Summary of the multicenter application of the CCCG-NB-2015 consensus in neuroblastoma
-
摘要:
目的 对中国多中心应用CCCG-NB-2015共识方案诊治的儿童神经母细胞瘤(neuroblastoma,NB)病例进行回顾性分析总结,以期为改进NB诊疗工作提供有力依据。 方法 回顾性分析2013年3月至2020年7月经统一规范的CCCG-NB-2015共识方案诊治的全国多中心500例NB患儿的临床和预后资料,通过Cox单因素和多因素回归分析明确影响NB预后的关键因素;分别绘制神经元特异性烯醇化酶(neuron-specific enolase,NSE)和乳酸脱氢酶(lactate dehydrogenase,LDH)在预测骨髓转移和复发的ROC曲线,明确NSE和LDH的临床价值;比对分析NB两种不同分期系统和危险度分组系统下患儿的预后差异,着重分析中危组人群的队列特征和预后结局。 结果 通过单因素分析共确定10个潜在的预后因子,分别为年龄、肿瘤原发部位、INPC分类、骨髓转移、MYCN状态、INSS分期、INRGSS分期、诊断时NSE、LDH水平和影像学定义的危险因素(image-defined risk factors,IDRFs),均P<0.05。Cox多因素分析结果显示与无事件生存率(event-free survival,EFS)密切相关的独立预后因子为INPC分类、骨髓转移、诊断时NSE、LDH水平,与OS密切相关的独立预后因子为NSE、LDH水平及INRGSS分期(均P<0.05);NSE和LDH可以较好地预测NB骨髓转移、复发等事件发生(均P<0.05);INSS分期中非4期和4期的3年EFS分别为93.8%和52.6%;转换为INRGSS分期后,L1、L2、MS和M期的3年EFS分别为94.4%、87.2%、87.5%和53.6%。低危组、中危组和高危组3年和5年的EFS分别为97.1%和97.1%、90.0%和87.3%、53.9%和47.3%;其中INSS分期中3期且伴有INPC为UH型的患儿在CCCG-NB-2015共识方案中被归入高危组,其预后差,5年EFS为65.7%(P<0.05),但却在INRG危险度分组中被列入中危组。 结论 NSE和LDH水平在预测NB患儿骨髓是否转移以及预后评价方面具有重要价值。INRGSS分期为预后的独立影响因子,其较INSS分期在对患儿预后评估方面更具有临床意义,推荐使用INRGSS分期系统;CCCG-NB-2015共识方案各危险度分组治疗下低中危组预后较好,高危组预后较差,建议将来可降低低危组的治疗强度,而对于基于INRG危险度分组治疗的前提下,中危组的治疗建议继续延用CCCG-NB-2015共识中危组方案。 Abstract:Objective : To analyze and summarize the cases of neuroblastoma (NB) in children diagnosed and treated by the multi-center application of CCCG-NB-2015 consensus scheme in China, in order to provide a strong basis for improving the diagnosis and treatment of NB. Methods The clinical and prognostic data of 500 patients with NB from multiple centers nationwide diagnosed and treated by the unified and standardized CCCG-NB-2015 program were retrospectively analyzed from March 2013 to July 2020, and the key factors affecting the prognosis of NB were identified through Cox univariate and multivariate regression analysis. The ROC curves of NSE and LDH in predicting bone marrow metastasis and recurrence were plotted, and the clinical value of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was clarified. The prognostic differences of patients under the two different stages of NB and the risk group system were compared, and the cohort characteristics and prognostic outcomes of the cohort population in the intermediate-risk group were analyzed. Results A total of 10 potential prognostic factors were identified by univariate analysis, namely age, tumor primary site, INPC classification, bone marrow infiltration, MYCN gene amplification status, INSS stage, INRGSS stage, NSE and LDH levels at diagnosis, and IDRFs (P<0.05). The results of Cox multivariate analysis showed that the independent prognostic factors closely related to event-free survival (EFS) were INPC classification, bone marrow infiltration, NSE and LDH levels at diagnosis, and the independent prognostic factors closely related to OS were NSE, LDH level and INRGSS stage (P<0.05). NSE and LDH can well predict events such as NB bone marrow metastasis and recurrence (P<0.05). The 3-year EFS of INSS 4 and non-INSS 4 was 93.8% and 52.6% respectively. After conversion to INRGSS staging, the 3-year EFS for L1, L2, MS and M were 94.4%, 87.2%, 87.5% and 53.6%, respectively. The EFS at 3 and 5 years in the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups were 97.1% and 97.1%, 90.0% and 87.3%, 53.9% and 47.3%, respectively. Among them, patients with stage INSS 3 with UH of INPC were classified as high-risk group in the CCCG-NB-2015 protocol, and their prognosis was poor, with a 5-year EFS of 65.7% (P<0.05), but mostly classified as intermediate-risk in the INRG risk group. Conclusions NSE and LDH levels are of great value in predicting whether bone marrow metastasis and prognosis evaluation in NB patients. INRGSS staging is an independent prognostic factor and has more clinical significance in assessing prognosis than INSS staging, and the INRGSS staging system is recommended. The prognosis of the low- and medium-risk group was better under the treatment of each risk group of the CCCG-NB-2015 regimen, and the prognosis of the high-risk group was poor. It is suggested that the treatment intensity of low-risk group can be reduced in the future. Under the premise of INRG risk group therapy, the regimen of the intermediate-risk group continued to be CCCG-NB-2015 for the intermediate-risk group. -
Key words:
- neuroblastoma (NB) /
- prognosis /
- multicenter /
- retrospective analysis
-
表 1 CCCG-NB-2015共识具体化疗方案与COG同时期化疗方案对比
危险度分组 CCCG-NB-2015 COG 参考方案 疗程(个) 方案 疗程(个) 方案 低危组 1 CBP+VP-16 1 CBP+VP-16 COG P9641[12] 2 CBP+CTX+ADR 2 CBP+CTX+ADR 3 CTX+VP-16 3 VP-16+CTX 4 CBP+CTX+ADR 4 CBP+VP-16+ADR 5 CTX+VP-16 — — 6 CBP+CTX+ADR — — 7 CBP+VP-16 — — 8 CTX+ADR — — 中危组 1 VCR+CDDP+ADR+CTX 1 CBP+VP-16 COG ANBL0531[13] 2 VCR+CDDP+VP-16+CTX 2 CBP+CTX+ADR 3 VCR+CDDP+ADR+CTX 3 CTX+VP-16 4 VCR+CDDP+VP-16+CTX 4 CBP+CTX+ADR 5 VCR+CDDP+ADR+CTX 5 CTX+VP-16 6 VCR+CDDP+VP-16+CTX 6 CBP+CTX+ADR 7 VCR+CDDP+ADR+CTX 7 CBP+VP-16 8 VCR+CDDP+VP-16+CTX 8 CTX+ADR 高危组 1 CTX+TOPO 1 CTX+TOPO COG ANBL0532[14] 2 CTX+TOPO 2 CTX+TOPO 3 CDDP+VP-16 3 CDDP+VP-16 4 CTX+DOXO+VCR+MESNA 4 CTX+DOXO+VCR+MESNA 5 CDDP+VP-16 5 CDDP+VP-16 6 CTX+DOXO+VCR+MESNA 6 CTX+DOXO+VCR+MESNA 7 CTX+TOPO — — 8 CDDP+VP-16 — — CBP:卡铂;VP-16:依托泊苷;CTX:环磷酰胺;ADR:阿霉素;VCR:长春新碱;CDDP:顺铂;MESNA:美司钠;TOPO:拓扑替康;DOXO:阿霉素 表 2 500例NB患儿临床特征及单因素和多因素的预后分析
临床特征 例数(%) EFS单因素分析 EFS多因素分析 OS单因素分析 OS多因素分析 HR(95%CI) P HR(95%CI) P HR(95%CI) P HR(95%CI) P 性别 0.982 — 0.244 — 男 280(56.0) 0.996(0.709~1.400) — 1.285(0.842~1.961) — 女 220(44.0) 1.000 — 1.000 — 诊断时年龄(月) <0.001 — <0.001 — <18 147(29.4) 1.000 — 1.000 — ≥18 353(70.6) 2.962(1.802~4.868) — 2.951(1.607~5.418) — 原发部位 <0.001 — <0.001 —- 腹膜后 339(67.8) 1.000 — 1.000 — 纵隔 128(25.6) 0.248(0.140~0.442) — 0.250(0.125~0.498) — 其他 33(6.6) 0.809(0.424~1.546) — 0.454(0.166~1.239) — INPC分类 <0.001 0.004 0.001 — FH 230(46.0) 1.000 1.000 1.000 — UH 196(39.2) 3.279(2.181~4.930) 1.924(1.267~2.920) 2.483(1.556~3.963) — 不详 74(14.8) 2.980(1.747~5.083) 3.110(1.267~5.317) 2.128(1.094~4.137) — 骨髓转移 <0.001 0.001 <0.001 — 是 201(40.2) 4.421(3.042~6.427) 1.000 5.459(3.373~8.834) — 否 299(59.8) 1.000 0.505(0.334~0.765) 1.000 — MYCN状态 <0.001 — <0.001 — 未扩增 78(15.6) 1.000 — 1.000 — 扩增 365(73.0) 2.762(1.841~4.146) — 2.801(1.736~4.520) — 不详 57(11.4) 2.263(1.430~3.583) — 1.671(0.911~3.067) — INSS分期(期) <0.001 — <0.001 — 1~3,4S 246(49.2) 1.000 — 1.000 — 4 254(50.8) 6.135(3.879~9.704) — 8.548(4.542~16.087) — INRGSS分期(期) <0.001 — — <0.001 0.001 L1 157(31.4) 1.000 — 1.000 1.000 L2 81(16.2) 3.346(1.387~8.072) — 8.135(1.727~38.315) 3.946(0.814~19.13) M/MS 262(52.4) 10.776(5.255~22.097) — 30.259(7.431~123.22) 9.849(2.261~42.912) NSE(ng/mL) <0.001 0.006 <0.001 0.175 <200 285(57.0) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ≥200 184(36.8) 6.084 2.302(1.384~3.828) 7.140(4.299~11.856) 1.821(0.971~3.414) 不详 31(6.2) 0 0(0~4.834E+132) 0(0~1.835E+181) 0(0~1.353E+165) LDH(U/L) <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.002 <500 227(55.4) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ≥500 181(36.2) 5.558(3.762~8.213) 2.397(1.484~3.871) 7.574(4.507~12.73) 2.912(1.563~5.423) 不详 42(8.4) 1.023(0.430~2.435) 1.414(0.589~3.397) 0.933(0.274~3.176) 1.117(0.326~3.823) IDRFs <0.001 — <0.001 — 有 259(51.8) 2.547(1.754~3.700) — 2.546(1.614~4.017) — 无 241(48.2) 1.000 — 1.000 — 表 3 INSS分期和INRGSS的转化及占比
例(%) INRGSS INSS分期(期) 合计(%) 1 2 3 L1 73(46.5) 36(22.9) 48(30.6) 157(66.0) L2 4(4.9) 7(8.6) 70(86.4) 81(34.0) 合计 77(32.4) 43(18.1) 118(49.6) 238(100.0) 表 4 CCCG-NB-2015共识方案和COG方案5年EFS与OS对比
% 危险度分组 CCCG-NB-2015 COG[5] 5年EFS 5年OS 5年EFS 5年OS 低危组 97.1 97.8 89.4 97.9 中危组 87.3 92.9 86.1 94.9 高危组 47.3 57.3 50.8 61.9 -
[1] Qiu B, Matthay KK. Advancing therapy for neuroblastoma[J]. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2022, 19(8):515-533. doi: 10.1038/s41571-022-00643-z [2] Cohn SL, Pearson AD, London WB, et al. The international neuroblastoma risk group (INRG) classification system: an INRG task force report[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2009, 27(2):289-297. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.6785 [3] 中国抗癌协会小儿肿瘤专业委员会,中华医学会小儿外科学分会肿瘤外科学组.儿童神经母细胞瘤诊疗专家共识[J].中华小儿外科杂志,2015,36(1):3-7. [4] 中国抗癌协会小儿肿瘤专业委员会,中华医学会小儿外科学分会肿瘤学组.儿童神经母细胞瘤诊疗专家共识CCCG-NB-2021方案[J].中华小儿外科杂志,2022,43(7):588-598. [5] Irwin MS, Naranjo A, Zhang FF, et al. Revised neuroblastoma risk classification system: a report from the children’s oncology group[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2021, 39(29):3229-3241. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00278 [6] Liang WH, Federico SM, London WB, et al. Tailoring therapy for children with neuroblastoma on the basis of risk group classification: past, present, and future[J]. JCO Clin Cancer Inform, 2020, 4:895-905. [7] Brodeur GM, Pritchard J, Berthold F, et al. Revisions of the international criteria for neuroblastoma diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment[J]. J Clin Oncol, 1993, 11(8):1466-1477. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.8.1466 [8] 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[J]. Cancer, 2017, 123(7):1095-1105. doi: 10.1002/cncr.30380 [9] 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[J]. Radiology, 2011, 261(1):243-257. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101352 [10] Georgantzi K, Sköldenberg EG, Stridsberg M, et al. Chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase in neuroblastoma: correlation to stage and prognostic factors[J]. Pediatr Hematol Oncol, 2018, 35(2):156-165. doi: 10.1080/08880018.2018.1464087 [11] Moreno L, Guo DJ, Irwin MS, et al. A nomogram of clinical and biologic factors to predict survival in children newly diagnosed with high-risk neuroblastoma: an international neuroblastoma risk group poject[J]. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2021, 68(3):e28794. [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]. J Clin Oncol, 2012, 30(15):1842-1848. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.9990 [13] Twist CJ, Schmidt ML, Naranjo A, et al. Maintaining outstanding outcomes using response- and biology-based therapy for intermediate-risk neuroblastoma: a report from the children’s oncology group study ANBL0531[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2019, 37(34):3243-3255. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00919 [14] Park JR, Kreissman SG, London WB, et al. Effect of tandem autologous stem cell transplant vs single transplant on event-free survival in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma: a randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA, 2019, 322(8):746-755. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.11642 [15] 朱富艺,闫杰,曹嫣娜,等.血清神经元特异性烯醇化酶和尿香草扁桃酸与神经母细胞瘤临床病理特征的相关性[J].中国肿瘤临床,2019,46(22):1160-1166. [16] Moroz V, Machin D, Hero B, et al. The prognostic strength of serum LDH and serum ferritin in children with neuroblastoma: a report from the international neuroblastoma risk group (INRG) project[J]. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2020, 67(8):e28359. [17] Joshi VV, Cantor AB, Brodeur GM, et al. Correlation between morphologic and other prognostic markers of neuroblastoma. A study of histologic grade, DNA index, N-myc gene copy number, and lactic dehydrogenase in patients in the Pediatric Oncology Group[J]. Cancer, 1993, 71(10):3173-3181. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19930515)71:10<3173::AID-CNCR2820711045>3.0.CO;2-P -