective review of 271 cases. Fetal Pediatr Pathol 26 (4): 177-84, 2007 Jul-Aug. [PubMed: 18075832]
100. Ikeda H, Iehara T, Tsuchida Y, et al.: Experience with International Neuroblastoma Staging System and Pathology Classification. Br J Cancer 86 (7): 1110-6, 2002. [PMC free article: PMC2364166] [PubMed: 11953858]
101. Teshiba R, Kawano S, Wang LL, et al.: Age-dependent prognostic effect by Mitosis-Karyorrhexis Index in neuroblastoma: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatr Dev Pathol 17 (6): 441-9, 2014 Nov-Dec. [PMC free article: PMC4340697] [PubMed: 25207821]
102. Vo KT, Matthay KK, Neuhaus J, et al.: Clinical, biologic, and prognostic differences on the basis of primary tumor site in neuroblastoma: a report from the international neuroblastoma risk group project. J Clin Oncol 32 (28): 3169-76, 2014. [PMC free article: PMC4171360] [PubMed: 25154816]
103. Hiyama E, Yokoyama T, Hiyama K, et al.: Multifocal neuroblastoma: biologic behavior and surgical aspects. Cancer 88 (8): 1955-63, 2000. [PubMed: 10760774]
104. Monclair T, Brodeur GM, Ambros PF, et al.: The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) staging system: an INRG Task Force report. J Clin Oncol 27 (2): 298-303, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2650389] [PubMed: 19047290]
105. Burchill SA, Lewis IJ, Abrams KR, et al.: Circulating neuroblastoma cells detected by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for tyrosine hydroxylase mRNA are an independent poor prognostic indicator in stage 4 neuroblastoma in children over 1 year. J Clin Oncol 19 (6): 1795-801, 2001. [PubMed: 11251011]
106. Seeger RC, Reynolds CP, Gallego R, et al.: Quantitative tumor cell content of bone marrow and blood as a predictor of outcome in stage IV neuroblastoma: a Children's Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol 18 (24): 4067-76, 2000. [PubMed: 11118468]
107. Bochennek K, Esser R, Lehrnbecher T, et al.: Impact of minimal residual disease detection prior to autologous stem cell transplantation for post-transplant outcome in high risk neuroblastoma. Klin Padiatr 224 (3): 139-42, 2012. [PubMed: 22377741]
108. Yanik GA, Parisi MT, Shulkin BL, et al.: Semiquantitative mIBG scoring as a prognostic indicator in patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma: a report from the Children's oncology group. J Nucl Med 54 (4): 541-8, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC5503147] [PubMed: 23440556]
109. Yanik GA, Parisi MT, Naranjo A, et al.: Validation of Postinduction Curie Scores in High-Risk Neuroblastoma: A Children's Oncology Group and SIOPEN Group Report on SIOPEN/HR-NBL1. J Nucl Med 59 (3): 502-508, 2018. [PMC free article: PMC5868501] [PubMed: 28887399]
110. George RE, Perez-Atayde AR, Yao X, et al.: Tumor histology during induction therapy in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 59 (3): 506-10, 2012. [PubMed: 22162143]
111. Bagatell R, McHugh K, Naranjo A, et al.: Assessment of Primary Site Response in Children With High-Risk Neuroblastoma: An International Multicenter Study. J Clin Oncol 34 (7): 740-6, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC4872026] [PubMed: 26755515]
112. Nickerson HJ, Matthay KK, Seeger RC, et al.: Favorable biology and outcome of stage IV-S neuroblastoma with supportive care or minimal therapy: a Children's Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol 18 (3): 477-86, 2000. [PubMed: 10653863]
113. Ambros PF, Brodeur GM: Concept of tumorigenesis and regression. In: Brodeur GM, Sawada T, Tsuchida Y: Neuroblastoma. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, 2000, pp 21-32.
114. Hiyama E, Hiyama K, Yokoyama T, et al.: Correlating telomerase activity levels with human neuroblastoma outcomes. Nat Med 1 (3): 249-55, 1995. [PubMed: 7585042]
115. Hiyama E, Reynolds CP: Telomerase as a biological and prognostic marker in neuroblastoma. In: Brodeur GM, Sawada T, Tsuchida Y: Neuroblastoma. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, 2000, pp 159-174.
116. Kitanaka C, Kato K, Ijiri R, et al.: Increased Ras expression and caspase-independent neuroblastoma cell death: possible mechanism of spontaneous neuroblastoma regression. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (5): 358-68, 2002. [PubMed: 11880474]
117. Brodeur GM, Minturn JE, Ho R, et al.: Trk receptor expression and inhibition in neuroblastomas. Clin Cancer Res 15 (10): 3244-50, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC4238907] [PubMed: 19417027]
118. Yamamoto K, Ohta S, Ito E, et al.: Marginal decrease in mortality and marked increase in incidence as a result of neuroblastoma screening at 6 months of age: cohort study in seven prefectures in Japan. J Clin Oncol 20 (5): 1209-14, 2002. [PubMed: 11870162]
119. Okazaki T, Kohno S, Mimaya J, et al.: Neuroblastoma detected by mass screening: the Tumor Board's role in its treatment. Pediatr Surg Int 20 (1): 27-32, 2004. [PubMed: 14689211]
120. Fritsch P, Kerbl R, Lackner H, et al.: "Wait and see" strategy in localized neuroblastoma in infants: an option not only for cases detected by mass screening. Pediatr Blood Cancer 43 (6): 679-82, 2004. [PubMed: 15390301]

International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification (INPC) System

The INPC system involves evaluation of tumor specimens obtained before therapy for the following morphologic features:[2-6]

• Amount of Schwannian stroma.
• Degree of neuroblastic maturation.
• Mitosis-karyorrhexis index of the neuroblastic cells.

Favorable and unfavorable prognoses are defined on the basis of these histologic parameters and patient age. The prognostic significance of this classification system, and of related systems using similar criteria, has been confirmed in several studies (refer to Table 1).[2-4,6]

In the future, the INPC system is likely to be replaced by a system that does not include patient age as a part of cellular classification.

Most neuroblastomas with MYCN amplification in the INPC system also have unfavorable histology, but about 7% have favorable histology. Of neuroblastoma tumors with MYCN amplification and favorable histology, most do not express MYCN, despite the gene being amplified, and these patients have a more favorable prognosis than do patients whose tumors do express MYCN.[8]

International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Classification System

The INRG used a survival-tree analysis to compare 35 prognostic factors in more than 8,800 patients with neuroblastoma from a variety of clinical trials. The following INPC (Shimada system) histologic factors were included in the analysis:[9,10]

• Diagnostic category.
• Grade of differentiation.
• Mitosis-karyorrhexis index.

Because patient age is used in all risk stratification systems, a cellular classification system that did not employ patient age was desirable, and underlying histologic criteria, rather than INPC or Shimada Classification, was used in the final decision tree. Histologic findings discriminated prognostic groups most clearly in two subsets of patients, as shown in Table 2.

The INRG histologic subsets are incorporated into the INRG Risk Classification Schema. (Refer to Table 6 in the Treatment Option Overview for Neuroblastoma section of this summary for more information.)

References

1. Joshi VV, Silverman JF: Pathology of neuroblastic tumors. Semin Diagn Pathol 11 (2): 107-17, 1994. [PubMed: 7809504]
2. Shimada H, Ambros IM, Dehner LP, et al.: The International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification (the Shimada system). Cancer 86 (2): 364-72, 1999. [PubMed: 10421273]
3. Shimada H, Umehara S, Monobe Y, et al.: International neuroblastoma pathology classification for prognostic evaluation of patients with peripheral neuroblastic tumors: a report from the Children's Cancer Group. Cancer 92 (9): 2451-61, 2001. [PubMed: 11745303]
4. Goto S, Umehara S, Gerbing RB, et al.: Histopathology (International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification) and MYCN status in patients with peripheral neuroblastic tumors: a report from the Children's Cancer Group. Cancer 92 (10): 2699-708, 2001. [PubMed: 11745206]
5. Peuchmaur M, d'Amore ES, Joshi VV, et al.: Revision of the International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification: confirmation of favorable and unfavorable prognostic subsets in ganglioneuroblastoma, nodular. Cancer 98 (10): 2274-81, 2003. [PubMed: 14601099]
6. Teshiba R, Kawano S, Wang LL, et al.: Age-dependent prognostic effect by Mitosis-Karyorrhexis Index in neuroblastoma: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatr Dev Pathol 17 (6): 441-9, 2014 Nov-Dec. [PMC free article: PMC4340697] [PubMed: 25207821]
7. Shimada H, Ambros IM, Dehner LP, et al.: Terminology and morphologic criteria of neuroblastic tumors: recommendations by the International Neuroblastoma Pathology Committee. Cancer 86 (2): 349-63, 1999. [PubMed: 10421272]
8. Suganuma R, Wang LL, Sano H, et al.: Peripheral neuroblastic tumors with genotype-phenotype discordance: a report from the Children's Oncology Group and the International Neuroblastoma Pathology Committee. Pediatr Blood Cancer 60 (3): 363-70, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3397468] [PubMed: 22744966]
9. Cohn SL, Pearson AD, London WB, et al.: The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) classification system: an INRG Task Force report. J Clin Oncol 27 (2): 289-97, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2650388] [PubMed: 19047291]
10. Okamatsu C, London WB, Naranjo A, et al.: Clinicopathological characteristics of ganglioneuroma and ganglioneuroblastoma: a report from the CCG and COG. Pediatr Blood Cancer 53 (4): 563-9, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2730988] [PubMed: 19530234]

Staging Evaluation

Approximately 70% of patients with neuroblastoma have metastatic disease at diagnosis. A thorough evaluation for metastatic disease is performed before therapy initiation. The studies described below are typically performed.[1]

International Neuroblastoma Staging Systems

References

1. Brodeur GM, Pritchard J, Berthold F, et al.: Revisions of the international criteria for neuroblastoma diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 11 (8): 1466-77, 1993. [PubMed: 8336186]
2. Howman-Giles R, Shaw PJ, Uren RF, et al.: Neuroblastoma and other neuroendocrine tumors. Semin Nucl Med 37 (4): 286-302, 2007. [PubMed: 17544628]
3. Papathanasiou ND, Gaze MN, Sullivan K, et al.: 18F-FDG PET/CT and 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine imaging in high-risk neuroblastoma: diagnostic comparison and survival analysis. J Nucl Med 52 (4): 519-25, 2011. [PubMed: 21421719]
4. Gauguet JM, Pace-Emerson T, Grant FD, et al.: Evaluation of the utility of (99m) Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy versus MIBG scintigraphy and cross-sectional imaging for staging patients with neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64 (11): , 2017. [PubMed: 28449267]
5. Kushner BH, Kramer K, Modak S, et al.: Sensitivity of surveillance studies for detecting asymptomatic and unsuspected relapse of high-risk neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1041-6, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2667809] [PubMed: 19171710]
6. Sharp SE, Shulkin BL, Gelfand MJ, et al.: 123I-MIBG scintigraphy and 18F-FDG PET in neuroblastoma. J Nucl Med 50 (8): 1237-43, 2009. [PubMed: 19617326]
7. Yanik GA, Parisi MT, Shulkin BL, et al.: Semiquantitative mIBG scoring as a prognostic indicator in patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma: a report from the Children's oncology group. J Nucl Med 54 (4): 541-8, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC5503147] [PubMed: 23440556]
8. Yanik GA, Parisi MT, Naranjo A, et al.: Validation of Postinduction Curie Scores in High-Risk Neuroblastoma: A Children's Oncology Group and SIOPEN Group Report on SIOPEN/HR-NBL1. J Nucl Med 59 (3): 502-508, 2018. [PMC free article: PMC5868501] [PubMed: 28887399]
9. Lewington V, Lambert B, Poetschger U, et al.: 123I-mIBG scintigraphy in neuroblastoma: development of a SIOPEN semi-quantitative reporting ,method by an international panel. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44 (2): 234-241, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5214990] [PubMed: 27663238]
10. Ladenstein R, Lambert B, Pötschger U, et al.: Validation of the mIBG skeletal SIOPEN scoring method in two independent high-risk neuroblastoma populations: the SIOPEN/HR-NBL1 and COG-A3973 trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45 (2): 292-305, 2018. [PMC free article: PMC5747549] [PubMed: 28940046]
11. Decarolis B, Schneider C, Hero B, et al.: Iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy scoring allows prediction of outcome in patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma: results of the Cologne interscore comparison study. J Clin Oncol 31 (7): 944-51, 2013. [PubMed: 23341514]
12. Russell HV, Golding LA, Suell MN, et al.: The role of bone marrow evaluation in the staging of patients with otherwise localized, low-risk neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 45 (7): 916-9, 2005. [PubMed: 16078212]
13. DuBois SG, Kalika Y, Lukens JN, et al.: Metastatic sites in stage IV and IVS neuroblastoma correlate with age, tumor biology, and survival. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 21 (3): 181-9, 1999 May-Jun. [PubMed: 10363850]
14. Kramer K, Kushner B, Heller G, et al.: Neuroblastoma metastatic to the central nervous system. The Memorial Sloan-kettering Cancer Center Experience and A Literature Review. Cancer 91 (8): 1510-9, 2001. [PubMed: 11301399]
15. Brodeur GM, Seeger RC, Barrett A, et al.: International criteria for diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment in patients with neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 6 (12): 1874-81, 1988. [PubMed: 3199170]
16. Castleberry RP, Shuster JJ, Smith EI: The Pediatric Oncology Group experience with the international staging system criteria for neuroblastoma. Member Institutions of the Pediatric Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 12 (11): 2378-81, 1994. [PubMed: 7964953]
17. Ikeda H, Iehara T, Tsuchida Y, et al.: Experience with International Neuroblastoma Staging System and Pathology Classification. Br J Cancer 86 (7): 1110-6, 2002. [PMC free article: PMC2364166] [PubMed: 11953858]
18. Taggart DR, London WB, Schmidt ML, et al.: Prognostic value of the stage 4S metastatic pattern and tumor biology in patients with metastatic neuroblastoma diagnosed between birth and 18 months of age. J Clin Oncol 29 (33): 4358-64, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3221520] [PubMed: 21969516]
19. Morgenstern DA, London WB, Stephens D, et al.: Metastatic neuroblastoma confined to distant lymph nodes (stage 4N) predicts outcome in patients with stage 4 disease: A study from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Database. J Clin Oncol 32 (12): 1228-35, 2014. [PMC free article: PMC4876342] [PubMed: 24663047]
20. Monclair T, Brodeur GM, Ambros PF, et al.: The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) staging system: an INRG Task Force report. J Clin Oncol 27 (2): 298-303, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2650389] [PubMed: 19047290]
21. Brisse HJ, McCarville MB, Granata C, et al.: Guidelines for imaging and staging of neuroblastic tumors: consensus report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project. Radiology 261 (1): 243-57, 2011. [PubMed: 21586679]
22. Chen AM, Trout AT, Towbin AJ: A review of neuroblastoma image-defined risk factors on magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol 48 (9): 1337-1347, 2018. [PubMed: 30078048]
23. Avanzini S, Pio L, Erminio G, et al.: Image-defined risk factors in unresectable neuroblastoma: SIOPEN study on incidence, chemotherapy-induced variation, and impact on surgical outcomes. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64 (11): , 2017. [PubMed: 28440012]
24. Pinto NR, Applebaum MA, Volchenboum SL, et al.: Advances in Risk Classification and Treatment Strategies for Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 33 (27): 3008-17, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4567703] [PubMed: 26304901]
25. Burchill SA, Beiske K, Shimada H, et al.: Recommendations for the standardization of bone marrow disease assessment and reporting in children with neuroblastoma on behalf of the International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria Bone Marrow Working Group. Cancer 123 (7): 1095-1105, 2017. [PubMed: 27984660]
26. Monclair T, Mosseri V, Cecchetto G, et al.: Influence of image-defined risk factors on the outcome of patients with localised neuroblastoma. A report from the LNESG1 study of the European International Society of Paediatric Oncology Neuroblastoma Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 62 (9): 1536-42, 2015. [PubMed: 25663103]
27. Cecchetto G, Mosseri V, De Bernardi B, et al.: Surgical risk factors in primary surgery for localized neuroblastoma: the LNESG1 study of the European International Society of Pediatric Oncology Neuroblastoma Group. J Clin Oncol 23 (33): 8483-9, 2005. [PubMed: 16293878]
28. Simon T, Hero B, Benz-Bohm G, et al.: Review of image defined risk factors in localized neuroblastoma patients: Results of the GPOH NB97 trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer 50 (5): 965-9, 2008. [PubMed: 17914735]

Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Neuroblastoma Risk Grouping

The treatment sections of this summary are organized to correspond with the COG risk-based treatment plan that assigned all patients to a low-, intermediate-, or high-risk group. The COG risk-based treatment plan is no longer in use for ongoing COG studies, which are based on the INRG risk grouping. This risk-based schema was based on the following factors:

• Patient age at diagnosis.
• Certain biological characteristics of the tumor, which included MYCN status and genomic segmental aberrations, INPC histopathology classification, and tumor DNA index.
• Stage of the tumor as defined by the INSS.

Table 7 (in the Treatment of Low-Risk Neuroblastoma section), Table 10 (in the Treatment of Intermediate-Risk Neuroblastoma section), and Table 13 (in the Treatment of High-Risk Neuroblastoma section) describe the risk-group assignment criteria used to assign treatment in the low-risk COG-P9641 trial, the intermediate-risk COG-A3961 and ANBL0531 (NCT00499616) trials, and the high-risk COG-A3973 and ANBL0532 (NCT00567567) studies.

Assessment of risk for low-stage MYCN-amplified neuroblastoma is controversial because it is so rare. A study of 87 patients with INSS stage 1 and stage 2 neuroblastoma pooled from several clinical trial groups demonstrated no effect of age, stage, or initial treatment on outcome. The event-free survival (EFS) rate was 53% and the OS rate was 72%. Survival was superior in patients whose tumors were hyperdiploid, rather than diploid (EFS, 82% ± 20% vs. 37% ± 21%; OS, 94% ± 11% vs. 54% ± 15%).[12] The overall EFS and OS for infants with stage 4 and 4S disease and MYCN amplification was only 30% at 2 to 5 years after treatment in a European study.[13] The COG considers infants with stage 4 and stage 4S disease with MYCN amplification to be at high risk.[4]

International Neuroblastoma Risk Grouping

The INRG classification schema assigns neuroblastoma patients to one of 16 pretreatment risk groups on the basis of INRG stage, age, histologic category, grade of tumor differentiation, MYCN amplification, 11q aberration (the only segmental chromosomal aberration studied), and ploidy. Four levels of risk were defined according to outcomes among 8,800 patients with high-quality data, as they had been entered in clinical trials (refer to Table 6). In the overall risk grouping, histology is an important risk determinant for all stage L1 and L2 tumors, and grade of differentiation discriminates among neuroblastomas and nodular ganglioneuroblastomas in patients older than 18 months. The goals of the INRG are to develop shared data from the patients in clinical trials and to define risk groups for future trials.[14]

Controversy exists regarding the current COG risk grouping system, the INRG Risk Grouping Schema, and the treatment of certain small subsets of patients.[16-18] Risk group definitions of very low-, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk subsets and the recommended treatments are expected to evolve as new biomarkers are identified and additional outcome data are analyzed. For example, the risk group assignment for INSS stage 4 neuroblastoma in patients aged 12 to 18 months changed in 2005 for those whose tumors had single-copy MYCN and all favorable biological features; these patients had been previously classified as high risk, but data from both Pediatric Oncology Group and Children's Cancer Group studies suggested that this subgroup of patients could be successfully treated as intermediate risk.[19-21] Future versions of the INRG are expected to contain more tumor genomic criteria to help assign risk.[15]

Revised International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria (INRC)

In COG clinical trials, before therapy can be stopped after the initially planned number of cycles, certain response criteria, depending on risk group and treatment assignment, must be met.[22-24] The revised INRC depend on the use of three-dimensional (3-D) imaging combined with the following:

• Metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan. MIBG scanning for primary tumor, bone, and lymph node or soft tissue metastases.
• Positron emission tomography (PET) scan. PET scans are used instead of MIBG in the 10% of patients with MIBG non-avid tumors.

Technetium Tc 99m (99mTc) bone scans are no longer used, because a retrospective study of 132 patients who received both MIBG and 99mTc scans showed no staging benefit.[25]

Overall response in the revised INRC integrates tumor response of the primary tumor, bone marrow, and soft tissue and bone metastases. Primary and metastatic soft tissue sites are assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and iodine I 123 (123I)-MIBG scans or fluorine F 18-fludeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET scans if the tumor is MIBG non-avid. Bone marrow is assessed by histology, immunohistochemistry and cytology, or immunocytology with the help of immunorecognition tools. Bone marrow with less than 5% tumor involvement is classified as minimal disease. Urinary catecholamine levels are not included in response assessment.[24]

The overall INRC response criteria are defined as follows:[22,23]

• Complete Response: No evidence of disease, including resolution of MIBG uptake (or PET scan positivity in MIBG non-avid disease) in any location of soft tissue or bone, with less than 10 mm remaining on 3-D imaging of primary tumor; target lymph nodes less than 10 mm in short dimension; and no histologic tumor in two bone marrow biopsies and two bone marrow aspirates.
• Partial Response: 30% or more decrease in longest diameter of primary site and no new lesions and MIBG (or 18F-FDG PET) stable or improved and at least a 50% reduction in absolute MIBG bone score or a 50% or greater reduction in number of 18F-FDG PET-avid bone lesions.
• Minor Response: Partial response or complete response of at least one component of disease, but at least one other component with stable disease and no component with progressive disease.
• Progressive Disease: Any new lesion; increase in longest diameter in any measurable lesion by 20% and increase of at least 5 mm in longest diameter; previous negative bone marrow now positive for tumor; any new soft tissue lesion that is MIBG (or 18F-FDG PET) avid or positive by biopsy; a new avid bone site; or increase in relative MIBG score of 1.25% or greater.
• Stable Disease: Neither sufficient shrinkage for partial response nor sufficient increase for progressive disease and may have greater than 5% tumor infiltration as defined in minimal disease.

Care should be taken in interpreting the development of metastatic disease in an infant who was initially considered to have stage 1 or 2 disease. If the pattern of metastases in such a patient is consistent with a 4S pattern of disease (involvement of skin, liver, and/or bone marrow, the latter less than 10% involved), these patients are not classified as having progressive/metastatic disease, which would typically be a criterion for removal from protocol therapy. Instead, these patients are managed as stage 4S patients.

Controversy exists regarding the necessity of measuring the primary tumor response in all three dimensions or whether the single longest dimension, as in RECIST tumor response determination, is equally useful.[26] The latter has been adopted for use in the INRC.

Surgery

In patients without metastatic disease, the standard of care is to perform an initial surgery, on the basis of the stage and the risk group, to accomplish the following:

• Obtain tissue for diagnosis.
• Resect as much of the primary tumor as is safely possible. This is most appropriate for low-risk (excluding prenatally diagnosed infants) and intermediate-risk disease.
• Accurately stage disease through sampling of regional lymph nodes that are not adherent to the tumor. This is most appropriate for non–high-risk patients undergoing resection at the time of diagnosis. Lymph node involvement alone is not used to discriminate between L1 and L2 disease.

In patients with L1 tumors (defined as having no image-defined surgical risk factors), the tumors are resectable and resection is less likely to result in surgical complications. L2 tumors, which have at least one image-defined surgical risk factor, are treated with chemotherapy when deemed too risky to attempt resection, followed by surgery when the tumors have responded. Recent German studies of selected groups of patients have biopsied tissue and observed infants with both L1 and L2 tumors without MYCN amplification, avoiding additional surgery and chemotherapy in most patients.[27]

The COG reported that expectant observation in infants younger than 6 months with small (L1) adrenal masses resulted in an excellent EFS and OS while avoiding surgical intervention in a large majority of patients.[28] According to the surgical guidelines described in the intermediate-risk neuroblastoma clinical trial (ANBL0531 [NCT00499616]), the primary tumor is not routinely resected in patients with 4S neuroblastoma.

Whether there is any advantage to gross-total resection of the primary tumor mass after chemotherapy in stage 4 patients older than 18 months remains controversial.[29-34] A meta-analysis of stage 3 versus stage 4 neuroblastoma patients, at all ages combined, found an advantage for gross-total resection (>90%) over subtotal resection in stage 3 neuroblastoma only, not stage 4.[35] Also, a small study suggested that after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, completeness of resection was affected by the number of image-defined risk factors remaining.[36] When an experienced surgeon performed the procedure, a 90% or greater resection of the primary tumor in stage 4 neuroblastoma resulted in a higher local control rate, but did not have a statistically significant impact on OS. This practice remains controversial.[37]

Radiation Therapy

In the completed COG treatment plan, radiation therapy for patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk neuroblastoma was reserved for symptomatic life-threatening or organ-threatening tumor bulk that did not respond rapidly enough to chemotherapy. Common situations in which radiation therapy is used in these patients include the following:

• Infants aged 60 days and younger with stage 4S and marked respiratory compromise from liver metastases that has not responded to chemotherapy.
• Symptomatic spinal cord compression that has not responded to initial chemotherapy and/or surgical decompression.

Treatment of Spinal Cord Compression

Spinal cord compression is considered a medical emergency. Patients receive immediate treatment because neurologic recovery is more likely when symptoms are present for a relatively short time before diagnosis and treatment. Recovery also depends on the severity of neurologic defects (weakness vs. paralysis). Neurologic outcome appears to be similar whether cord compression is treated with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery, although radiation therapy is used less frequently than in the past.

The completed COG low-risk and intermediate-risk neuroblastoma clinical trials recommended immediate chemotherapy for cord compression in low-risk or intermediate-risk patients.[38-40] In a single study in this setting looking at the effect of glucocorticoids on neurological outcome, it was associated with improved early symptom relief. However, glucocorticoids did not prevent late residual impairment.[40]

Children with severe spinal cord compression that does not promptly improve or those with worsening symptoms may benefit from neurosurgical intervention. Laminectomy may result in later kyphoscoliosis and may not eliminate the need for chemotherapy.[38-40] It was thought that osteoplastic laminotomy, a procedure that does not remove bone, would result in less spinal deformity. Osteoplastic laminotomy may be associated with a lower incidence of progressive spinal deformity requiring fusion, but there is no evidence that functional neurologic deficit is improved with laminoplasty.[41]

The burden of long-term health problems in survivors of neuroblastoma with intraspinal extension is high. In a systematic review of 28 studies of treatment and outcome of patients with intraspinal extension, the severity of the symptoms at diagnosis and the treatment modalities were most associated with the presence of long-term health problems. In particular, the severity of neurological motor deficit was most likely to predict neurological outcome.[42] The severity of motor deficit at diagnosis is associated with spinal deformity and sphincter dysfunction at the end of follow-up, while sphincter dysfunction at diagnosis was correlated with long-term sphincter problems.[43] This supports the initiation of treatment before symptoms have deteriorated to complete loss of neurological function.

In a series of 34 infants with symptomatic epidural spinal cord compression, both surgery and chemotherapy provided unsatisfactory results once paraplegia had been established. The frequency of grade 3 motor deficits and bowel dysfunction increased with a longer symptom duration interval. Most infants with symptomatic epidural spinal cord compression developed sequelae, which were severe in about one-half of patients.[44]

Surveillance During and After Treatment

Surveillance studies during and after treatment are able to detect asymptomatic and unsuspected relapse in a substantial portion of patients. In an overall surveillance plan, which includes urinary vanillylmandelic acid and homovanillic acid testing, one of the most reliable imaging tests to detect disease progression or recurrence is the 123I-MIBG scan.[45,46]

Cross-sectional imaging with computed tomography scans is controversial because of the amount of radiation received and the low proportion of relapses detected with this modality.[47]

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence of childhood cancer has been slowly increasing since 1975.[48] Children and adolescents with cancer are usually referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following health care professionals and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation that will enable them to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

• Primary care physician.
• Pediatric pathologists.
• Pediatric surgeons.
• Pediatric radiation oncologists.
• Pediatric medical oncologists/hematologists.
• Pediatric nurse specialists.
• Social workers.
• Child life professionals.

(Refer to the PDQ summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care for specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer.)

Guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of pediatric patients with cancer have been outlined by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[49] At these pediatric cancer centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate in these trials is offered to most patients and families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with therapy that is currently accepted as standard. Most of the progress made in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Other types of clinical trials explore or define novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

References

1. Cotterill SJ, Pearson AD, Pritchard J, et al.: Clinical prognostic factors in 1277 patients with neuroblastoma: results of The European Neuroblastoma Study Group 'Survey' 1982-1992. Eur J Cancer 36 (7): 901-8, 2000. [PubMed: 10785596]
2. Moroz V, Machin D, Faldum A, et al.: Changes over three decades in outcome and the prognostic influence of age-at-diagnosis in young patients with neuroblastoma: a report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project. Eur J Cancer 47 (4): 561-71, 2011. [PubMed: 21112770]
3. Look AT, Hayes FA, Shuster JJ, et al.: Clinical relevance of tumor cell ploidy and N-myc gene amplification in childhood neuroblastoma: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 9 (4): 581-91, 1991. [PubMed: 2066755]
4. Schmidt ML, Lukens JN, Seeger RC, et al.: Biologic factors determine prognosis in infants with stage IV neuroblastoma: A prospective Children's Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol 18 (6): 1260-8, 2000. [PubMed: 10715296]
5. Berthold F, Trechow R, Utsch S, et al.: Prognostic factors in metastatic neuroblastoma. A multivariate analysis of 182 cases. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 14 (3): 207-15, 1992. [PubMed: 1510189]
6. Matthay KK, Perez C, Seeger RC, et al.: Successful treatment of stage III neuroblastoma based on prospective biologic staging: a Children's Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol 16 (4): 1256-64, 1998. [PubMed: 9552023]
7. Attiyeh EF, London WB, Mossé YP, et al.: Chromosome 1p and 11q deletions and outcome in neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 353 (21): 2243-53, 2005. [PubMed: 16306521]
8. Spitz R, Hero B, Simon T, et al.: Loss in chromosome 11q identifies tumors with increased risk for metastatic relapses in localized and 4S neuroblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 12 (11 Pt 1): 3368-73, 2006. [PubMed: 16740759]
9. Strother DR, London WB, Schmidt ML, et al.: Outcome after surgery alone or with restricted use of chemotherapy for patients with low-risk neuroblastoma: results of Children's Oncology Group study P9641. J Clin Oncol 30 (15): 1842-8, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3383182] [PubMed: 22529259]
10. Baker DL, Schmidt ML, Cohn SL, et al.: Outcome after reduced chemotherapy for intermediate-risk neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 363 (14): 1313-23, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC2993160] [PubMed: 20879880]
11. Park JR, Kreissman SG, London WB, et al.: A phase III randomized clinical trial (RCT) of tandem myeloablative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) using peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) as consolidation therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NB): a Children's Oncology Group (COG) study. [Abstract] J Clin Oncol 34 (Suppl 15): A-LBA3, 2016. Also available online. Last accessed February 11, 2019.
12. Bagatell R, Beck-Popovic M, London WB, et al.: Significance of MYCN amplification in international neuroblastoma staging system stage 1 and 2 neuroblastoma: a report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group database. J Clin Oncol 27 (3): 365-70, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2651034] [PubMed: 19047282]
13. Canete A, Gerrard M, Rubie H, et al.: Poor survival for infants with MYCN-amplified metastatic neuroblastoma despite intensified treatment: the International Society of Paediatric Oncology European Neuroblastoma Experience. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1014-9, 2009. [PubMed: 19171715]
14. Cohn SL, Pearson AD, London WB, et al.: The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) classification system: an INRG Task Force report. J Clin Oncol 27 (2): 289-97, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2650388] [PubMed: 19047291]
15. Pinto NR, Applebaum MA, Volchenboum SL, et al.: Advances in Risk Classification and Treatment Strategies for Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 33 (27): 3008-17, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4567703] [PubMed: 26304901]
16. Kushner BH, Cheung NK: Treatment reduction for neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 43 (6): 619-21, 2004. [PubMed: 15390354]
17. Kushner BH, Kramer K, LaQuaglia MP, et al.: Liver involvement in neuroblastoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Experience supports treatment reduction in young patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer 46 (3): 278-84, 2006. [PubMed: 16124002]
18. Navarro S, Amann G, Beiske K, et al.: Prognostic value of International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification in localized resectable peripheral neuroblastic tumors: a histopathologic study of localized neuroblastoma European Study Group 94.01 Trial and Protocol. J Clin Oncol 24 (4): 695-9, 2006. [PubMed: 16446343]
19. Schmidt ML, Lal A, Seeger RC, et al.: Favorable prognosis for patients 12 to 18 months of age with stage 4 nonamplified MYCN neuroblastoma: a Children's Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol 23 (27): 6474-80, 2005. [PubMed: 16116154]
20. London WB, Castleberry RP, Matthay KK, et al.: Evidence for an age cutoff greater than 365 days for neuroblastoma risk group stratification in the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 23 (27): 6459-65, 2005. [PubMed: 16116153]
21. George RE, London WB, Cohn SL, et al.: Hyperdiploidy plus nonamplified MYCN confers a favorable prognosis in children 12 to 18 months old with disseminated neuroblastoma: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 23 (27): 6466-73, 2005. [PubMed: 16116152]
22. Brodeur GM, Pritchard J, Berthold F, et al.: Revisions of the international criteria for neuroblastoma diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 11 (8): 1466-77, 1993. [PubMed: 8336186]
23. Brodeur GM, Seeger RC, Barrett A, et al.: International criteria for diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment in patients with neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 6 (12): 1874-81, 1988. [PubMed: 3199170]
24. Park JR, Bagatell R, Cohn SL, et al.: Revisions to the International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria: A Consensus Statement From the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting. J Clin Oncol 35 (22): 2580-2587, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5676955] [PubMed: 28471719]
25. Gauguet JM, Pace-Emerson T, Grant FD, et al.: Evaluation of the utility of (99m) Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy versus MIBG scintigraphy and cross-sectional imaging for staging patients with neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64 (11): , 2017. [PubMed: 28449267]
26. Bagatell R, McHugh K, Naranjo A, et al.: Assessment of Primary Site Response in Children With High-Risk Neuroblastoma: An International Multicenter Study. J Clin Oncol 34 (7): 740-6, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC4872026] [PubMed: 26755515]
27. Hero B, Simon T, Spitz R, et al.: Localized infant neuroblastomas often show spontaneous regression: results of the prospective trials NB95-S and NB97. J Clin Oncol 26 (9): 1504-10, 2008. [PubMed: 18349403]
28. Nuchtern JG, London WB, Barnewolt CE, et al.: A prospective study of expectant observation as primary therapy for neuroblastoma in young infants: a Children's Oncology Group study. Ann Surg 256 (4): 573-80, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC5665168] [PubMed: 22964741]
29. Adkins ES, Sawin R, Gerbing RB, et al.: Efficacy of complete resection for high-risk neuroblastoma: a Children's Cancer Group study. J Pediatr Surg 39 (6): 931-6, 2004. [PubMed: 15185228]
30. Castel V, Tovar JA, Costa E, et al.: The role of surgery in stage IV neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Surg 37 (11): 1574-8, 2002. [PubMed: 12407542]
31. La Quaglia MP, Kushner BH, Su W, et al.: The impact of gross total resection on local control and survival in high-risk neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Surg 39 (3): 412-7; discussion 412-7, 2004. [PubMed: 15017562]
32. Simon T, Häberle B, Hero B, et al.: Role of surgery in the treatment of patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma age 18 months or older at diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 31 (6): 752-8, 2013. [PubMed: 23284039]
33. Englum BR, Rialon KL, Speicher PJ, et al.: Value of surgical resection in children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 62 (9): 1529-35, 2015. [PubMed: 25810376]
34. von Allmen D, Davidoff AM, London WB, et al.: Impact of Extent of Resection on Local Control and Survival in Patients From the COG A3973 Study With High-Risk Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 35 (2): 208-216, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5455676] [PubMed: 27870572]
35. Mullassery D, Farrelly P, Losty PD: Does aggressive surgical resection improve survival in advanced stage 3 and 4 neuroblastoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Hematol Oncol 31 (8): 703-16, 2014. [PubMed: 25247398]
36. Irtan S, Brisse HJ, Minard-Colin V, et al.: Image-defined risk factor assessment of neurogenic tumors after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is useful for predicting intra-operative risk factors and the completeness of resection. Pediatr Blood Cancer 62 (9): 1543-9, 2015. [PubMed: 25820608]
37. Wolden SL, Gollamudi SV, Kushner BH, et al.: Local control with multimodality therapy for stage 4 neuroblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 46 (4): 969-74, 2000. [PubMed: 10705019]
38. Katzenstein HM, Kent PM, London WB, et al.: Treatment and outcome of 83 children with intraspinal neuroblastoma: the Pediatric Oncology Group experience. J Clin Oncol 19 (4): 1047-55, 2001. [PubMed: 11181668]
39. De Bernardi B, Pianca C, Pistamiglio P, et al.: Neuroblastoma with symptomatic spinal cord compression at diagnosis: treatment and results with 76 cases. J Clin Oncol 19 (1): 183-90, 2001. [PubMed: 11134211]
40. Simon T, Niemann CA, Hero B, et al.: Short- and long-term outcome of patients with symptoms of spinal cord compression by neuroblastoma. Dev Med Child Neurol 54 (4): 347-52, 2012. [PubMed: 22329756]
41. McGirt MJ, Chaichana KL, Atiba A, et al.: Incidence of spinal deformity after resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors in children who underwent laminectomy compared with laminoplasty. J Neurosurg Pediatr 1 (1): 57-62, 2008. [PubMed: 18352804]
42. Kraal K, Blom T, van Noesel M, et al.: Treatment and outcome of neuroblastoma with intraspinal extension: A systematic review. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64 (8): , 2017. [PubMed: 28150396]
43. Angelini P, Plantaz D, De Bernardi B, et al.: Late sequelae of symptomatic epidural compression in children with localized neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 57 (3): 473-80, 2011. [PubMed: 21548008]
44. De Bernardi B, Quaglietta L, Haupt R, et al.: Neuroblastoma with symptomatic epidural compression in the infant: the AIEOP experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer 61 (8): 1369-75, 2014. [PubMed: 24619960]
45. Papathanasiou ND, Gaze MN, Sullivan K, et al.: 18F-FDG PET/CT and 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine imaging in high-risk neuroblastoma: diagnostic comparison and survival analysis. J Nucl Med 52 (4): 519-25, 2011. [PubMed: 21421719]
46. Kushner BH, Kramer K, Modak S, et al.: Sensitivity of surveillance studies for detecting asymptomatic and unsuspected relapse of high-risk neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1041-6, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2667809] [PubMed: 19171710]
47. Owens C, Li BK, Thomas KE, et al.: Surveillance imaging and radiation exposure in the detection of relapsed neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 63 (10): 1786-93, 2016. [PubMed: 27304424]
48. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PMC free article: PMC4136455] [PubMed: 24853691]
49. Corrigan JJ, Feig SA; American Academy of Pediatrics: Guidelines for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 113 (6): 1833-5, 2004. [PubMed: 15173520]

Treatment Options for Low-Risk Neuroblastoma

For patients with localized disease that appears to be resectable (either based on the absence of image-defined risk factors [L1] or on the surgeon's expertise), the tumor should be resected by an experienced surgeon. If the biology is confirmed to be favorable, residual disease after surgery is not considered a risk factor for relapse and chemotherapy is not indicated. Several studies have shown that patients with favorable biology and residual disease have excellent outcomes, with event-free survival (EFS) exceeding 90% and overall survival (OS) ranging from 99% to 100%.[2,3]

Treatment options for low-risk neuroblastoma include the following:

1. Surgery followed by observation.
2. Chemotherapy with or without surgery (for symptomatic disease or unresectable progressive disease after surgery).
3. Observation without biopsy (for perinatal neuroblastoma with small adrenal tumors). The COG experience with observation of apparent neuroblastoma without diagnostic biopsy is limited and under investigation.
4. Radiation therapy (only for emergency therapy).

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, refer to the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted:

• ANBL1232 (NCT02176967) (Response and Biology-Based Risk Factor–Guided Therapy in Treating Younger Patients With Non–High-Risk Neuroblastoma): This phase III trial is studying how well response and biology-based, risk factor–guided therapy works in treating younger patients with non–high-risk neuroblastoma. Table 9 describes the treatment assignments for patients with low-risk neuroblastoma on the ANBL1232 trial. Many patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk neuroblastoma are not being studied on a COG trial but are registered on ANBL00B1 (NCT00904241), the neuroblastoma biology study, to keep track of outcomes.

  Table 9. ANBL1232 Treatment Assignment for Low-Risk Neuroblastoma

  View in own window

  INRG Stage	Biology (Histology and Genomicsa)	Age	Other	Treatment
  L1		<12 months	<5 cm in diameter; confirmatory study if nonadrenal	Observe on study without biopsy
  L2	Favorable histology and genomicsb	<18 months	Asymptomaticc	Observe on study
  MS	Any histology and genomics	<3 months	Existing or evolving hepatomegaly or symptomatic	Immediate treatment, response-based chemotherapy, as per protocol
  	Favorable histology and genomicsb	<3 months	Asymptomaticc without existing or evolving hepatomegaly	Observe per clinical scoring system
  	Favorable histology and genomicsb	3–18 months	Asymptomaticc	Observe per clinical scoring system
  			Symptomatic	Response-based chemotherapy, as per protocol

  INRG = International Neuroblastoma Risk Group.

  ^aGenomic features include MYCN gene amplification, segmental chromosome aberrations (somatic copy number loss at 1p, 3p, 4p, or 11q, or somatic copy number gain at 1p, 2p, or 17q), and DNA index.

  ^bFavorable genomic features are defined by one or more whole-chromosome gains or hyperdiploid tumor (DNA index >1) in the absence of segmental chromosome aberrations as defined above.

  ^cAsymptomatic is defined as no life-threatening symptoms and no impending neurologic or other sequelae (e.g., epidural or intraspinal tumors with existing or impending neurologic impairment, periorbital or calvarial-based lesions with existing or impending cranial nerve impairment, or anatomic or mechanical compromise of critical organ function by tumor [abdominal compartment syndrome, urinary obstruction, etc.]).

References

1. Pinto NR, Applebaum MA, Volchenboum SL, et al.: Advances in Risk Classification and Treatment Strategies for Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 33 (27): 3008-17, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4567703] [PubMed: 26304901]
2. Matthay KK, Perez C, Seeger RC, et al.: Successful treatment of stage III neuroblastoma based on prospective biologic staging: a Children's Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol 16 (4): 1256-64, 1998. [PubMed: 9552023]
3. Strother DR, London WB, Schmidt ML, et al.: Outcome after surgery alone or with restricted use of chemotherapy for patients with low-risk neuroblastoma: results of Children's Oncology Group study P9641. J Clin Oncol 30 (15): 1842-8, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3383182] [PubMed: 22529259]
4. Iehara T, Hamazaki M, Tajiri T, et al.: Successful treatment of infants with localized neuroblastoma based on their MYCN status. Int J Clin Oncol 18 (3): 389-95, 2013. [PubMed: 22383024]
5. Nuchtern JG, London WB, Barnewolt CE, et al.: A prospective study of expectant observation as primary therapy for neuroblastoma in young infants: a Children's Oncology Group study. Ann Surg 256 (4): 573-80, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC5665168] [PubMed: 22964741]
6. Hero B, Simon T, Spitz R, et al.: Localized infant neuroblastomas often show spontaneous regression: results of the prospective trials NB95-S and NB97. J Clin Oncol 26 (9): 1504-10, 2008. [PubMed: 18349403]

Treatment Options for Intermediate-Risk Neuroblastoma

Treatment options for intermediate-risk neuroblastoma include the following:

1. Chemotherapy with or without surgery.
2. Surgery and observation (in infants).
3. Radiation therapy (only for emergency therapy).

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, refer to the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted:

• ANBL1232 (NCT02176967) (Response and Biology-Based Risk Factor–Guided Therapy in Treating Younger Patients With Non–High-Risk Neuroblastoma): This phase III trial is studying how well response and biology-based, risk factor–guided therapy works in treating younger patients with non–high-risk neuroblastoma. Table 12 describes the treatment assignments for patients with intermediate-risk neuroblastoma on the ANBL1232 trial. Many intermediate-risk patients will not be eligible for this study; these patients can be registered and tracked on the COG biology study ANBL00B1 (NCT00904241).

  Table 12. ANBL1232 Treatment Assignment for Intermediate-Risk Neuroblastoma

  View in own window

  INRG Stage	Biology (Histology and Genomicsa)	Age	Other	Treatment
  L2	Favorable histology and genomicsb	<18 months	Asymptomaticc	Observe on study
  MS	Favorable histology and genomicsb	3–18 months	Asymptomaticc	Observe per clinical scoring system
  			Symptomatic	Response-based chemotherapy, as per protocol
  	Unfavorabled/unknown histology and genomicse	<18 months		Response-based chemotherapy, as per protocol
  INRG = International Neuroblastoma Risk Group.

  ^aGenomic features include MYCN gene amplification, segmental chromosome aberrations (somatic copy number loss at 1p, 3p, 4p, or 11q, or somatic copy number gain at 1p, 2p, or 17q), and DNA index.

  ^bFavorable genomic features are defined by one or more whole-chromosome gains or hyperdiploid tumor (DNA index >1) in the absence of segmental chromosome aberrations as defined above.

  ^cAsymptomatic is defined as no life-threatening symptoms and no impending neurologic or other sequelae (e.g., epidural or intraspinal tumors with existing or impending neurologic impairment, periorbital or calvarial-based lesions with existing or impending cranial nerve impairment, or anatomic or mechanical compromise of critical organ function by tumor [abdominal compartment syndrome, urinary obstruction, etc.]).

  ^dUnfavorable genomic features are defined by the presence of any segmental chromosome aberration (somatic copy number loss at 1p, 3p, 4p, or 11q, or somatic copy number gain at 1p, 2p, or 17q) or diploid tumor (DNA index = 1). This includes copy neutral loss of heterozygosity.

  ^eOnly patients with MYCN-nonamplified tumors are eligible for the ANBL1232 study.

References

1. Baker DL, Schmidt ML, Cohn SL, et al.: Outcome after reduced chemotherapy for intermediate-risk neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 363 (14): 1313-23, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC2993160] [PubMed: 20879880]
2. Pinto NR, Applebaum MA, Volchenboum SL, et al.: Advances in Risk Classification and Treatment Strategies for Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 33 (27): 3008-17, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4567703] [PubMed: 26304901]
3. Iehara T, Hamazaki M, Tajiri T, et al.: Successful treatment of infants with localized neuroblastoma based on their MYCN status. Int J Clin Oncol 18 (3): 389-95, 2013. [PubMed: 22383024]
4. Shamberger RC, Smith EI, Joshi VV, et al.: The risk of nephrectomy during local control in abdominal neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Surg 33 (2): 161-4, 1998. [PubMed: 9498379]
5. Hero B, Simon T, Spitz R, et al.: Localized infant neuroblastomas often show spontaneous regression: results of the prospective trials NB95-S and NB97. J Clin Oncol 26 (9): 1504-10, 2008. [PubMed: 18349403]
6. Rubie H, De Bernardi B, Gerrard M, et al.: Excellent outcome with reduced treatment in infants with nonmetastatic and unresectable neuroblastoma without MYCN amplification: results of the prospective INES 99.1. J Clin Oncol 29 (4): 449-55, 2011. [PubMed: 21172879]
7. Kohler JA, Rubie H, Castel V, et al.: Treatment of children over the age of one year with unresectable localised neuroblastoma without MYCN amplification: results of the SIOPEN study. Eur J Cancer 49 (17): 3671-9, 2013. [PubMed: 23907002]
8. De Bernardi B, Gerrard M, Boni L, et al.: Excellent outcome with reduced treatment for infants with disseminated neuroblastoma without MYCN gene amplification. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1034-40, 2009. [PubMed: 19171711]
9. Minard V, Hartmann O, Peyroulet MC, et al.: Adverse outcome of infants with metastatic neuroblastoma, MYCN amplification and/or bone lesions: results of the French society of pediatric oncology. Br J Cancer 83 (8): 973-9, 2000. [PMC free article: PMC2363565] [PubMed: 10993641]

Treatment Options for High-Risk Neuroblastoma

Outcomes for patients with high-risk neuroblastoma remain poor despite recent improvements in survival in randomized trials.

Treatment options for high-risk neuroblastoma typically include the following:

1. A regimen of chemotherapy, surgery, tandem cycles of myeloablative therapy and stem cell transplant (SCT), radiation therapy, and dinutuximab with interleukin-2 (IL-2)/granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and isotretinoin.

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, refer to the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted:

• ANBL1531 (NCT03126916) (A Phase III Study of 131I-MIBG or Crizotinib Added to Intensive Therapy for Children With Newly Diagnosed High-Risk Neuroblastoma): The standard current COG therapy has been described above; it consists of induction chemotherapy, consolidation with surgery and tandem SCT, and postconsolidation radiation therapy with isotretinoin and dinutuximab immune-enhanced immunotherapy. During the 4-week initial induction chemotherapy cycle, patients will be screened for the ALK gene aberration (occurs in approximately 10%–15% of high-risk patients). Before the second cycle of induction chemotherapy, the treatment arm assignment occurs. Most patients enrolled will be MIBG avid and lack the ALK aberration, and will be randomly assigned to one of the following three treatment arms:

  1. Arm A consists of standard COG therapy as described above.
  2. Arm B consists of standard COG therapy but with an MIBG cycle added after the third cycle of induction chemotherapy.
  3. Arm C consists of the same treatment as arm B but the consolidation ablative therapy for SCT will be a single transplant with busulfan/melphalan, rather than the COG standard tandem transplant.
  Patients with the ALK gene mutation or ALK amplification will receive nonrandomized COG current standard induction chemotherapy with the ALK inhibitor crizotinib added, followed by further therapy on the standard COG treatment plan.
  Patients with MIBG nonavid, ALK nonaberrant tumors will receive standard current chemotherapy as in arm A above.
• ANBL 17P1 (NCT03786783) (A Pilot Induction Regimen Incorporating Chimeric 14.18 Antibody [Dinutuximab] and Sargramostim [GM-CSF] for the Treatment of Newly Diagnosed High-Risk Neuroblastoma): The need for innovative therapies for children with high-risk neuroblastoma remains critical because many children with high-risk disease experience progressive disease during induction therapy, have persistent metastatic disease, or relapse after the completion of therapy. Recent studies conducted in patients with recurrent or refractory neuroblastoma have demonstrated objective clinical responses after treatment with the combination of an anti-GD2 monoclonal antibody plus chemotherapy and GM-CSF. This limited-institution protocol will evaluate whether the addition of the anti-GD2 monoclonal antibody dinutuximab and GM-CSF to standard induction chemotherapy during cycles three to five for patients with newly-diagnosed neuroblastoma is safe and tolerable.

References

1. Pinto NR, Applebaum MA, Volchenboum SL, et al.: Advances in Risk Classification and Treatment Strategies for Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 33 (27): 3008-17, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4567703] [PubMed: 26304901]
2. Canete A, Gerrard M, Rubie H, et al.: Poor survival for infants with MYCN-amplified metastatic neuroblastoma despite intensified treatment: the International Society of Paediatric Oncology European Neuroblastoma Experience. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1014-9, 2009. [PubMed: 19171715]
3. Maris JM: Recent advances in neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 362 (23): 2202-11, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC3306838] [PubMed: 20558371]
4. Cotterill SJ, Pearson AD, Pritchard J, et al.: Late relapse and prognosis for neuroblastoma patients surviving 5 years or more: a report from the European Neuroblastoma Study Group "Survey". Med Pediatr Oncol 36 (1): 235-8, 2001. [PubMed: 11464893]
5. Mertens AC, Yasui Y, Neglia JP, et al.: Late mortality experience in five-year survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer: the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol 19 (13): 3163-72, 2001. [PubMed: 11432882]
6. Morgenstern DA, London WB, Stephens D, et al.: Metastatic neuroblastoma confined to distant lymph nodes (stage 4N) predicts outcome in patients with stage 4 disease: A study from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Database. J Clin Oncol 32 (12): 1228-35, 2014. [PMC free article: PMC4876342] [PubMed: 24663047]
7. Kushner BH, LaQuaglia MP, Bonilla MA, et al.: Highly effective induction therapy for stage 4 neuroblastoma in children over 1 year of age. J Clin Oncol 12 (12): 2607-13, 1994. [PubMed: 7527454]
8. Park JR, Scott JR, Stewart CF, et al.: Pilot induction regimen incorporating pharmacokinetically guided topotecan for treatment of newly diagnosed high-risk neuroblastoma: a Children's Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 29 (33): 4351-7, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3221519] [PubMed: 22010014]
9. Decarolis B, Schneider C, Hero B, et al.: Iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy scoring allows prediction of outcome in patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma: results of the Cologne interscore comparison study. J Clin Oncol 31 (7): 944-51, 2013. [PubMed: 23341514]
10. Yanik GA, Parisi MT, Shulkin BL, et al.: Semiquantitative mIBG scoring as a prognostic indicator in patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma: a report from the Children's oncology group. J Nucl Med 54 (4): 541-8, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC5503147] [PubMed: 23440556]
11. De Ioris MA, Crocoli A, Contoli B, et al.: Local control in metastatic neuroblastoma in children over 1 year of age. BMC Cancer 15: 79, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4349468] [PubMed: 25886486]
12. von Allmen D, Davidoff AM, London WB, et al.: Impact of Extent of Resection on Local Control and Survival in Patients From the COG A3973 Study With High-Risk Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 35 (2): 208-216, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5455676] [PubMed: 27870572]
13. Englum BR, Rialon KL, Speicher PJ, et al.: Value of surgical resection in children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 62 (9): 1529-35, 2015. [PubMed: 25810376]
14. Matthay KK, Villablanca JG, Seeger RC, et al.: Treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma with intensive chemotherapy, radiotherapy, autologous bone marrow transplantation, and 13-cis-retinoic acid. Children's Cancer Group. N Engl J Med 341 (16): 1165-73, 1999. [PubMed: 10519894]
15. Berthold F, Boos J, Burdach S, et al.: Myeloablative megatherapy with autologous stem-cell rescue versus oral maintenance chemotherapy as consolidation treatment in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 6 (9): 649-58, 2005. [PubMed: 16129365]
16. Pritchard J, Cotterill SJ, Germond SM, et al.: High dose melphalan in the treatment of advanced neuroblastoma: results of a randomised trial (ENSG-1) by the European Neuroblastoma Study Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 44 (4): 348-57, 2005. [PubMed: 15546135]
17. Elborai Y, Hafez H, Moussa EA, et al.: Comparison of toxicity following different conditioning regimens (busulfan/melphalan and carboplatin/etoposide/melphalan) for advanced stage neuroblastoma: Experience of two transplant centers. Pediatr Transplant 20 (2): 284-9, 2016. [PubMed: 26614402]
18. Ladenstein R, Pötschger U, Pearson ADJ, et al.: Busulfan and melphalan versus carboplatin, etoposide, and melphalan as high-dose chemotherapy for high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NBL1/SIOPEN): an international, randomised, multi-arm, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 18 (4): 500-514, 2017. [PubMed: 28259608]
19. Seif AE, Naranjo A, Baker DL, et al.: A pilot study of tandem high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue as consolidation for high-risk neuroblastoma: Children's Oncology Group study ANBL00P1. Bone Marrow Transplant 48 (7): 947-52, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3638062] [PubMed: 23334272]
20. Park JR, Kreissman SG, London WB, et al.: A phase III randomized clinical trial (RCT) of tandem myeloablative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) using peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) as consolidation therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma (HR-NB): a Children's Oncology Group (COG) study. [Abstract] J Clin Oncol 34 (Suppl 15): A-LBA3, 2016. Also available online. Last accessed February 11, 2019.
21. Casey DL, Kushner BH, Cheung NV, et al.: Dose-escalation is needed for gross disease in high-risk neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 65 (7): e27009, 2018. [PMC free article: PMC6625659] [PubMed: 29469198]
22. Polishchuk AL, Li R, Hill-Kayser C, et al.: Likelihood of bone recurrence in prior sites of metastasis in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 89 (4): 839-45, 2014. [PubMed: 24867534]
23. Hattangadi JA, Rombi B, Yock TI, et al.: Proton radiotherapy for high-risk pediatric neuroblastoma: early outcomes and dose comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83 (3): 1015-22, 2012. [PubMed: 22138463]
24. Matthay KK, Reynolds CP, Seeger RC, et al.: Long-term results for children with high-risk neuroblastoma treated on a randomized trial of myeloablative therapy followed by 13-cis-retinoic acid: a children's oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1007-13, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2738615] [PubMed: 19171716]
25. Yu AL, Gilman AL, Ozkaynak MF, et al.: Anti-GD2 antibody with GM-CSF, interleukin-2, and isotretinoin for neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 363 (14): 1324-34, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC3086629] [PubMed: 20879881]
26. Cheung NK, Cheung IY, Kushner BH, et al.: Murine anti-GD2 monoclonal antibody 3F8 combined with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and 13-cis-retinoic acid in high-risk patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma in first remission. J Clin Oncol 30 (26): 3264-70, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3434986] [PubMed: 22869886]
27. Yalçin B, Kremer LC, Caron HN, et al.: High-dose chemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell rescue for children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8: CD006301, 2013. [PubMed: 23970444]
28. Kushner BH, Ostrovnaya I, Cheung IY, et al.: Lack of survival advantage with autologous stem-cell transplantation in high-risk neuroblastoma consolidated by anti-GD2 immunotherapy and isotretinoin. Oncotarget 7 (4): 4155-66, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC4826196] [PubMed: 26623730]
29. Kreissman SG, Seeger RC, Matthay KK, et al.: Purged versus non-purged peripheral blood stem-cell transplantation for high-risk neuroblastoma (COG A3973): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14 (10): 999-1008, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3963485] [PubMed: 23890779]
30. Hale GA, Arora M, Ahn KW, et al.: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for neuroblastoma: the CIBMTR experience. Bone Marrow Transplant 48 (8): 1056-64, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3661721] [PubMed: 23419433]
31. DeCou JM, Bowman LC, Rao BN, et al.: Infants with metastatic neuroblastoma have improved survival with resection of the primary tumor. J Pediatr Surg 30 (7): 937-40; discussion 940-1, 1995. [PubMed: 7472948]
32. Castel V, Tovar JA, Costa E, et al.: The role of surgery in stage IV neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Surg 37 (11): 1574-8, 2002. [PubMed: 12407542]
33. Simon T, Häberle B, Hero B, et al.: Role of surgery in the treatment of patients with stage 4 neuroblastoma age 18 months or older at diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 31 (6): 752-8, 2013. [PubMed: 23284039]
34. Adkins ES, Sawin R, Gerbing RB, et al.: Efficacy of complete resection for high-risk neuroblastoma: a Children's Cancer Group study. J Pediatr Surg 39 (6): 931-6, 2004. [PubMed: 15185228]
35. Haas-Kogan DA, Swift PS, Selch M, et al.: Impact of radiotherapy for high-risk neuroblastoma: a Children's Cancer Group study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56 (1): 28-39, 2003. [PubMed: 12694821]
36. Casey DL, Kushner BH, Cheung NK, et al.: Local Control With 21-Gy Radiation Therapy for High-Risk Neuroblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96 (2): 393-400, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC5476959] [PubMed: 27473818]
37. Gatcombe HG, Marcus RB Jr, Katzenstein HM, et al.: Excellent local control from radiation therapy for high-risk neuroblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 74 (5): 1549-54, 2009. [PubMed: 19211198]

Treatment Options for Stage 4S/MS Neuroblastoma

There is no standard approach to the treatment of stage 4S neuroblastoma.

Treatment options for stage 4S neuroblastoma include the following:

1. Observation with supportive care (for asymptomatic patients with favorable tumor biology).
2. Chemotherapy (for symptomatic patients, very young infants, or patients with unfavorable biology).

Resection of primary tumor is not associated with improved outcome.[3-5] Rarely, infants with massive hepatic 4S neuroblastoma develop cirrhosis from the chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy that is used to control the disease and may benefit from orthotopic liver transplant.[6]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, refer to the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted:

• ANBL1232 (NCT02176967) (Response and Biology-Based Risk Factor–Guided Therapy in Treating Younger Patients With Non–High-Risk Neuroblastoma):

  -

  For all newly diagnosed INRG MS patients younger than 18 months, the following occurs:

  • Patients younger than 3 months with existing or evolving hepatomegaly or who are symptomatic are entered in the trial, and chemotherapy begins immediately. Full staging must be completed within 1 month; a tumor biopsy is not performed until the patient is stable.
  • Patients aged 3 to 12 months who are symptomatic are entered in the trial, and chemotherapy begins immediately. Tumor biopsy is performed after the patient is stable.
  • Patients aged 12 to 18 months who are symptomatic have a tumor biopsy before starting chemotherapy.
  • Patients aged 3 to 18 months who are asymptomatic and patients younger than 3 months who are asymptomatic and have no evolving hepatomegaly have a tumor biopsy followed by close observation initially, to continue for 3 years.
    Patients with INRG MS tumors that have unfavorable histology or unfavorable genomic features with or without symptoms are treated according to a response-based algorithm to determine length of treatment. For INRG MS patients under observation without chemotherapy, an objective scoring system is used to monitor them for clinical changes and initiate therapy. For patients with complete resolution of symptoms and at least a 50% reduction in primary tumor volume (partial response), chemotherapy is discontinued, and observation continues for 3 years after completion of therapy. If the disease progresses, the patient leaves this study.

References

1. Canete A, Gerrard M, Rubie H, et al.: Poor survival for infants with MYCN-amplified metastatic neuroblastoma despite intensified treatment: the International Society of Paediatric Oncology European Neuroblastoma Experience. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1014-9, 2009. [PubMed: 19171715]
2. Pinto NR, Applebaum MA, Volchenboum SL, et al.: Advances in Risk Classification and Treatment Strategies for Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 33 (27): 3008-17, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4567703] [PubMed: 26304901]
3. Guglielmi M, De Bernardi B, Rizzo A, et al.: Resection of primary tumor at diagnosis in stage IV-S neuroblastoma: does it affect the clinical course? J Clin Oncol 14 (5): 1537-44, 1996. [PubMed: 8622069]
4. Katzenstein HM, Bowman LC, Brodeur GM, et al.: Prognostic significance of age, MYCN oncogene amplification, tumor cell ploidy, and histology in 110 infants with stage D(S) neuroblastoma: the pediatric oncology group experience--a pediatric oncology group study. J Clin Oncol 16 (6): 2007-17, 1998. [PubMed: 9626197]
5. Nickerson HJ, Matthay KK, Seeger RC, et al.: Favorable biology and outcome of stage IV-S neuroblastoma with supportive care or minimal therapy: a Children's Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol 18 (3): 477-86, 2000. [PubMed: 10653863]
6. Steele M, Jones NL, Ng V, et al.: Successful liver transplantation in an infant with stage 4S(M) neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 60 (3): 515-7, 2013. [PubMed: 23152322]
7. Twist CJ, Naranjo A, Schmidt ML, et al.: Defining Risk Factors for Chemotherapeutic Intervention in Infants With Stage 4S Neuroblastoma: A Report From Children's Oncology Group Study ANBL0531. J Clin Oncol : JCO1800419, 2018. [PMC free article: PMC6325354] [PubMed: 30444686]
8. Hsu LL, Evans AE, D'Angio GJ: Hepatomegaly in neuroblastoma stage 4s: criteria for treatment of the vulnerable neonate. Med Pediatr Oncol 27 (6): 521-8, 1996. [PubMed: 8888811]
9. De Bernardi B, Gerrard M, Boni L, et al.: Excellent outcome with reduced treatment for infants with disseminated neuroblastoma without MYCN gene amplification. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1034-40, 2009. [PubMed: 19171711]
10. Keene DJ, Minford J, Craigie RJ, et al.: Laparostomy closure in stage 4S neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Surg 46 (1): e1-4, 2011. [PubMed: 21238624]
11. Harper L, Perel Y, Lavrand F, et al.: Surgical management of neuroblastoma-related hepatomegaly: do material and method really count? Pediatr Hematol Oncol 25 (4): 313-7, 2008. [PubMed: 18484475]
12. Strother DR, London WB, Schmidt ML, et al.: Outcome after surgery alone or with restricted use of chemotherapy for patients with low-risk neuroblastoma: results of Children's Oncology Group study P9641. J Clin Oncol 30 (15): 1842-8, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3383182] [PubMed: 22529259]
13. Park JR, Bagatell R, London WB, et al.: Children's Oncology Group's 2013 blueprint for research: neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 60 (6): 985-93, 2013. [PubMed: 23255319]

Prognostic Factors for Recurrent Neuroblastoma

The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project performed a survival-tree analysis of clinical and biological characteristics (defined at diagnosis) associated with survival after relapse in 2,266 patients with neuroblastoma entered on large clinical trials in well-established clinical trials groups around the world.[7] The survival-tree analysis revealed the following:

• Overall survival (OS) in the entire relapsed population was 20%.
• Among patients with all stages of disease at diagnosis, MYCN amplification predicted a poorer prognosis, measured as 5-year OS.
• Among patients diagnosed with International Neuroblastoma Staging System (INSS) stage 4 without amplification, age older than 18 months and high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level predicted poor prognosis.
• Among patients with MYCN amplification, those diagnosed with stage 1 and stage 2 have a better prognosis than do those diagnosed with stage 3 and stage 4.
• Among patients with MYCN-nonamplified tumors who are not stage 4, patients with hyperdiploidy had a better prognosis than did patients with diploidy in those younger than 18 months, while among those older than 18 months, patients with differentiating tumors fared much better than did patients with undifferentiated and poorly differentiated tumors.

Significant prognostic factors determined at diagnosis for postrelapse survival include the following:[7]

• Age.
• INSS stage.
• MYCN status.
• Time from diagnosis to first relapse.
• LDH level, ploidy, and histologic grade of tumor differentiation (to a lesser extent).

The Children’s Oncology Group (COG) experience with recurrence in patients with low-risk and intermediate-risk neuroblastoma showed that most patients can be salvaged. The COG reported a 3-year event free survival (EFS) of 88% and an OS of 96% in intermediate-risk patients and a 5-year EFS of 89% and OS of 97% in low-risk patients.[13,14] Moreover, in most patients originally diagnosed with low-risk or intermediate-risk disease, local recurrence or recurrence in the 4S pattern may be treated successfully with observation alone, surgery alone, or with moderate-dose chemotherapy, without myeloablative therapy and stem cell transplant.

Although the OS after recurrence in children presenting with high-risk neuroblastoma is generally extremely poor, patients with high-risk neuroblastoma at first relapse after complete remission or minimal residual disease (MRD) in whom relapse was a single site of soft tissue mass (a few children also had bone marrow or bone disease at relapse) had a 5-year OS of 35% in one single-institution study. All patients underwent surgical resection of the soft tissue disease. MYCN amplification and multifocal soft tissue disease were associated with a worse postprogression survival.[15]

Recurrent Neuroblastoma in Patients Initially Classified as Low Risk

Recurrent Neuroblastoma in Patients Initially Classified as Intermediate Risk

The treatment options for locoregional and metastatic recurrence in patients with intermediate-risk neuroblastoma are derived from the results of the COG-A3961 trial. Among 479 patients with intermediate-risk neuroblastoma treated on the COG-A3961 clinical trial, 42 patients developed disease progression. The rate was 10% of those with favorable biology and 17% of those with unfavorable biology. Thirty patients had locoregional recurrence, 11 patients had metastatic recurrence, and 1 patient had both types of recurrent disease. Six of the 42 patients died of disease, while 36 patients were salvaged. Thus, most patients with intermediate-risk neuroblastoma and disease progression may be salvaged.[13]

Recurrent Neuroblastoma in Patients Initially Classified as High Risk

Any recurrence in patients initially classified as high risk signifies a very poor prognosis.[7] Clinical trials may be considered. Palliative care should also be considered as part of the patient's treatment plan.

An analysis of several trials included 383 patients with neuroblastoma whose tumor recurred or progressed on COG modern-era early-phase trials. The 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 21%, and the 4-year PFS rate was 6%, while the OS rates were 57% at 1 year and 20% at 4 years. Less than 10% of patients experienced no subsequent recurrence or progression. MYCN amplification predicted worse PFS and OS rates.[16] Although the OS after recurrence in children presenting with high-risk neuroblastoma is generally extremely poor, patients with high-risk neuroblastoma at first relapse after complete remission or MRD in whom relapse was a single site of soft tissue mass (a few children also had bone marrow or bone disease at relapse) had a 5-year OS of 35% in one single-institution study.[15]

Treatment options for recurrent or refractory neuroblastoma in patients initially classified as high risk include the following:

1. Chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy.

   • Temozolomide, irinotecan, and dinutuximab.[17]
2. 131I-MIBG. 131I-MIBG alone, in combination with other therapy, or followed by stem cell rescue.
3. ALK inhibitors. Crizotinib, or other ALK inhibitors, for patients with ALK mutations.[18]
4. Chemotherapy.

   • Topotecan in combination with cyclophosphamide or etoposide.[19]
   • Temozolomide with irinotecan.

Chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy produces the best response rate and response duration of treatments for high-risk patients with disease progression.

Evidence (chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy):

1. In the ANBL1221 (NCT01767194) trial, patients in first relapse or progression were randomly assigned to receive either temozolomide/irinotecan/dinutuximab or temozolomide/irinotecan/temsirolimus.[17]

   • Of the 17 patients treated with the combination that included dinutuximab, 9 patients (53%) had an objective response, compared with 1 of 18 patients treated with the regimen that contained temsirolimus.

Evidence (131I-MIBG):

1. For children with recurrent or refractory neuroblastoma, 131I-MIBG is an effective palliative agent and may be considered alone or in combination with chemotherapy (with stem cell rescue) in a clinical research trial.[20-25]; [26,27][Level of evidence: 3iiiA]
2. A North American retrospective study of more than 200 patients treated with 131I-MIBG therapy compared children who had recurrence or progression of disease with children who had stable or persistent disease since diagnosis.[28]

   • The rate of immediate progression after 131I-MIBG therapy was lower and OS at 2 years was better (65% vs. 39%) in patients with stable, persistent disease.
3. Tandem consolidation using 131I-MIBG, vincristine, and irinotecan with autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) followed by busulfan/melphalan with autologous SCT was retrospectively reported in eight patients and resulted in three complete responses, two partial responses, and one minor response.[27]
4. Single autologous SCT with escalating dose 131I-MIBG and carboplatin/etoposide/melphalan was studied in additional patients.[29]

   • After induction chemotherapy, 27 refractory patients and 15 progressing patients were treated, resulting in four responses. Eight patients with partial response to induction were treated, resulting in three responses.
   • The 12% incidence of sinusoidal obstructive syndrome was dose limiting.

Evidence (chemotherapy):

1. The combination of irinotecan and temozolomide had a 15% response rate in one study.[30][Level of evidence: 2A]
2. A retrospective study reported on 74 patients who received 92 cycles of ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide; it included 37 patients who received peripheral blood stem cell rescue after responding to this drug combination.[31]

   • Disease regressions (major and minor responses) were achieved in 14 of 17 patients (82%) with a new relapse, 13 of 26 patients (50%) with refractory neuroblastoma, and 12 of 34 patients (35%) who were treated for progressive disease during chemotherapy (P = .005).
   • Grade 3 toxicities were rare.
3. Topotecan in combination with cyclophosphamide or etoposide has been used in patients with recurrent disease who did not receive topotecan initially.[32,33]; [19][Level of evidence: 1A]
4. High-dose carboplatin, irinotecan, and/or temozolomide has been used in relapsed patients resistant or refractory to regimens containing topotecan.[33]

Allogeneic transplant has a historically low success rate in recurrent or progressive neuroblastoma. In a retrospective registry study, allogeneic SCT after a previous autologous SCT appeared to offer no benefit. Disease recurrence remains the most common cause of treatment failure.[34]

Clinical trials of novel therapeutic approaches, such as a vaccine designed to induce host antiganglioside antibodies that can replicate the antineoplastic activities of intravenously administered monoclonal antibodies, are currently under investigation. Patients also receive a beta-glucan treatment, which has a broad range of immunostimulatory effects and synergizes with anti-GD2/GD3 monoclonal antibodies. In a phase I study of 15 children with high-risk neuroblastoma, the therapy was tolerated without any dose-limiting toxicity.[35] Long-term PFS has been reported in patients who achieve a second or later complete or very good partial remission followed by consolidation with anti-GD2 immunotherapy and isotretinoin with or without maintenance therapy. This includes patients who had previously received anti-GD2 immunotherapy and isotretinoin.[36]

Recurrent Neuroblastoma in the Central Nervous System

Central nervous system (CNS) involvement, although rare at initial presentation, may occur in 5% to 10% of patients with recurrent neuroblastoma. Because upfront treatment for newly diagnosed patients does not adequately treat the CNS, the CNS has emerged as a sanctuary site leading to relapse.[37,38] CNS relapses are almost always fatal, with a median time to death of 6 months.

Treatment options for recurrent neuroblastoma in the CNS include the following:

1. Surgery and radiation therapy.
2. Novel therapeutic approaches.

Current treatment approaches generally include eradicating bulky and microscopic residual disease in the CNS and minimal residual systemic disease that may herald further relapses. Neurosurgical interventions serve to decrease edema, control hemorrhage, and remove bulky tumor before starting therapy.

Compartmental radioimmunotherapy using intrathecal radioiodinated monoclonal antibodies has been tested in patients with recurrent metastatic CNS neuroblastoma after surgery, craniospinal radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.[12]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Recurrent or Refractory Neuroblastoma

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, refer to the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

The following are examples of national and/or institutional clinical trials that are currently being conducted:

• APEC1621 (NCT03155620) (Pediatric MATCH: Targeted Therapy Directed by Genetic Testing in Treating Pediatric Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Advanced Solid Tumors, Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas, or Histiocytic Disorders): NCI-COG Pediatric Molecular Analysis for Therapeutic Choice (MATCH), referred to as Pediatric MATCH, will match targeted agents with specific molecular changes identified using a next-generation sequencing targeted assay of more than 3,000 different mutations across more than 160 genes in refractory and recurrent solid tumors. Children and adolescents aged 1 to 21 years are eligible for the trial.
  Tumor tissue from progressive or recurrent disease must be available for molecular characterization. Patients with tumors that have molecular variants addressed by treatment arms included in the trial will be offered treatment on Pediatric MATCH. Additional information can be obtained on the ClinicalTrials.gov website for APEC1621 (NCT03155620).
• ADVL1312 (NCT02095132) (A Phase I/II Study of AZD1775 [MK-1775] in Combination With Oral Irinotecan in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults With Relapsed or Refractory Solid Tumors): Wee1 is a tyrosine kinase that is activated in response to DNA damage and plays a role in chemoresistance and tolerance of oncogene-induced cellular stress. The Wee1 inhibitor AZD1775 (MK-1775) was developed to overcome this checkpoint and render cells more sensitive to chemotherapy, and it may be more effective in tumors with high levels of the MYC or MYCN oncogene.
• ADVL1621 (NCT02332668) (A Phase I/II Study of Pembrolizumab [MK-3475] in Children With Advanced Melanoma or a PD-L1–Positive Advanced, Relapsed or Refractory Solid Tumor or Lymphoma): Part 1 of this study will find the maximum tolerated dose, confirm the dose, and find the recommended phase II dose for pembrolizumab therapy. Part 2 of the study will further evaluate the safety and efficacy at the pediatric phase II recommended dose.
• ENCIT-01 (NCT02311621) (A Phase I Feasibility and Safety Study of Cellular Immunotherapy for Recurrent/Refractory Neuroblastoma Using Autologous T-cells Lentivirally Transduced to Express CD171-Specific Chimeric Antigen Receptors [CAR]): Patients with recurrent or refractory neuroblastoma are resistant to conventional chemotherapy. For this reason, the investigators are attempting to use T cells obtained directly from the patient, which can be genetically modified to express a CAR. The CAR enables the T cell to recognize and kill the neuroblastoma cell through the recognition of CD171, a protein expressed on the surface of the neuroblastoma cell. This is a phase I study designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose of the CAR T cells.
• NANT2015-02 (NCT03107988) (Phase I Study of Lorlatinib [PF-06463922], an Oral Small Molecule Inhibitor of ALK/ROS1, for Patients With ALK-Driven Relapsed or Refractory Neuroblastoma): This is a pediatric dose-finding study of a third-generation ALK inhibitor. Lorlatinib is sensitive to ALK mutations, while crizotinib is resistant. An expansion study to include more children is also being planned.
• N2011-01 (NCT02035137) (Randomized Phase II Pick-the-Winner Study of 131I-MIBG, 131I-MIBG With Vincristine and Irinotecan, or 131I-MIBG With Vorinostat for Resistant/Relapsed Neuroblastoma): This study will compare three treatment regimens containing MIBG, including their effects on tumor response and associated side effects, to determine whether one therapy is better than the other for people diagnosed with relapsed or persistent neuroblastoma.
• NANT2017-01 (NCT03332667) (MIBG With Dinutuximab): In this pediatric phase I trial, 131I-MIBG will be administered in combination with dinutuximab (a chimeric 14.18 monoclonal antibody) to neuroblastoma patients with refractory or relapsed disease. This study will utilize a traditional phase I dose escalation 3+3 design to determine a recommended phase II pediatric dose. An expansion cohort of an additional six patients may then be enrolled.

References

1. Marachelian A, Shimada H, Sano H, et al.: The significance of serial histopathology in a residual mass for outcome of intermediate risk stage 3 neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 58 (5): 675-81, 2012. [PubMed: 22493777]
2. Taggart DR, Han MM, Quach A, et al.: Comparison of iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate response after iodine-131 MIBG therapy for relapsed neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 27 (32): 5343-9, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2773221] [PubMed: 19805691]
3. Schleiermacher G, Javanmardi N, Bernard V, et al.: Emergence of new ALK mutations at relapse of neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 32 (25): 2727-34, 2014. [PubMed: 25071110]
4. Padovan-Merhar OM, Raman P, Ostrovnaya I, et al.: Enrichment of Targetable Mutations in the Relapsed Neuroblastoma Genome. PLoS Genet 12 (12): e1006501, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC5172533] [PubMed: 27997549]
5. Eleveld TF, Oldridge DA, Bernard V, et al.: Relapsed neuroblastomas show frequent RAS-MAPK pathway mutations. Nat Genet 47 (8): 864-71, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4775079] [PubMed: 26121087]
6. Schramm A, Köster J, Assenov Y, et al.: Mutational dynamics between primary and relapse neuroblastomas. Nat Genet 47 (8): 872-7, 2015. [PubMed: 26121086]
7. London WB, Castel V, Monclair T, et al.: Clinical and biologic features predictive of survival after relapse of neuroblastoma: a report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group project. J Clin Oncol 29 (24): 3286-92, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3158599] [PubMed: 21768459]
8. Pole JG, Casper J, Elfenbein G, et al.: High-dose chemoradiotherapy supported by marrow infusions for advanced neuroblastoma: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 9 (1): 152-8, 1991. [PubMed: 1985165]
9. Castel V, Cañete A, Melero C, et al.: Results of the cooperative protocol (N-III-95) for metastatic relapses and refractory neuroblastoma. Med Pediatr Oncol 35 (6): 724-6, 2000. [PubMed: 11107156]
10. Lau L, Tai D, Weitzman S, et al.: Factors influencing survival in children with recurrent neuroblastoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 26 (4): 227-32, 2004. [PubMed: 15087949]
11. Saylors RL 3rd, Stine KC, Sullivan J, et al.: Cyclophosphamide plus topotecan in children with recurrent or refractory solid tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group phase II study. J Clin Oncol 19 (15): 3463-9, 2001. [PubMed: 11481351]
12. Kramer K, Kushner BH, Modak S, et al.: Compartmental intrathecal radioimmunotherapy: results for treatment for metastatic CNS neuroblastoma. J Neurooncol 97 (3): 409-18, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC3533371] [PubMed: 19890606]
13. Baker DL, Schmidt ML, Cohn SL, et al.: Outcome after reduced chemotherapy for intermediate-risk neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 363 (14): 1313-23, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC2993160] [PubMed: 20879880]
14. Strother DR, London WB, Schmidt ML, et al.: Outcome after surgery alone or with restricted use of chemotherapy for patients with low-risk neuroblastoma: results of Children's Oncology Group study P9641. J Clin Oncol 30 (15): 1842-8, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC3383182] [PubMed: 22529259]
15. Murphy JM, Lim II, Farber BA, et al.: Salvage rates after progression of high-risk neuroblastoma with a soft tissue mass. J Pediatr Surg 51 (2): 285-8, 2016. [PMC free article: PMC4769938] [PubMed: 26651282]
16. London WB, Bagatell R, Weigel BJ, et al.: Historical time to disease progression and progression-free survival in patients with recurrent/refractory neuroblastoma treated in the modern era on Children's Oncology Group early-phase trials. Cancer 123 (24): 4914-4923, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5716896] [PubMed: 28885700]
17. Mody R, Naranjo A, Van Ryn C, et al.: Irinotecan-temozolomide with temsirolimus or dinutuximab in children with refractory or relapsed neuroblastoma (COG ANBL1221): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 18 (7): 946-957, 2017. [PMC free article: PMC5527694] [PubMed: 28549783]
18. Mossé YP, Lim MS, Voss SD, et al.: Safety and activity of crizotinib for paediatric patients with refractory solid tumours or anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: a Children's Oncology Group phase 1 consortium study. Lancet Oncol 14 (6): 472-80, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3730818] [PubMed: 23598171]
19. London WB, Frantz CN, Campbell LA, et al.: Phase II randomized comparison of topotecan plus cyclophosphamide versus topotecan alone in children with recurrent or refractory neuroblastoma: a Children's Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 28 (24): 3808-15, 2010. [PMC free article: PMC2940398] [PubMed: 20660830]
20. DuBois SG, Groshen S, Park JR, et al.: Phase I Study of Vorinostat as a Radiation Sensitizer with 131I-Metaiodobenzylguanidine (131I-MIBG) for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Neuroblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 21 (12): 2715-21, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4470833] [PubMed: 25695691]
21. Polishchuk AL, Dubois SG, Haas-Kogan D, et al.: Response, survival, and toxicity after iodine-131-metaiodobenzylguanidine therapy for neuroblastoma in preadolescents, adolescents, and adults. Cancer 117 (18): 4286-93, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3125487] [PubMed: 21387264]
22. Matthay KK, Yanik G, Messina J, et al.: Phase II study on the effect of disease sites, age, and prior therapy on response to iodine-131-metaiodobenzylguanidine therapy in refractory neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 25 (9): 1054-60, 2007. [PubMed: 17369569]
23. Matthay KK, Tan JC, Villablanca JG, et al.: Phase I dose escalation of iodine-131-metaiodobenzylguanidine with myeloablative chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in refractory neuroblastoma: a new approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy Consortium Study. J Clin Oncol 24 (3): 500-6, 2006. [PubMed: 16421427]
24. Matthay KK, Quach A, Huberty J, et al.: Iodine-131--metaiodobenzylguanidine double infusion with autologous stem-cell rescue for neuroblastoma: a new approaches to neuroblastoma therapy phase I study. J Clin Oncol 27 (7): 1020-5, 2009. [PMC free article: PMC2738616] [PubMed: 19171714]
25. DuBois SG, Chesler L, Groshen S, et al.: Phase I study of vincristine, irinotecan, and ¹³¹I-metaiodobenzylguanidine for patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: a new approaches to neuroblastoma therapy trial. Clin Cancer Res 18 (9): 2679-86, 2012. [PMC free article: PMC6814395] [PubMed: 22421195]
26. Johnson K, McGlynn B, Saggio J, et al.: Safety and efficacy of tandem 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine infusions in relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 57 (7): 1124-9, 2011. [PubMed: 21495159]
27. French S, DuBois SG, Horn B, et al.: 131I-MIBG followed by consolidation with busulfan, melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation for refractory neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 60 (5): 879-84, 2013. [PubMed: 23024113]
28. Zhou MJ, Doral MY, DuBois SG, et al.: Different outcomes for relapsed versus refractory neuroblastoma after therapy with (131)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((131)I-MIBG). Eur J Cancer 51 (16): 2465-72, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4607645] [PubMed: 26254811]
29. Yanik GA, Villablanca JG, Maris JM, et al.: 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine with intensive chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for high-risk neuroblastoma. A new approaches to neuroblastoma therapy (NANT) phase II study. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 21 (4): 673-81, 2015. [PubMed: 25639769]
30. Bagatell R, London WB, Wagner LM, et al.: Phase II study of irinotecan and temozolomide in children with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma: a Children's Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 29 (2): 208-13, 2011. [PMC free article: PMC3058276] [PubMed: 21115869]
31. Kushner BH, Modak S, Kramer K, et al.: Ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide for neuroblastoma: a high-dose salvage regimen and review of the literature. Cancer 119 (3): 665-71, 2013. [PubMed: 22951749]
32. Simon T, Längler A, Harnischmacher U, et al.: Topotecan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (TCE) in the treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma. Results of a phase-II trial. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 133 (9): 653-61, 2007. [PubMed: 17479288]
33. Kushner BH, Kramer K, Modak S, et al.: Differential impact of high-dose cyclophosphamide, topotecan, and vincristine in clinical subsets of patients with chemoresistant neuroblastoma. Cancer 116 (12): 3054-60, 2010. [PubMed: 20564411]
34. Hale GA, Arora M, Ahn KW, et al.: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for neuroblastoma: the CIBMTR experience. Bone Marrow Transplant 48 (8): 1056-64, 2013. [PMC free article: PMC3661721] [PubMed: 23419433]
35. Kushner BH, Cheung IY, Modak S, et al.: Phase I trial of a bivalent gangliosides vaccine in combination with β-glucan for high-risk neuroblastoma in second or later remission. Clin Cancer Res 20 (5): 1375-82, 2014. [PMC free article: PMC5592799] [PubMed: 24520094]
36. Kushner BH, Ostrovnaya I, Cheung IY, et al.: Prolonged progression-free survival after consolidating second or later remissions of neuroblastoma with Anti-GD2 immunotherapy and isotretinoin: a prospective Phase II study. Oncoimmunology 4 (7): e1016704, 2015. [PMC free article: PMC4485744] [PubMed: 26140243]
37. Kramer K, Kushner B, Heller G, et al.: Neuroblastoma metastatic to the central nervous system. The Memorial Sloan-kettering Cancer Center Experience and A Literature Review. Cancer 91 (8): 1510-9, 2001. [PubMed: 11301399]
38. Matthay KK, Brisse H, Couanet D, et al.: Central nervous system metastases in neuroblastoma: radiologic, clinical, and biologic features in 23 patients. Cancer 98 (1): 155-65, 2003. [PubMed: 12833468]

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of neuroblastoma. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians who care for cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

• be discussed at a meeting,
• be cited with text, or
• replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Neuroblastoma Treatment are:

• Christopher N. Frantz, MD (Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children)
• Andrea A. Hayes-Jordan, MD, FACS, FAAP (University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill School of Medicine)
• Karen J. Marcus, MD (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Boston Children's Hospital)
• Nita Louise Seibel, MD (National Cancer Institute)
• Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children's Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website's Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Neuroblastoma Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/neuroblastoma/hp/neuroblastoma-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 26389190]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.