Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review

The Clinical Relevance of Age at Presentation in Nephroblastoma

In: Wilms Tumor [Internet]. Brisbane (AU): Codon Publications; 2016 Mar. Chapter 2.
Affiliations
Free Books & Documents
Review

The Clinical Relevance of Age at Presentation in Nephroblastoma

Saskia L. Gooskens et al.
Free Books & Documents

Excerpt

The most important prognostic factors for Wilms tumor (WT) patients seem to be stage, histological subtype, and 1p/16q loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in chemotherapy-naive WTs. Over the last decade, age at diagnosis also was suggested to be an important risk factor for WT recurrence in Children’s Oncology Group (COG), United Kingdom (UK), and International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) studies. Several studies have analyzed age as a prognostic factor; these studies revealed age <2 years as a favorable prognostic factor, while age >4 years has been described as an adverse prognostic factor. In adults (>18 years of age), WT represents less than 1% of all diagnosed renal tumors; therefore, diagnosis of WT in adults is often unexpected and poorly recognized, thereby inducing treatment delay with subsequent adverse outcome. One explanation for the higher risk of recurrence with increasing patient age is the higher frequency of anaplasia at higher age. Other suggested reasons are delay in diagnosis, advanced tumor stage at presentation, and intrinsically different biological behaviors. Whether age is really an independent risk factor, and whether age is a stronger prognostic factor than stage, histology, and LOH 1p/16q, needs to be further explored. This may provide some insight into whether older patients need to be treated more intensively, as is already advised for adult WT patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Breslow N, Olshan A, Beckwith JB, Green DM. Epidemiology of Wilms tumor. Med Pediatr Oncol. 1993;21(3):172–81. - PubMed
    1. D’Angio GJ. Pre- or postoperative therapy for Wilms’ tumor? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(25):4055–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.5316. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grundy PE, Breslow NE, Li S, Perlman E, Beckwith JB, Ritchey ML, et al. Loss of heterozygosity for chromosomes 1p and 16q is an adverse prognostic factor in favorable-histology Wilms tumor: a report from the National Wilms Tumor Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(29):7312–21. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.2799. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, van Tinteren H, Bergeron C, Coulomb-L’Hermine A, de Camargo B, Leuschner I, et al. Outcome of localised blastemal-type Wilms tumour patients treated according to intensified treatment in the SIOP WT 2001 protocol, a report of the SIOP Renal Tumour Study Group (SIOP-RTSG) Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(4):498–506. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beckwith JB, Palmer NF. Histopathology and prognosis of Wilms tumors: results from the First National Wilms’ Tumor Study. Cancer. 1978;41(5):1937–48. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources