Original Article
Neuroblastoma Screening at One Year of Age
N Engl J Med 2002; 346:1047-1053April 4, 2002
- Abstract
Background
Neuroblastoma is the second most common type of childhood tumor. It is not known whether screening for neuroblastoma at one year of age reduces the incidence of metastatic disease or mortality due to neuroblastoma.
Methods
We offered urine screening for neuroblastoma at approximately one year of age to 2,581,188 children in 6 of 16 German states from 1995 to 2000. A total of 2,117,600 eligible children in the remaining states served as controls. We compared the two groups in terms of the incidence of disseminated disease and mortality from neuroblastoma.
Results
A total of 1,475,773 children (61.2 percent of those who were born between July 1, 1994, and October 31, 1999) underwent screening. In this group, neuroblastoma was detected by screening in 149 children, of whom 3 have died. Fifty-five children who had negative screening tests were subsequently given a diagnosis of neuroblastoma; 14 of these children have died. The screened group and children in the control area had a similar incidence of stage 4 neuroblastoma (3.7 cases per 100,000 screened children [95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 4.7] and 3.8 per 100,000 controls [95 percent confidence interval, 2.9 to 4.6]) and a similar rate of death among children with neuroblastoma (1.3 deaths per 100,000 screened children [95 percent confidence interval, 0.7 to 1.8] and 1.2 per 100,000 controls [95 percent confidence interval, 0.7 to 1.7]). Comparison of the screened group and the children in the control area revealed substantial overdiagnosis in the former group (an estimated rate of 7 cases per 100,000 children [95 percent confidence interval, 4.6 to 9.2]); the overdiagnosis rate represents children who had neuroblastoma that was diagnosed by screening but who would not benefit from earlier diagnosis and treatment.
Conclusions
The present findings do not support the usefulness of general screening for neuroblastoma at one year of age.
Media in This Article
Table 1
Cumulative Incidence According to Stage of Neuroblastoma and Related Mortality in the Screening and Control Areas for the Prestudy Birth Cohort (1990–1993) and in the Control Area for the Birth Cohort Included in the Study (1994–1999).Table 2
Results of Urine Screening Tests for Neuroblastoma among Children Screened between 9 and 18 Months of Age.Article Activity
- Article
Neuroblastoma is the second most common tumor of childhood. Between 1987 and 1991, the incidence of neuroblastoma in Germany was 1.1 per 100,000 children under the age of 15.1 The prognosis of patients with neuroblastoma depends on their age2 and the stage of disease3 at the time of diagnosis; infants have the best prognosis. In unscreened populations, fewer than 50 percent of all neuroblastomas are localized at the time of diagnosis.1 In Europe, the overall survival of children with this disease has improved only slightly over the past two decades4; there has been particularly little improvement among older patients with advanced disease.5 Early detection has thus been considered a promising approach to improving the outcome in patients with neuroblastoma.6 Most neuroblastomas produce catecholamines, and the catecholamine metabolites vanillylmandelic acid and homovanillic acid can easily be measured quantitatively in the urine as a screen for the disease.7,8 However, it is known that neuroblastomas may undergo spontaneous regression, and therefore some cases diagnosed by screening might never have become clinically apparent. This possibility must be considered when screening is evaluated.
In Japan, programs of screening for neuroblastoma at six months of age have been in place since the early 1970s.9 A North American study of neuroblastoma screening10,11 in which screening was performed at three weeks and six months of age in Quebec, Canada, found a substantial increase in the number of cases of neuroblastoma that were identified in children under one year of age but no reduction in the number of cases diagnosed at older ages and no decrease in the incidence of advanced-stage neuroblastoma. Since the mid-1980s, European studies have made an important contribution to the understanding of the background behind the benefits and risks of screening for neuroblastoma.12 We initiated the German Neuroblastoma Screening Project in 1995 to assess whether screening for neuroblastoma at one year of age would lead to decreased mortality from the disease.
Methods
Study Design
Screening for neuroblastoma was implemented in 6 of the 16 German states, which were selected on the basis of the feasibility of implementing the screening program.13 The remaining 10 states served as contemporaneous controls. The study design was similar to that of a cluster randomized trial.14 The study was approved by the state ethics committee of the German Medical Association in the state of Baden-Württemberg. Parents and their infants participated on a completely voluntary basis. The ethics committee agreed that the parents implicitly gave informed consent by providing a urine sample for testing.
Study Population and Screening Procedure
Children who were born between November 1, 1993, and June 30, 2000 (who were between 9 and 18 months old between May 1995 and April 2001), and who lived in one of the six German states where screening was performed were eligible to participate in the study. The birth cohorts in the screening and control areas were of similar size (2,581,188 and 2,117,600 live births, respectively). The age range was chosen in part on the basis of recommendations of the investigators in the Study for the Evaluation of Neuroblastoma Screening in Europe against screening at younger ages15 and in part on the basis of the results from a German pilot study on the feasibility of screening for neuroblastoma in 12-month-old children.16
The parents of each child in the screening area were offered screening once at the time of a general checkup when the child was about one year of age. Details of the procedure have been described elsewhere.17 Children in both the screening area and the control area who were given a diagnosis of neuroblastoma were treated according to the same national treatment protocols.5
A positive urine test for catecholamine metabolites was followed by another test on a second urine sample. If the second test was also positive, the parents were contacted and asked to bring the child for a clinical examination. Considerable efforts were made to increase the rate of participation, including repeated mailings to physicians and parents, press releases, and appeals on radio and television. Testing kits were distributed through December 2000, and the last samples were accepted by April 30, 2001 (confirmatory tests were concluded on June 30, 2001).
Epidemiologic Monitoring
Cases of neuroblastoma were identified by the German Childhood Cancer Registry, which receives information on all cases of childhood cancer in Germany, including all neuroblastomas.18 Follow-up of all cases was conducted in cooperation with the neuroblastoma treatment trial of the German Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology.5 Ascertainment of deaths is almost complete. Of the children given a diagnosis of neuroblastoma between 1991 and 1995, two were lost to follow-up before five years. The median duration of follow-up among the survivors in this group is currently six years eight months.
Encrypted personal-identification data and the screening result (positive, negative, or not analyzable) for each participating child were sent from the laboratories to the registry, where they were regularly linked to the registry data by stochastic record linkage19 and compared with the data from the treatment trial. Positive matches were confirmed by means of decryption in the study centers. The ascertainment of cases that were not detected by urine screening is considered to be virtually complete.
Evaluation of Effect
The primary analysis of the effectiveness of screening was based on the intention-to-screen approach, whereby the outcomes in the screening area were compared with those in the control area.20 This approach was also the basis for the power calculations. In secondary analyses, we compared the outcomes among the children who participated in screening with those in the control area.21 The main end point of the study, which is ongoing, is mortality due to neuroblastoma.13,22,23 Final results are expected in approximately 2008. We report here interim results for that end point, as well as for the secondary end point of incidence of stage 4 disease. A decrease in this secondary end point is assumed to be a necessary prerequisite for a decrease in mortality. Statistical tests were based on the assumption of a Poisson distribution at a two-sided significance level of 0.05.
Estimation of Overdiagnosis and Lead-Time Distribution
The lead time is defined as the interval between the time of diagnosis with screening and the time the case would have been diagnosed without screening. Overdiagnosis refers to the diagnosis of cases by screening that would not have become clinically apparent and that therefore represent patients who would not benefit from earlier diagnosis and treatment. This group presumably consists mostly of children with tumors that would have spontaneously regressed.24-26
To estimate how much of the increase in the incidence of neuroblastoma with screening can be attributed to overdiagnosis, we compared the group that participated in screening with the children in the control area in terms of the distribution of ages at the time of diagnosis. We divided the cases diagnosed in the screened group at the screening age into three categories: cases that would have been diagnosed at that age regardless of screening, the number of which we estimated on the basis of the incidence of neuroblastoma in the control area; cases that were detected early due to screening, the number of which we estimated as the difference between the incidence of neuroblastoma after the screening age in the control area and the incidence after the screening age in the screened area; and cases that represented overdiagnosis by screening and would not have become clinically apparent — the remainder of the cases diagnosed.
Statistical Analysis
To calculate sample sizes, we used the formula proposed by Casagrande et al.27 as modified by Fleiss et al.28 for groups of unequal size, with a one-sided α of 0.05. On the basis of the size of the population, it was estimated that the study would have 70 percent power to detect a 50 percent reduction in mortality in the screened group, assuming that there was no change in mortality in the control group.
Results
Participants and Test Results
Before the study began, children in the screening area and the control area had similar treatment regimens for neuroblastoma, levels of completeness of registration of cases, stage distribution at the time of diagnosis, and mortality from neuroblastoma (Table 1Table 1
Cumulative Incidence According to Stage of Neuroblastoma and Related Mortality in the Screening and Control Areas for the Prestudy Birth Cohort (1990–1993) and in the Control Area for the Birth Cohort Included in the Study (1994–1999).). Of the 2,581,188 children who were eligible for screening through April 30, 2001, 1,475,773 children participated (61.2 percent of those who were born between July 1, 1994, and October 31, 1999). Of 1841 children who had a second positive urine test, 1759 underwent clinical examination. One child died from sudden infant death syndrome after two positive screening tests but before clinical examination; no autopsy was performed, and the child is therefore classified here as having had a false positive test. A total of 149 cases of neuroblastoma were detected by screening. The current status of all children with neuroblastoma is known. The results of urine screening for neuroblastoma are presented in Table 2Table 2Results of Urine Screening Tests for Neuroblastoma among Children Screened between 9 and 18 Months of Age..Staging of Neuroblastomas
The distribution of the cases detected by screening is summarized according to the International Neuroblastoma Staging System29 in Table 3Table 3
Distribution of Cases of Neuroblastoma According to Stage in the Screened Group as Compared with the Children in the Control Area.. In 87 percent of the cases detected by screening, the neuroblastoma was localized (stage 1, 2, or 3), and in the other 13 percent, there was asymptomatic disseminated disease. All but three children with neuroblastoma that was diagnosed by screening are alive. Two children died from complications of surgery (one with stage 2B disease and the other with stage 3 disease), and one died from complications of chemotherapy (for stage 2B disease).As of June 30, 2001, 55 children who had had negative screening tests presented with neuroblastoma (median age at diagnosis, 36 months; range, 13 to 64 months). Of these children, 48 had elevated levels of catecholamine metabolites in the urine at the time of diagnosis (87 percent); 31 presented with disseminated stage 4 disease (56 percent); and 14 have died (25 percent).
Incidence of Neuroblastoma and Related Mortality
The cumulative incidence of neuroblastoma was 14.2 cases per 100,000 screened children and 7.3 cases per 100,000 controls (Table 3). A greater proportion of cases were diagnosed at stages 1 and 2 in the screened group than in the control area.
As of June 30, 2001, there was no decrease in the incidence of stage 4 disease or in mortality in the screened group or in the screening area (Table 4Table 4
Incidence of Stage 4 Neuroblastoma and Mortality among Children with Neuroblastoma Diagnosed between 12 and 60 Months of Age.). There was a higher incidence of stage 4 disease and a higher mortality rate among children who were eligible for screening but did not participate in the screening program than among the controls. Follow-up is not yet complete in terms of mortality.Lead Time and Overdiagnosis
Empirically, the maximal lead time appears to be approximately three years (from the 25th month to the 60th month), since the distributions of age at diagnosis become similar in the screened group and the control group around the fifth birthday. There was an excess of 7.8 cases per 100,000 children during the second year of life (Table 5Table 5
Estimated Rates of Cases Detected Early and Excess Cases Not Explained by Early Detection.). There were 0.8 fewer cases per 100,000 children 24 to 60 months of age — a finding that is consistent with the early diagnosis of these cases. So there remains an unexplained excess of 7.0 cases per 100,000 children during the second year of life, which we interpret as overdiagnosis. On the basis of the rates in the control area, we estimate that 39 of the 149 cases diagnosed by screening would have been diagnosed clinically during the second year of life (the screening age), that 11 of the 149 were diagnosed earlier than they would otherwise have been and the patients may therefore benefit, and that the other 99 neuroblastomas (two thirds of all detected cases) would never have become clinically apparent and would presumably have regressed.Discussion
We found that screening for neuroblastoma at approximately one year of age did not reduce the incidence of disseminated disease, nor did it appear to reduce mortality. This study was ethically acceptable, because when it began, expert opinion about the usefulness of screening was divided.6,17,30 At first glance, screening for neuroblastoma may seem to be warranted. Younger children and children with localized disease have a better prognosis, disease is more often localized at a younger age,3 and localized disease is often associated with markers of good prognosis.31 However, the population-based Quebec Neuroblastoma Screening Project showed that screening at three weeks and six months of age did not reduce the incidence of advanced disease, although it increased the number of cases detected.10 The final results of that study, published in this issue of the Journal, 32 confirm that screening at these ages does not reduce mortality from neuroblastoma. An international consensus conference in 1998 recommended against screening six-month-old infants for neuroblastoma.33
We assessed neuroblastoma screening at 12 months of age, with reliable ascertainment of all cases and deaths in the screening area and a control area by a source that was independent of the study.19 We thus avoided the bias that would be inherent in a comparison between a screening area and a historical control area or between a screened group and a group that chose not to participate in screening.21 Our results are qualitatively similar to the results of the Quebec study.32
The fact that there was no evidence of any reduction in the incidence of metastatic disease or in mortality argues against any substantial effect of screening on outcome. We estimated that 7 percent of all cases detected by screening (11 of 149 cases) were detected earlier by screening than they would otherwise have been, and that those patients may therefore have at least a chance to benefit. This figure (0.8 per 100,000 children screened) is similar to the rate of 1.1 per 100,000 that was previously estimated on the basis of theoretical considerations regarding screening at 12 to 18 months of age.34
Given the present results, we would expect to find an insignificant reduction in mortality, at best, after further follow-up. The small potential benefit is outweighed by the high proportion of patients with neuroblastoma diagnosed by screening who would not be expected to die of neuroblastoma and might be harmed by treatment (99 of 149 cases, or 7 per 100,000 children). The potential risks of screening are highlighted by the fact that the three children who died in the group with neuroblastoma detected by screening had localized disease and died from causes related to treatment.
In Japan, screening for neuroblastoma at six months of age was reported to result in high survival rates (in excess of 95 percent) among patients whose disease was detected by screening,35,36 as well as in reduced mortality as compared with that in a historical control group.37 However, there is no population-based registry of childhood cancers in Japan,9 and lead-time bias may result in overestimation of the benefit of screening.22,23,38,39 In addition, the detection of neuroblastomas that would otherwise spontaneously regress contributes to an overestimation of the benefits of screening.40 Comparison of mortality rates with those of historical controls may be biased by recent advances in treatment.41,42 In the present study, many children who had negative screening tests were identified later as having neuroblastoma by the linking of records at the registry. Thus, it is likely that the ascertainment of cases in the screened cohorts in Japan was not complete.43
The high rate of overdiagnosis that results from screening between 9 and 18 months of age suggests that spontaneous regression is not limited to neuroblastomas in infants.44 The majority of neuroblastomas in the screened group as well as in the screening area were in localized stages. These findings support the hypothesis that there are different types of neuroblastoma — a type with a favorable prognosis that may regress spontaneously and a more clinically aggressive type with an unfavorable prognosis. This hypothesis has been suggested by several groups.26,45,46
Our findings do not support mass screening for neuroblastoma at one year of age. On the contrary, our results suggest that many of the children with neuroblastoma that is diagnosed by mass screening may undergo unnecessary treatment of a tumor that would otherwise spontaneously regress.
Supported by a grant (70/365) from Deutsche Krebshilfe, by the German Consortium of Statutory Health Insurance Associations, and by a grant (IDF 239.08) from the Federal Ministry of Health, Bonn, Germany.
We are indebted to the parents, the pediatricians, and the general practitioners in the screening regions; to the study coordinators, Matthias Schlaud, M.D., Ruth Schweitzer, M.D., Irmgard Kadelbach, M.D., Peter Schurr, Tatjana Tafese, M.D., Johanna Schrum, Armin Baillot, M.D., and Fabian Feil, M.P.H.; and to Mary Morgan, M.D., for assistance in the preparation of the manuscript.
Source Information
From the Klinikum Stuttgart, Olgahospital, Child and Adolescent Health, Pediatrics 5, Stuttgart (F.H.S., K.S., J.T.); Johannes Gutenberg University, German Childhood Cancer Registry, Mainz (C.S., G.K., J.M.); the University of Cologne, Children's Hospital, Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, Cologne (F.B., B.H.); the University of Hamburg, University Hospitals Eppendorf, Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Hamburg (R.E., N.F.); and Landesgesundheitsamt Niedersachsen, Hannover (J.S., U.Z.) — all in Germany.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Schilling at the Klinikum Stuttgart, Olgahospital, Pediatrics 5 (Oncology, Hematology, and Immunology), Bismarckstr. 8, D-70176 Stuttgart, Germany, or at f.schilling@olgahospital.de.
- References
References
1
Powell JE ,Esteve J ,Mann JR , et al. Neuroblastoma in Europe: differences in the pattern of disease in the UK. Lancet 1998;352:682-687
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
De Bernardi B ,Pianca C ,Boni L , et al. Disseminated neuroblastoma (stage IV and IV-S) in the first year of life: outcome related to age and stage. Cancer 1992;70:1625-1633
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline3
De Bernardi B ,Conte M ,Mancini A , et al. Localized resectable neuroblastoma: results of the second study of the Italian Cooperative Group for Neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:884-893
Web of Science | Medline4
Spix C ,Aareleid T ,Stiller C ,Magnani C ,Kaatsch P ,Michaelis J . Survival of children with neuroblastoma: time trends and regional differences in Europe, 1978-1992. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:722-729
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Berthold F ,Hero B . Neuroblastoma: current drug therapy recommendations as part of the total treatment approach. Drugs 2000;59:1261-1277
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Treuner J ,Schilling FH . Neuroblastoma mass screening: the arguments for and against. Eur J Cancer 1995;31:565-568
CrossRef | Web of Science7
Tuchman M ,Auray-Blais C ,Ramnaraine ML ,Neglia J ,Krivit W ,Lemieux B . Determination of urinary homovanillic and vanillylmandelic acids from dried filter paper samples: assessment of potential methods for neuroblastoma screening. Clin Biochem 1987;20:173-177
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
Schilling FH ,Oberrauch W ,Schanz F ,Treuner J . Evaluation of a rapid and reliable method for mass screening for neuroblastoma in infants. Prog Clin Biol Res 1991;366:579-583
Medline9
Sawada T, Takeda T. Screening for neuroblastoma in infancy in Japan. In: Brodeur GM, Sawada T, Tsuchida Y, Voute P, eds. Neuroblastoma. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., 2000:245-64.
10
Woods WG ,Tuchman M ,Robison LL , et al. A population-based study of the usefulness of screening for neuroblastoma. Lancet 1996;348:1682-1687
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Lemieux B, Woods WG. Mass screening for neuroblastoma: the North American experience. In: Brodeur GM, Sawada T, Tsuchida Y, Voute P, eds. Neuroblastoma. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., 2000:265-79.
12
Schilling FH, Parker L. Mass screening for neuroblastoma: the European experience. In: Brodeur GM, Sawada T, Tsuchida Y, Voute P, eds. Neuroblastoma. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., 2000:281-92.
13
Woods WG ,Bernstein M ,Lemieux B . Randomized controlled trials in population-based intervention studies are not always feasible. Med Pediatr Oncol 1999;33:360-361
CrossRef | Medline14
Moss SM. Evaluation and monitoring of cancer screening: theoretical issues. In: Sankila R, Demaret E, Hakama M, Lynge E, Schouten LJ, Parkin DM, eds. Evaluation and monitoring of screening programmes. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001:29-41.
15
Esteve J ,Parker L ,Roy P , et al. Is neuroblastoma screening evaluation needed and feasible? Br J Cancer 1995;71:1125-1131[Erratum, Br J Cancer 1995;72:804.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Berthold F ,Baillot A ,Hero B , et al. Which cases are found and missed by neuroblastoma screening at 1 year? Results from the 1992 and 1995 study in three federal states of Germany. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1200-1207
Web of Science | Medline17
Schilling FH ,Spix C ,Berthold F , et al. German neuroblastoma mass screening study at 12 months of age: statistical aspects and preliminary results. Med Pediatr Oncol 1998;31:435-441
CrossRef18
Kaatsch P ,Haaf G ,Michaelis J . Childhood malignancies in Germany -- methods and results of a nationwide registry. Eur J Cancer 1995;31:993-999
CrossRef | Web of Science19
Jaro MA . Advances in record-linkage methodology as applied to matching the 1985 Census of Tampa, Florida. J Am Stat Assoc 1989;84:414-420
CrossRef | Web of Science20
Prorok P. Evaluation of screening benefit. In: Armitage P, Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of biostatistics. New York: John Wiley, 1998:3976-85.
21
McIntosh MW . Instrumental variables when evaluating screening trials: estimating the benefit of detecting cancer by screening. Stat Med 1999;18:2775-2794
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Miller AB. Principles of screening and of the evaluation of screening programs. In: Miller AB, ed. Screening for cancer. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press, 1985:3-24.
23
Welch HG ,Schwartz LM ,Woloshin S . Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer? JAMA 2000;283:2975-2978
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
D'Angio GJ ,Evans AE ,Koop CE . Special pattern of widespread neuroblastoma with a favourable prognosis. Lancet 1971;1:1046-1049
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Yamamoto K ,Hanada R ,Kikuchi A , et al. Spontaneous regression of localized neuroblastoma detected by mass screening. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1265-1269
Web of Science | Medline26
Ambros PF, Brodeur GM. Concept of tumorigenesis and regression. In: Brodeur GM, Sawada T, Tsuchida Y, Voute P, eds. Neuroblastoma. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., 2000:21-32.
27
Casagrande JT ,Pike MC ,Smith PG . An improved approximate formula for calculating sample sizes for comparing two binomial distributions. Biometrics 1978;34:483-486
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Fleiss JL ,Tytun A ,Ury HK . A simple approximation for calculating sample size for comparing independent proportions. Biometrics 1980;36:343-346
CrossRef | Web of Science29
Brodeur GM ,Pritchard J ,Berthold F , et al. Revisions of the international criteria for neuroblastoma diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1466-1477
Web of Science | Medline30
Sawada T ,Shikata T ,Matsumura T ,Kawakatsu H ,Sugimoto T . Analysis of 598 cases of neuroblastoma (NB) detected by screening and changes in the age distribution and incidence of NB patients after mass screening in infants in Japan. Prog Clin Biol Res 1994;385:371-375
Medline31
Berthold F ,Hunneman DH ,Kaser H , et al. Neuroblastoma screening: arguments from retrospective analysis of three German neuroblastoma trials. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1991;13:8-13
CrossRef | Medline32
Woods WG ,Gao R-N ,Shuster JJ , et al. Screening of infants and mortality due to neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1041-1046
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline33
Report of the 1998 Consensus Conference on Neuroblastoma Screening. Med Pediatr Oncol 1999;33:357-359
CrossRef | Medline34
Esteve J ,Roy P ,Chauvin F ,Philip T . Screening for neuroblastoma in children: elements for a statistical evaluation. Med Pediatr Oncol 1998;31:401-407
CrossRef35
Takeda T ,Hatae Y ,Nakadate H , et al. Japanese experience of screening. Med Pediatr Oncol 1989;17:368-372
CrossRef | Medline36
Hanawa Y ,Sawada T ,Tsunoda A . Decrease in childhood neuroblastoma death in Japan. Med Pediatr Oncol 1990;18:472-475
CrossRef | Medline37
Nishi M ,Miyake H ,Takeda T ,Hanai J ,Kikuchi Y ,Takasugi N . Mass screening for neuroblastoma and mortality in birth cohorts. Int J Cancer 1997;71:552-555
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline38
Morrison AS. Screening in chronic disease. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
39
Miller AB. The public health basis of cancer screening: principles and ethical aspects. In: Miller AB, ed. Advances in cancer screening. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1996:1-7.
40
Bessho F . Effects of mass screening on age-specific incidence of neuroblastoma. Int J Cancer 1996;67:520-522
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline41
Kaneko M ,Nishihira H ,Mugishima H , et al. Stratification of treatment of stage 4 neuroblastoma patients on N-myc amplification status. Med Pediatr Oncol 1998;31:1-7
CrossRef | Medline42
Kawa K ,Ohnuma N ,Kaneko M , et al. Long-term survivors of advanced neuroblastoma with MYCN amplification: a report of 19 patients surviving disease-free for more than 66 months. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:3216-3220
Web of Science | Medline43
Sankila R. Lessons learned from neuroblastoma screening. In: Sankila R, Demaret E, Hakama M, Lynge E, Schouten LJ, Parkin DM, eds. Evaluation and monitoring of screening programs. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001:233-42.
44
Carlsen NL . Why age has independent prognostic significance in neuroblastomas: evidence for intra-uterine development, and implications for the treatment of the disease. Anticancer Res 1988;8:255-262
Web of Science | Medline45
Maris JM ,Matthay KK . Molecular biology of neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2264-2279
Web of Science | Medline46
Lastowska M ,Cullinane C ,Variend S , et al. Comprehensive genetic and histopathologic study reveals three types of neuroblastoma tumors. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3080-3090
Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (88)
Citing Articles
1
Michael S. Lauer. (2011) Advancing the paradigm for cardiovascular imaging research. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
CrossRef2
Amy Moore, Daniel A. Enquobahrie. (2011) Paternal occupational exposure to pesticides and risk of neuroblastoma among children: a meta-analysis. Cancer Causes & Control 22:11, 1529-1536
CrossRef3
Tsui-Chin Huang, Hsin-Yi Chang, Cheng-Yu Chen, Pei-Yi Wu, Hsinyu Lee, Yung-Feng Liao, Wen-Ming Hsu, Hsuan-Cheng Huang, Hsueh-Fen Juan. (2011) Silencing of miR-124 induces neuroblastoma SK-N-SH cell differentiation, cell cycle arrest and apoptosis through promoting AHR. FEBS Letters 585:22, 3582-3586
CrossRef4
Stefan Lange. (2011) Schließen von „Evidenzlücken“. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
CrossRef5
Alena M. Buyx, Daniel Strech, Harald Schmidt. (2011) Zur Ethik einer Vorsorge durch (direct-to-consumer) individuelle Genanalysen und Ganzkörper-MRTs. Erläuterung und Diskussion der Empfehlungen des Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
CrossRef6
B. Kostyrka, J. Li, S. V. Soundappan, J. Cassey, F. Alvaro, L. Dalla Pozza, Rajendra Kumar. (2011) Features and outcomes of neonatal neuroblastoma. Pediatric Surgery International 27:9, 937-941
CrossRef7
Saulat H Fatimi, Samira A Bawany, Awais Ashfaq. (2011) Ganglioneuroblastoma of the posterior mediastinum: a case report. Journal of Medical Case Reports 5:1, 322
CrossRef8
Gerald Gartlehner. (2011) Nutzen-Schaden Abwägung von bevölkerungsbezogenen Interventionen am Beispiel von Krebs-Screening. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 105:3, 176-182
CrossRef9
Sunita Dhir, Kate Wheeler. (2010) Neonatal neuroblastoma. Early Human Development 86:10, 601-605
CrossRef10
Sucheta J. Vaidya, Andrew D. J. Pearson. 2010. Neuroblastoma. , 163-192.
CrossRef11
Fergal C. Kelleher, Ray McDermott. (2010) The emerging pathogenic and therapeutic importance of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene. European Journal of Cancer 46:13, 2357-2368
CrossRef12
D. H. Newman. (2010) Screening for Breast and Prostate Cancers: Moving Toward Transparency. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102:14, 1008-1011
CrossRef13
T. Harder, A. Plagemann, A. Harder. (2010) Birth weight and risk of neuroblastoma: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Epidemiology 39:3, 746-756
CrossRef14
Jennifer M. Croswell, David F. Ransohoff, Barnett S. Kramer. (2010) Principles of Cancer Screening: Lessons From History and Study Design Issues. Seminars in Oncology 37:3, 202-215
CrossRef15
H. G. Welch, W. C. Black. (2010) Overdiagnosis in Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102:9, 605-613
CrossRef16
Hervé Sartelet, Shigeru Ohta, Stephane Barrette, Anne-Laure Rougemont, Marie Brevet, Marie Regairaz, Isabelle Harvey, Chantal Bernard, Monique Fabre, Louis Gaboury, Luc L Oligny, Jacques Bosq, Dominique Valteau-Couanet, Gilles Vassal. (2010) High level of apoptosis and low AKT activation in mass screening as opposed to standard neuroblastoma. Histopathology 56:5, 607-616
CrossRef17
I Janoueix-Lerosey, G Schleiermacher, O Delattre. (2010) Molecular pathogenesis of peripheral neuroblastic tumors. Oncogene 29:11, 1566-1579
CrossRef18
Sachiko Baba, Akiko Ioka, Hideaki Tsukuma, Hiroyuki Noda, Wakiko Ajiki, Hiroyasu Iso. (2010) Incidence and survival trends for childhood cancer in Osaka, Japan, 1973-2001. Cancer Science 101:3, 787-792
CrossRef19
Frank Grünwald, Samer Ezziddin. (2010) 131I-Metaiodobenzylguanidine Therapy of Neuroblastoma and Other Neuroendocrine Tumors. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 40:2, 153-163
CrossRef20
Julie R. Park, Angelika Eggert, Huib Caron. (2010) Neuroblastoma: Biology, Prognosis, and Treatment. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 24:1, 65-86
CrossRef21
Jürgen Durner. (2010) Clinical Chemistry: Challenges for Analytical Chemistry and the Nanosciences from Medicine. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 49:6, 1026-1051
CrossRef22
H.N. Caron. (2010) Are thoracic neuroblastomas really different?. Pediatric Blood & Cancern/a-n/a
CrossRef23
Michael H. Hsieh, Maxwell V. Meng, Thomas J. Walsh, Katherine K. Matthay, Laurence S. Baskin. (2009) Increasing Incidence of Neuroblastoma and Potentially Higher Associated Mortality of Children From Nonmetropolitan Areas: Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 31:12, 942-946
CrossRef24
Alexander Schramm, Ingo Mierswa, Lars Kaderali, Katharina Morik, Angelika Eggert, Johannes H. Schulte. (2009) Reanalysis of neuroblastoma expression profiling data using improved methodology and extended follow-up increases validity of outcome prediction. Cancer Letters 282:1, 55-62
CrossRef25
Pamela S. Douglas, Allen Taylor, Diane Bild, Robert Bonow, Philip Greenland, Michael Lauer, Frank Peacock, James Udelson. (2009) Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Imaging: Report of a Workshop Sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 22:7, 766-773
CrossRef26
Pamela S. Douglas, Allen Taylor, Diane Bild, Robert Bonow, Philip Greenland, Michael Lauer, Frank Peacock, James Udelson. (2009) Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Imaging. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging 2:7, 897-907
CrossRef27
André Oberthuer, Jessica Theissen, Frank Westermann, Barbara Hero, Matthias Fischer. (2009) Molecular characterization and classification of neuroblastoma. Future Oncology 5:5, 625-639
CrossRef28
H Schroeder, J Wacher, H Larsson, S Rosthoej, C Rechnitzer, B L Pedersen, N L T Carlsen. (2009) Unchanged incidence and increased survival in children with neuroblastoma in Denmark 1981–2000: a population-based study. British Journal of Cancer 100:5, 853-857
CrossRef29
Julia E. Heck, Beate Ritz, Rayjean J. Hung, Mia Hashibe, Paolo Boffetta. (2009) The epidemiology of neuroblastoma: a review. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 23:2, 125-143
CrossRef30
Mio Tanaka, Hisato Kigasawa, Keisuke Kato, Rieko Ijiri, Hirokazu Nishihira, Noriko Aida, Youkatsu Ohama, Yukichi Tanaka. (2009) A prospective study of a long-term follow-up of an observation program for neuroblastoma detected by mass screening. Pediatric Blood & Cancern/a-n/a
CrossRef31
Kota Katanoda, Kunihiko Hayashi, Keiko Yamamoto, Tomotaka Sobue. (2009) Secular Trends in Neuroblastoma Mortality Before and After the Cessation of National Mass Screening in Japan. Journal of Epidemiology 19:5, 266-270
CrossRef32
Brian R. Jackson. (2008) The Dangers of False-Positive and False-Negative Test Results: False-Positive Results as a Function of Pretest Probability. Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 28:2, 305-319
CrossRef33
Rudolf Erttmann. (2008) Treatment of neuroblastoma with human natural antibodies. Autoimmunity Reviews 7:6, 496-500
CrossRef34
R. Monier, M. Tubiana. (2008) Cancérogenèse. Accroissement des connaissances et évolution des concepts. Oncologie 10:5, 319-347
CrossRef35
Claudia Spix, Dina Eletr, Maria Blettner, Peter Kaatsch. (2008) Temporal trends in the incidence rate of childhood cancer in Germany 1987-2004. International Journal of Cancer 122:8, 1859-1867
CrossRef36
John M Maris, William G Woods. (2008) Screening for neuroblastoma: a resurrected idea?. The Lancet 371:9619, 1142-1143
CrossRef37
Eiso Hiyama, Tomoko Iehara, Tohru Sugimoto, Masahiro Fukuzawa, Yutaka Hayashi, Fumiaki Sasaki, Masahiko Sugiyama, Satoshi Kondo, Akihiro Yoneda, Hiroaki Yamaoka, Tatsuro Tajiri, Kohei Akazawa, Megu Ohtaki. (2008) Effectiveness of screening for neuroblastoma at 6 months of age: a retrospective population-based cohort study. The Lancet 371:9619, 1173-1180
CrossRef38
H. G. Welch, S. Woloshin, L. M. Schwartz. (2008) The Sea of Uncertainty Surrounding Ductal Carcinoma In Situ--The Price of Screening Mammography. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 100:4, 228-229
CrossRef39
Beth A. Tarini, Wylie Burke, C. Ronald Scott, Benjamin S. Wilfond. (2008) Waiving informed consent in newborn screening research: Balancing social value and respect. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics 148C:1, 23-30
CrossRef40
Julie R. Park, Angelika Eggert, Huib Caron. (2008) Neuroblastoma: Biology, Prognosis, and Treatment. Pediatric Clinics of North America 55:1, 97-120
CrossRef41
M TUBIANA. (2008) Généralités sur la cancérogenèse
. Comptes Rendus Biologies 331:2, 114-125
CrossRef42
N. Becker. (2008) Screening aus epidemiologischer Sicht. Der Radiologe 48:1, 10-16
CrossRef43
Reinhold Kerbl, Christian E. Urban, Heinz Zotter, Herwig Lackner, Petra Sovinz, Peter F. Ambros. (2007) Clinical appearance of neuroblastoma 10 years after screening. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 49:7, 1012-1014
CrossRef44
Tatsuo Nakaoka, Sadashige Uemura, Yoshikiyo Nakagawa, Tsunehiro Yano, Megumi Oda. (2007) Retroperitoneal ganglioneuroblastoma resected 8 years after mass screening: a case report. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 42:11, e29-e32
CrossRef45
Tadashi Iwanaka, Hiroshi Kawashima, Hiroo Uchida. (2007) The laparoscopic approach of neuroblastoma. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery 16:4, 259-265
CrossRef46
Eiso Hiyama, Hiroaki Yamaoka, Satoshi Kondo, Akihiro Yoneda, Tatsuro Tajiri, Masahiro Fukuzawa, Masahiko Sugiyama, Yutaka Hayashi, Fumiaki Sasaki, Megu Ohtaki. (2007) Heterogeneous subgroups in human neuroblastoma for clinically relevant risk stratification. Pediatric Surgery International 23:11, 1051-1058
CrossRef47
A. Springer, M. Hörmann, G. Amann, E. Horcher. (2007) Pränatal diagnostizierte zystisch-hämorrhagische Raumforderung der Nebenniere. Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde 155:10, 954-956
CrossRef48
Alan W Craft, Kathy Pritchard-Jones. (2007) UK childhood cancer survival falling behind rest of EU?. The Lancet Oncology 8:8, 662-663
CrossRef49
John M Maris, Michael D Hogarty, Rochelle Bagatell, Susan L Cohn. (2007) Neuroblastoma. The Lancet 369:9579, 2106-2120
CrossRef50
Yasuhiko Kaneko. (2007) Neuroblastomas that might benefit from mass screening at 6 months of age in Japan. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 48:2, 245-246
CrossRef51
Frank Berthold, Uta Dirksen, Ulrich Gö Bel, Norbert Graf, Barbara Hero, Heribert Jü Rgens, Thomas Klingebiel, Ewa Koscielniak, Dietrich Von Schweinitz, Thorsten Simon, Regina Wieland, Johannes Wolff. 2007. Solide Tumoren. , 805-870.
CrossRef52
NOBUHIRO NISHIO, JUN-ICHI MIMAYA, TAEMI NARA, YOSHIFUMI TAKASHIMA, YASUO HORIKOSHI, NAOTO URUSHIHARA, SHIRO HASEGAWA, KATSUHIKO AOKI, MINORU HAMASAKI. (2006) Results for 79 patients with neuroblastoma detected through mass screening at 6 months of age in a single institute. Pediatrics International 48:6, 531-535
CrossRef53
N. Becker, H. Brenner, S. J. Klug, F. H. Schilling, C. Spix. (2006) Beiträge der Epidemiologie zur Krebsfrüherkennung. Der Onkologe 12:11, 1136-1145
CrossRef54
Stefan Aretz, Arend Koch, Siegfried Uhlhaas, Waltraut Friedl, Peter Propping, Dietrich von Schweinitz, Torsten Pietsch. (2006) Should children at risk for familial adenomatous polyposis be screened for hepatoblastoma and children with apparently sporadic hepatoblastoma be screened for APC germline mutations?. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 47:6, 811-818
CrossRef55
Tomomi Hasegawa, Kastuya Wada, Eiso Hiyama, Tsutomu Masujima. (2006) Pretreatment and one-shot separating analysis of whole catecholamine metabolites in plasma by using LC/MS. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 385:5, 814-820
CrossRef56
Thorsten Simon, Rüdiger Spitz, Barbara Hero, Frank Berthold, Andreas Faldum. (2006) Risk estimation in localized unresectable single copy MYCN neuroblastoma by the status of chromosomes 1p and 11q. Cancer Letters 237:2, 215-222
CrossRef57
Elisa Dama, Guido Pastore, Maria Luisa Mosso, Milena Maria Maule, Luisa Zuccolo, Corrado Magnani, Franco Merletti. (2006) Time trends and prognostic factors for survival from childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Registry of Piedmont (Italy). European Journal of Pediatrics 165:4, 240-249
CrossRef58
Dirk Flottmann, Juergen Hins, Christian Rettenmaier, Norbert Schnell, Zyrafete Kuçi, Gisela Merkel, Gisela Seitz, Gernot Bruchelt. (2006) Two-Dimensional Isotachophoresis for the Analysis of Homovanillic Acid and Vanillylmandelic Acid in Urine for Cancer Therapy Monitoring. Microchimica Acta 154:1-2, 49-53
CrossRef59
Yasuhiko Kaneko, Hirofumi Kobayashi, Naoki Watanabe, Nobumoto Tomioka, Akira Nakagawara. (2006) Biology of neuroblastomas that were found by mass screening at 6 months of age in Japan. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 46:3, 285-291
CrossRef60
William G. Woods. (2006) “Let's try it one more, once”. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 46:3, 271-272
CrossRef61
Charles R. Scriver. (2006) Community Genetics and Dignity in Diversity in the Quebec Network of Genetic Medicine. Community Genetics 9:3, 142-152
CrossRef62
Alexander Schramm, Johannes H Schulte, Ludger Klein-Hitpass, Werner Havers, Hauke Sieverts, Bernd Berwanger, Holger Christiansen, Patrick Warnat, Benedikt Brors, Jürgen Eils, Roland Eils, Angelika Eggert. (2005) Prediction of clinical outcome and biological characterization of neuroblastoma by expression profiling. Oncogene 24:53, 7902-7912
CrossRef63
M. Fischer, A. Oberthür, D. Schweinitz, T. Simon. (2005) Das Neuroblastom. Der Onkologe 11:10, 1054-1064
CrossRef64
Takeo Tanaka, Tomoko Iehara, Tohru Sugimoto, Minoru Hamasaki, Satoshi Teramukai, Yoshiaki Tsuchida, Michio Kaneko, Tadashi Sawada. (2005) Diversity in neuroblastomas and discrimination of the risk to progress. Cancer Letters 228:1-2, 267-270
CrossRef65
L. Soderstrom, W. G. Woods, M. Bernstein, L. L. Robison, M. Tuchman, B. Lemieux. (2005) Health and Economic Benefits of Well-Designed Evaluations: Some Lessons From Evaluating Neuroblastoma Screening. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97:15, 1118-1124
CrossRef66
I. G. Levy. (2005) Neuroblastoma, Well-Designed Evaluations, and the Optimality of Research Funding: Ask Not What Your Country Can Do for You .... JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 97:15, 1105-1106
CrossRef67
T. Simon. (2005) Neuroblastom. Der Urologe, Ausgabe A 44:5, 543-555
CrossRef68
Masaki Nio, Megumi Nakamura, Shigehiko Yoshida, Tomohiro Ishii, Shintaro Amae, Yutaka Hayashi. (2005) Thoracoscopic Removal of Neurogenic Mediastinal Tumors in Children. Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 15:1, 80-83
CrossRef69
Mignon L. Loh, Katherine K. Matthay. 2005. Congenital Malignant Disorders. , 1437-1470.
CrossRef70
Peter Fritsch, Reinhold Kerbl, Herwig Lackner, Christian Urban. (2004) ?Wait and see? strategy in localized neuroblastoma in infants: An option not only for cases detected by mass screening. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 43:6, 679-682
CrossRef71
M. Alaminos, V. Davalos, N.-K. V. Cheung, W. L. Gerald, M. Esteller. (2004) Clustering of Gene Hypermethylation Associated With Clinical Risk Groups in Neuroblastoma. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 96:16, 1208-1219
CrossRef72
Tsubono, Yoshitaka, , Hisamichi, Shigeru, . (2004) A Halt to Neuroblastoma Screening in Japan. New England Journal of Medicine 350:19, 2010-2011
Full Text73
Joshua J. Fenton, Noel S. Weiss. (2004) Screening computed tomography. Cancer 100:5, 986-990
CrossRef74
Robert E Goldsby, Katherine K Matthay. (2004) Neuroblastoma. Pediatric Drugs 6:2, 107-122
CrossRef75
Keith L Lee, Jian F Ma, Linda D Shortliffe. (2003) Neuroblastoma: Management, recurrence, and follow-up. Urologic Clinics of North America 30:4, 881-890
CrossRef76
Claudia Spix, J
rg Michaelis, Frank Berthold, Rudolf Erttmann, Johannes Sander, Freimut H. Schilling. (2003) Lead-time and overdiagnosis estimation in neuroblastoma screening. Statistics in Medicine 22:18, 2877-2892
CrossRef77
Brian H. Kushner, Kim Kramer, Michael P. LaQuaglia, Nai-Kong V. Cheung. (2003) Curability of Recurrent Disseminated Disease After Surgery Alone for Local-Regional Neuroblastoma Using Intensive Chemotherapy and Anti-GD2 Immunotherapy. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 25:7, 515-519
CrossRef78
Freimut H Schilling, Claudia Spix, Frank Berthold, Rudolf Erttmann, Johannes Sander, Joern Treuner, Joerg Michaelis. (2003) Children may not benefit from neuroblastoma screening at 1 year of age. Updated results of the population based controlled trial in Germany. Cancer Letters 197:1-2, 19-28
CrossRef79
F Berthold, B Hero, B Kremens, R Handgretinger, G Henze, F.H Schilling, M Schrappe, T Simon, C Spix. (2003) Long-term results and risk profiles of patients in five consecutive trials (1979–1997) with stage 4 neuroblastoma over 1 year of age. Cancer Letters 197:1-2, 11-17
CrossRef80
G. Girschick, D. Singer, A. Trusen, J. Dietl, T. M
CrossRef81
Satoshi Honjo, Helen E. Doran, Charles A. Stiller, Wakiko Ajiki, Hideaki Tsukuma, Akira Oshima, Michel P. Coleman. (2003) Neuroblastoma trends in Osaka, Japan, and Great Britain 1970-1994, in relation to screening. International Journal of Cancer 103:4, 538-543
CrossRef82
Nobumoto Tomioka, Hirofumi Kobayashi, Hajime Kageyama, Miki Ohira, Yohko Nakamura, Fumiaki Sasaki, Satoru Todo, Akira Nakagawara, Yasuhiko Kaneko. (2003) Chromosomes that show partial loss or gain in near-diploid tumors coincide with chromosomes that show whole loss or gain in near-triploid tumors: Evidence suggesting the involvement of the same genes in the tumorigenesis of high- and low-risk neuroblastomas. Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer 36:2, 139-150
CrossRef83
Simon Wilkinson, Gerald Chodak. (2003) Informed consent for prostate-specific antigen screening. Urology 61:1, 2-4
CrossRef84
William G. Woods. (2003) Screening for Neuroblastoma: The Final Chapters. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 25:1, 3-4
CrossRef85
(2002) Neuroblastoma Screening in Early Life. New England Journal of Medicine 347:11, 852-854
Full Text86
Tatjana Burkhardt-Hammer, Claudia Spix, Hermann Brenner, Peter Kaatsch, Frank Berthold, Barbara Hero, J
CrossRef87
Woods, William G., Gao, Ru-Nie, Shuster, Jonathan J., Robison, Leslie L., Bernstein, Mark, Weitzman, Sheila, Bunin, Greta, Levy, Isra, Brossard, Josee, Dougherty, Geoffrey, Tuchman, Mendel, Lemieux, Bernard, . (2002) Screening of Infants and Mortality Due to Neuroblastoma. New England Journal of Medicine 346:14, 1041-1046
Full Text88
Cunningham, George, . (2002) The Science and Politics of Screening Newborns. New England Journal of Medicine 346:14, 1084-1085
Full Text
- Letters
