Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[1-3] For children younger than 20 years with Wilms tumor (also known as nephroblastoma), the 5-year relative survival rate is 93%.[2] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because cancer therapy side effects may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.
Childhood kidney cancers account for about 7% of all childhood cancers. Most childhood kidney cancers are Wilms tumor, but in the 15- to 19-year age group, most tumors are renal cell carcinoma. The 5-year relative survival rate for patients with renal cell carcinoma in this age group is 76%.[2] Wilms tumor can affect one kidney (unilateral) or both kidneys (bilateral). Less common types of childhood kidney tumors include rhabdoid tumors, clear cell sarcoma, congenital mesoblastic nephroma, Ewing sarcoma of the kidney, primary renal myoepithelial carcinoma, cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma, multilocular cystic nephroma, primary renal synovial sarcoma, and anaplastic sarcoma. Nephroblastomatosis of the kidney is a type of nonmalignant neoplasia.[4,5]
Wilms tumor is the most frequent tumor of the kidney in infants and children. The incidence of Wilms tumor is 10.4 cases for every 1 million children younger than 15 years, and 0.2 cases per 10,000 infants.[1,2] Approximately 650 cases of Wilms tumor are diagnosed in the United States each year. The incidence is substantially lower in Asian people.[1,3]
The male to female ratio in unilateral cases of Wilms tumor is 0.92 to 1.00, but in bilateral cases, there is a female excess (0.60). The mean age at diagnosis is 44 months in unilateral cases and 31 months in bilateral cases of Wilms tumor.[4,5] About 10% of children with Wilms tumor have an associated congenital malformation syndrome.[6]
Wilms tumor typically develops in otherwise healthy children without any predisposition to developing cancer. However, approximately 10% of children with Wilms tumor have been reported to have a congenital anomaly.[6,7] In patients with congenital anomalies and Wilms tumor, nephrogenic rests have been reported in 60% of cases.[8] Of 295 consecutive patients with Wilms tumor seen at the Institut Curie in Paris, 52 (17.6%) had anomalies or syndromes, 43 of which were considered major, and 14 of which were genetically proven tumor predisposition syndromes.[9]
Children with Wilms tumor may have associated hemihypertrophy and urinary tract anomalies, including cryptorchidism and hypospadias. Children may have recognizable phenotypic syndromes such as overgrowth, aniridia, genetic malformations, and others. These syndromes have provided clues to the genetic basis of the disease. The phenotypic syndromes and other conditions have been grouped into overgrowth and non-overgrowth categories (see Table 1). Overgrowth syndromes and conditions are the result of excessive prenatal and postnatal somatic growth.[10,11]
It is important to recognize that the absolute risk of developing Wilms tumor varies with the underlying condition or anomaly. For example, most patients with hemihypertrophy will not develop Wilms tumor.
Syndrome/Condition | Gene | Overgrowth Phenotype | Non-Overgrowth Phenotype |
---|---|---|---|
High Risk of Wilms Tumor (>20%) | |||
CLOVES = congenital lipomatous overgrowth, vascular malformations, epidermal nevi, and skeletal/spinal abnormalities; MULIBREY = distinctive abnormalities of the (MU)scles, (LI)ver, (BR)ain, and (EY)es; WAGR = Wilms tumor, aniridia, genitourinary abnormalities, and range of developmental delays. | |||
aAdapted from Treger et al.[12] | |||
WAGR syndrome (WAGR spectrum) | WT1 deletion | X | |
Denys-Drash syndrome | WT1 missense variant | X | |
Perlman syndrome | DIS3L2 variant | X | |
Fanconi anemia with biallelic variants in BRCA2 (FANCD1) or PALB2 (FANCN) | BRCA2, PALB2 | X | |
Premature chromatid separation/mosaic variegated aneuploidy | Biallelic BUB1B or TRIP13 variant | X | |
Moderate Risk of Wilms Tumor (5%–20%) | |||
Frasier syndrome | WT1 intron 9 splice variant | X | |
Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome | Uniparental disomy or H19 epivariant | X | |
Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome | GPC3 variant | X | |
Low Risk of Wilms Tumor (<5%) | |||
Bloom syndrome | Biallelic BLM variant | X | |
DICER1 syndrome | DICER1 variant | X | |
Li-Fraumeni syndrome | TP53, CHEK2 | X | |
Isolated hemihypertrophy | X | ||
Hyperparathyroidism-jaw tumor syndrome | CDC73 (also known as HRPT2) variant | X | |
MULIBREY nanism syndrome | TRIM37 variant | X | |
PIK3CA-related segmental overgrowth including CLOVES syndrome | PIK3CA variant | X | |
9q22.3 microdeletion syndrome | 9q22.3 | X | |
Sotos syndrome | NSD1 | X | |
Familial Wilms tumor | FWT1 | X | |
FWT2 | |||
Genitourinary anomalies | WT1 | X | |
Sporadic aniridia | WT1 | X | |
Trisomy 18 | X |
For information about the genes associated with Wilms tumor, including WT1 and WT2, see the Genomics of Wilms Tumor section.
WT1-related syndromes include the following:
The constellation of WAGR syndrome occurs in association with an interstitial deletion on chromosome 11 (del(11p13)). The prevalence of this deletion is about 0.4% of children with Wilms tumor.[14,15] The risk of Wilms tumor development in children with WAGR syndrome is approximately 50%. These children will present earlier (median age, 22 months) and have a higher incidence of bilateral Wilms tumors (37%) than children with nonsyndromic Wilms tumors.[16,17] A study that used the International WAGR Syndrome Association survey found that 64 of 145 children (44%) developed Wilms tumor. Most children had unilateral stage I or stage II Wilms tumors and favorable histology (59 of 64, 92%). One child developed bilateral Wilms tumors. Two children presented with stage IV disease, both with favorable histology.[18] In the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) Renal Tumor Study Group experience, 3 of 43 patients developed contralateral tumors, one of which occurred 7 years after initial diagnosis.[17] For more information, see the Genomics of Wilms Tumor section.
WT2-related syndromes include the following:
Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome is caused by altered expression of two gene clusters involved in growth control and cell-cycle progression regulated by two independent imprinting control regions (ICR1 [telomeric ICR] and ICR2 [centromeric ICR]) at chromosome 11p15.5. The two ICRs are characterized by differential methylation of maternal and paternal alleles. A variety of molecular mechanisms are implicated in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome pathogenesis, leading to unbalanced expression of imprinted genes within these two domains. Tumor predisposition results primarily from dysregulation at the telomeric domain of 11p15 (ICR1 gain of methylation [ICR1-GoM] and paternal uniparental disomy [UPD]) rather than at the centromeric domain of 11p15 (ICR2 loss of methylation [ICR2-LoM] and CDKN1C variant).[27] Approximately 15% of cases with clear-cut phenotypes have no molecular defects established so far.[28,29]
The molecular subtypes of the syndrome predispose patients to the development of different tumor histotypes.[30-32]
The prevalence of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome has previously been reported as 1% of children with Wilms tumor.[26,33-35] However, a 5-year national Dutch cohort study demonstrated that 16% of patients with Wilms tumor (20 of 126) have Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. This study included both patients with clinical diagnoses and patients in which the Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome phenotype was not apparent, such as 11p15 ICR1 gain of methylation in normal renal parenchymal and peripheral blood. Mosaicism likely accounts for the phenotypically occult cases.[36] In aggregate, approximately 10% of patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome will develop Wilms tumor. However, this incidence varies based on epigenotype. Children with ICR1-GoM have the highest risk of developing Wilms tumor (22%–29%). Children with paternal UPD have a lower risk (7%–17%), and patients with ICR2-LoM and CDKN1C variants have minimal risk.[27,31,32] Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome patients with hemihypertrophy have a fourfold increased tumor risk over Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome patients without hemihypertrophy.[37] For more information, see the Genomics of Wilms Tumor section.
Other syndromic causes of Wilms tumor include the following:
Germline inactivating variants in DIS3L2 on chromosome 2q37 are associated with Perlman syndrome. Preliminary data suggest that DIS3L2 plays a role in normal kidney development and in a subset of sporadic Wilms tumor cases.[39]
Heterozygous DIS3L2 constitutional variants appear to have an association with Wilms tumor predisposition. In a 5-year national Dutch cohort study, 4% of patients with Wilms tumors (5 of 126) had DIS3L2 variants. However, penetrance is likely much lower than in homozygous cases (Perlman syndrome).[36]
The syndrome is caused by variants or deletions in the GPC3 and GPC4 genes, and these genetic aberrations are believed to enhance the risk of Wilms tumor (8%).[40]
This syndrome results from postzygotic, somatic variants in PIK3CA, which may involve large or small regions of the child.[41]
Variants in the NSD1 gene are the only known cause of Sotos syndrome.[42]
Of 44 described patients with 9q22.3 deletions, 7 developed Wilms tumor, and there was an association with overgrowth in 4 of those 7 patients. Although the size of the deletions was variable, all of them encompassed the PTCH1 gene.[43]; [44][Level of evidence C1] According to the authors of this study, surveillance for Wilms tumor should be considered in any patient with 9q22.3 microdeletion syndrome, especially in the presence of overgrowth.[44][Level of evidence C1]
Variants in the BLM gene are the only known cause of Bloom syndrome.[45]
The TP53 gene variant is present in most families with Li-Fraumeni syndrome. The CHEK2 gene variant is also known to cause Li-Fraumeni syndrome.[46]
The syndrome is associated with ASXL1 variants and an estimated incidence of Wilms tumor of 7%.[48]
Nonsyndromic causes of Wilms tumor include the following:
Two distribution loci at 17q12-q21 (FWT1) and 19q13.4 (FWT2) have been identified by genetic linkage studies of families affected by Wilms tumor. Although the genes have yet to be characterized, in siblings with Wilms tumor, loss of function of the transcriptional corepressor TRIM28 was detected, which is located at FWT2.[53-55] Occasionally, Wilms tumor families have germline variants in WT1. In these families, most, but not all, of the family members have genitourinary tract malformations.[56,57]
Inactivating variants in CTR9 have been identified in 3 of 35 Wilms tumor families. CTR9 is located at 11p15.3 and is a key component of the polymerase-associated factor 1 (PAF1) complex, which has multiple roles in RNA polymerase II regulation and transcriptional elongation and is implicated in embryonic organogenesis.[58] A few families with familial Wilms tumor have germline microdeletion or microinsertion variants in the H19 region of 11p15.3 that result in hypermethylation of the site.[59]
In patients with isolated hemihypertrophy and paternal uniparental isodisomy of 11p15.5, the risk of Wilms tumor is estimated to be about 8%.[63]
A Wilms tumor may arise during embryogenesis on the background of an otherwise genomically normal kidney, or it may arise from nongermline somatic genetic precursor lesions residing in histologically and functionally normal kidney tissue. Hypermethylation of H19, a known component of a subset of Wilms tumors, is a very common genetic abnormality found in these normal-appearing areas of precursor lesions.[69]
One study performed genome-wide sequencing, mRNA and miRNA expression, DNA copy number, and methylation analysis on 117 Wilms tumors, followed by targeted sequencing of 651 Wilms tumors.[70] The tumors were selected for either favorable histology (FH) Wilms that had relapsed or those with diffuse anaplasia. The study showed the following:[70]
Approximately one-third of Wilms tumor cases involve variants in WT1, CTNNB1, or AMER1 (WTX).[71,72] Another subset of Wilms tumor cases results from variants in miRNA processing genes (miRNAPG), including DROSHA, DGCR8, DICER1, and XPO5.[73-76] Other genes critical for early renal development that are recurrently altered in Wilms tumor include SIX1 and SIX2 (transcription factors that play key roles in early renal development),[73,74] EP300, CREBBP, and MYCN.[70] Of the variants in Wilms tumors, 30% to 50% appear to converge on the process of transcriptional elongation in renal development and include the genes MLLT1, BCOR, MAP3K4, BRD7, and HDAC4.[70] Anaplastic Wilms tumor is characterized by the presence of TP53 variants.
Elevated rates of Wilms tumor are observed in patients with a number of genetic disorders, including WAGR (Wilms tumor, aniridia, genitourinary abnormalities, and range of developmental delays) syndrome (WAGR spectrum), Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, hemihypertrophy, Denys-Drash syndrome, and Perlman syndrome.[77] Other genetic causes that have been observed in familial Wilms tumor cases include germline variants in REST and CTR9.[58,78]
The genomic and genetic characteristics of Wilms tumor are summarized below.
The WT1 gene is located on the short arm of chromosome 11 (11p13). WT1 is a transcription factor that is required for normal genitourinary development and is important for differentiation of the renal blastema.[79] WT1 variants are observed in 10% to 20% of cases of sporadic Wilms tumor.[71,79,80]
Wilms tumor with a WT1 variant is characterized by the following:
Germline WT1 variants are more common in children with Wilms tumor and one of the following:
Germline WT1 single nucleotide variants produce genetic syndromes that are characterized by nephropathy, 46XY disorder of sex development, and varying risks of Wilms tumor.[89,90] Syndromic conditions with germline WT1 variants include WAGR syndrome, Denys-Drash syndrome,[22] and Frasier syndrome.[19]
Inactivating variants or deletions in the PAX6 gene lead to aniridia, while deletion of WT1 confers the increased risk of Wilms tumor. Loss of the LMO2 gene has been associated with a more frequent development of Wilms tumor in patients with congenital aniridia and WAGR-region deletions.[91][Level of evidence C1] Sporadic aniridia in which WT1 is not deleted is not associated with increased risk of Wilms tumor. Accordingly, children with familial aniridia, generally occurring for many generations, and without renal abnormalities, have a normal WT1 gene and are not at an increased risk of Wilms tumor.[33,92]
Wilms tumor in children with WAGR syndrome is characterized by an excess of bilateral disease, intralobar nephrogenic rests, early age at diagnosis, and stromal-predominant histology in FH tumors.[16] The intellectual disability in WAGR syndrome may be secondary to deletion of other genes, including SLC1A2 or BDNF.[59]
WT1 variants in Denys-Drash syndrome are most often missense variants in exons 8 and 9, which code for the DNA binding region of WT1.[22]
WT1 variants in Frasier syndrome typically occur in intron 9 at the KT site, and create an alternative splicing variant, thereby preventing production of the usually more abundant WT1 +KTS isoform.[24]
Studies evaluating genotype/phenotype correlations of WT1 variants have shown that the risk of Wilms tumor is highest for truncating variants (14 of 17 cases, 82%) and lower for missense variants (27 of 67 cases, 42%). The risk is lowest for KTS splice site variants (1 of 27 cases, 4%).[89,90] Bilateral Wilms tumor was more common in cases with WT1-truncating variants (9 of 14 cases) than in cases with WT1 missense variants (3 of 27 cases).[89,90] These genomic studies confirm previous estimates of elevated risk of Wilms tumor for children with Denys-Drash syndrome and low risk of Wilms tumor for children with Frasier syndrome.
CTNNB1 is one of the most commonly altered genes in Wilms tumor, reported to occur in 15% of patients with Wilms tumor.[70,72,80,82,93] These CTNNB1 variants result in activation of the WNT pathway, which plays a prominent role in the developing kidney.[94] CTNNB1 variants commonly occur with WT1 variants, and most cases of Wilms tumor with WT1 variants have a concurrent CTNNB1 variant.[80,82,93] Activation of beta-catenin in the presence of intact WT1 protein appears to be inadequate to promote tumor development because CTNNB1 variants are rarely found in the absence of a WT1 or AMER1 variant, except when associated with a MLLT1 variant.[72,95] CTNNB1 variants appear to be late events in Wilms tumor development because they are found in tumors but not in nephrogenic rests.[85]
AMER1 is located on the X chromosome at Xq11.1. It is altered in 15% to 20% of Wilms tumor cases.[71,72,80,96,97] Germline variants in AMER1 cause an X-linked sclerosing bone dysplasia, osteopathia striata congenita with cranial sclerosis (MIM300373).[98] Despite having germline AMER1 variants, individuals with osteopathia striata congenita are not predisposed to tumor development.[98] The AMER1 protein appears to be involved in both the degradation of beta-catenin and in the intracellular distribution of APC protein.[95,99] AMER1 is most commonly altered by deletions involving part or all of the AMER1 gene, with deleterious single nucleotide variants occurring less commonly.[71,80,96] Most Wilms tumor cases with AMER1 alterations have epigenetic 11p15 abnormalities.[80]
AMER1 alterations are equally distributed between males and females, and AMER1 inactivation has no apparent effect on clinical presentation or prognosis.[71]
A second Wilms tumor locus, WT2, maps to an imprinted region of chromosome 11p15.5. When it is a germline variant, it causes Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. About 3% of children with Wilms tumor have germline epigenetic or genetic changes at the 11p15.5 growth regulatory locus without any clinical manifestations of overgrowth. Like children with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, these children have an increased incidence of bilateral Wilms tumor or familial Wilms tumor.[59]
Approximately one-fifth of patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome who develop Wilms tumor present with bilateral disease, and metachronous bilateral disease is also observed.[33-35] The prevalence of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome is about 1% among children with Wilms tumor reported to the National Wilms Tumor Study (NWTS).[4,35]
Approximately 80% of patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome have a molecular defect of the 11p15 domain.[100] Various molecular mechanisms underlying Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome have been identified. Some of these abnormalities are genetic (germline variants of the maternal allele of CDKN1C, paternal uniparental isodisomy of 11p15, or duplication of part of the 11p15 domain) but are more frequently epigenetic (loss of methylation of the maternal ICR2 [CDKN1C and KCNQ1OT1 genes] or gain of methylation of the maternal ICR1 [IGF2 and H19 genes]).[59,101]
Several candidate genes at the WT2 locus comprise the two independent imprinted domains: IGF2 and H19; and CDKN1C and KCNQ1OT1.[101] LOH, which exclusively affects the maternal chromosome, has the effect of upregulating paternally active genes and silencing maternally active ones. A loss or switch of the imprint for genes (change in methylation status) in this region has also been frequently observed and results in the same functional aberrations.[59,100,101]
A relationship between epigenotype and phenotype has been shown in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, with a different rate of cancer in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome according to the type of alteration of the 11p15 region.[102]
The following four main molecular subtypes of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome are characterized by specific genotype-phenotype correlations:
Other tumors such as neuroblastoma or hepatoblastoma were reported in patients with paternal 11p15 isodisomy.[27,31,104] For patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, the relative risk of developing hepatoblastoma is 2,280 times that of the general population.[35]
Loss of imprinting or gene methylation is rarely found at other loci, supporting the specificity of loss of imprinting at 11p15.5.[105] Interestingly, Wilms tumor in Japanese and East Asian children, which occurs at a lower incidence than in White children, is not associated with either nephrogenic rests or IGF2 loss of imprinting.[106]
Additional genes and chromosomal alterations that have been implicated in the pathogenesis and biology of Wilms tumor include the following:
In an analysis of FH Wilms tumor from 1,114 patients from NWTS-5 (COG-Q9401/NCT00002611), 28% of the tumors displayed 1q gain.[107]
One study included a cohort of FH Wilms tumor that was enriched for patients who relapsed. The study found that the prevalence of 1q gain was higher in the relapsed Wilms tumor specimens (75%) than in the matched primary samples (47%).[109] The increased prevalence of 1q gain at relapse supports its association with poor prognosis and disease progression.
These conflicting results may arise from the greater prognostic significance of 1q gain described above. LOH of 16q and 1p loses significance as independent prognostic markers in the presence of 1q gain. However, in the absence of 1q gain, LOH of 16q and 1p retains their adverse prognostic impact.[107] The LOH of 16q and 1p appears to arise from complex chromosomal events that result in 1q LOH or 1q gain. The change in 1q appears to be the critical tumorigenic genetic event.[113]
Germline variants in miRNAPG are observed for DICER1 and DIS3L2, with variants in the former causing DICER1 syndrome and variants in the latter causing Perlman syndrome.
In a study of 118 prospectively identified patients with diffuse anaplastic Wilms tumor registered on the NWTS-5 trial, 57 patients (48%) demonstrated TP53 variants, 13 patients (11%) demonstrated TP53 segmental copy number loss without variants, and 48 patients (41%) lacked both (wild-type TP53 [wtTP53]). All TP53 variants were detected by sequencing alone. Patients with stage III or stage IV disease with wtTP53 had a significantly lower relapse rate and mortality rate than did patients with TP53 abnormalities (P = .00006 and P = .00007, respectively). The TP53 status had no effect on patients with stage I or stage II tumors.[123]
Figure 2 summarizes the genomic landscape of a selected cohort of Wilms tumor patients selected because they experienced relapse despite showing FH.[86] The 75 FH Wilms tumor cases were clustered by unsupervised analysis of gene expression data, resulting in six clusters. Five of six MLLT1-altered tumors with available gene expression data were in cluster 3, and two were accompanied by CTNNB1 variants. This cluster also contained four tumors with a variant or small segment deletion of WT1, all of which also had either a variant of CTNNB1 or small segment deletion or variant of AMER1. It also contained a substantial number of tumors with retention of imprinting of 11p15 (including all MLLT1-altered tumors). The miRNAPG-altered cases clustered together and were mutually exclusive with both MLLT1 and with WT1-, AMER1-, or CTNNB1-altered cases.
Wilms tumor at relapse appears to maintain most of the genomic alterations present at diagnosis, although there may be changes in the prevalence of alterations in specific genes between diagnosis and relapse.[109] A study from the Children’s Oncology Group presented whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data on relapse tumor specimens from 51 patients and corresponding diagnostic specimens from 45 of these patients. For an additional 31 patients who had relapse specimens available, a targeted sequencing panel was applied. Key findings included the following:
Recurrent and refractory Wilms tumors from 56 pediatric patients underwent tumor sequencing in the National Cancer Institute–Children's Oncology Group (NCI-COG) Pediatric MATCH trial. This process revealed genomic alterations that were considered actionable for treatment in MATCH study arms in 6 of 56 tumors (10.7%). BRCA2 variants were found in 2 of 56 tumors (3.6%).[135]
Wilms tumor in patients older than 16 years is rare, with an incidence rate of less than 0.2 cases per 1 million people per year.[2] As a result, there are limited data available describing the genomic alterations that are observed in adults with Wilms tumor.
A study of 14 patients with a Wilms tumor diagnosis who were older than 16 years (range, 17–46 years; median age, 31 years) evaluated exonic variants for 1,425 cancer-related genes.[136]
Another report described renal tumors that had histological overlap between metanephric adenoma and epithelial Wilms tumor.[138] While most epithelial Wilms tumors (five of nine) with areas resembling metanephric adenoma were negative for BRAF V600E variants, four cases were positive for the BRAF V600E variant. Two of the cases with BRAF V600E variants occurred in children (aged 3 years and 6 years), and the other two cases occurred in adults.
Approximately 5% to 10% of individuals with Wilms tumor have bilateral or multicentric tumors. The prevalence of bilateral involvement is higher in individuals with genetic predisposition syndromes than in those without predisposition syndromes. For example, in 545 cases of bilateral Wilms tumors, bona fide pathogenic germline variants were found in 22% of patients.[139] The most common predisposition variants are variants of WT1 and 11p15 loss of imprinting.[26,79]
Bilateral disease can be synchronous (both kidneys affected at the same time) or metachronous (one affected after the other) and occurs in 6.3% and 0.85% of patients with Wilms tumor, respectively.[4] In general, perilobar nephrogenic rests are associated with synchronous bilateral Wilms tumor, whereas intralobar nephrogenic rests are more strongly associated with metachronous Wilms tumors.[140]
Bilateral Wilms tumors with WT1 variants are associated with early presentation in pediatric patients (age 10 months vs. age 39 months for those without a variant) and a high frequency of WT1 nonsense variant in exon 8. Three percent of patients with bilateral Wilms tumor have affected family members.[141]
Genomic analysis of kidney tissue in bilateral Wilms tumor indicates that a clonal expansion early in the nephrogenesis of normal-appearing but genetically aberrant precursor lesions occurred before the divergence of left and right kidney primordia.[69]
The primary purpose of screening is to enable earlier detection of a small and localized tumor (stage I or II), improve prognosis, and use less intensive treatment (such as to facilitate nephron-sparing surgery).[142] Children with a significant increased predisposition to develop Wilms tumor (e.g., most children with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome or other overgrowth syndromes, WAGR syndrome, Denys-Drash syndrome, sporadic aniridia, or isolated hemihypertrophy) are usually screened with ultrasonography every 3 months until they reach at least age 8 years.[92,142]
Tumor screening programs for each overgrowth syndrome have been suggested. These programs were based on published age, incidence of tumor type, and recommendations from the 2016 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Childhood Cancer Predisposition Workshop. Although data about different cancer risks based on genetic or epigenetic subgroups for certain syndromes are emerging, and subgroup-specific recommendations have been developed in Europe, these practices have not been adopted in the United States. The AACR workshop committee proposed a uniform screening approach for all syndromes associated with a greater-than-1% risk of Wilms tumor. Additional screening for hepatoblastoma by serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) measurement and ultrasonography is also recommended for patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, trisomy 18, and Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome.[143]
On the basis of a literature search of patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann spectrum and Wilms tumor where the age at diagnosis was compared against data collected through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, screening patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann spectrum seems to significantly decrease the age and stage at the time of diagnosis in this population. Screening until age 7 years is effective in detecting close to 95% of all Wilms tumors in Beckwith-Wiedemann spectrum. Screening until age 30 months may also prove useful for patients with ICR2-LoM, consistent with the recommendations for hepatoblastoma screening in this population.[144]
Screening for hepatoblastoma or adrenal tumors with abdominal ultrasonography and serum AFP usually begins at birth or when the syndrome is diagnosed and continues until age 4 years. After age 4 years, most hepatoblastomas will have occurred, and imaging may be limited to renal ultrasonography, which is quicker and does not require fasting before the exam.[145]
Screening for Wilms tumor usually continues until age 8 years. Physical examination by a specialist (geneticist or pediatric oncologist) is recommended twice per year, and ongoing education regarding tumor manifestations, reinforcing the rationale for screening and compliance with the screening regimen, is discussed.[143]
Proposed screening guidelines for Wilms tumor are available for patients with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome who have undergone molecular subtyping.[103] The four main molecular subtypes of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (ICR1-GoM, ICR2-LoM, UPD, and CDKN1C variant) are characterized by specific genotype-phenotype correlations, including tumor risk. For more information about the molecular subtypes, see the Genomics of Wilms Tumor section.
Proposed screening for specific molecular subtypes of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome is as follows:
Multiple patients have been diagnosed with the development of Wilms tumor past the age of 7 to 8 years and/or relapse occurring years after initial diagnosis. Some cases labeled as relapses have been de novo disease in the contralateral kidney.[16] In the WAGR Syndrome Patient Registry, late presentation of relapse occurred in one participant at age 19 years, 7 months, which was more than 17 years from their first Wilms tumor diagnosis and represented the third occurrence.[13]
Investigators from SIOP have reported about the benefit of surveillance in a cohort of 43 patients with WAGR Syndrome and Wilms tumor/nephroblastomatosis enrolled in SIOP treatment studies. Of 39 patients, 27 (69%) were asymptomatic and the tumors were detected by surveillance, whereas 12 patients (31%) presented with a palpable/visible abdominal mass and/or other symptoms. Of these 12 patients, 2 had not been diagnosed with WAGR syndrome. Tumors detected by surveillance had a significantly decreased volume compared with tumors that were symptomatic (18 mL vs. 375 mL; P = .001), which enabled a high rate of nephron-sparing surgery (85%).[146] The authors recommend the use of preoperative chemotherapy as treatment for patients with WAGR syndrome in order to facilitate nephron-sparing surgery. This surgery can improve outcomes for patients with chronic kidney disease associated with WAGR syndrome.[147] Preoperative chemotherapy has been reported to decrease tumor size in 50% of WAGR patients.[146]
Surveillance options for the WAGR population at age 8 years and older should be discussed with the patient’s family and multidisciplinary health care team to determine the appropriate follow-up schedule for Wilms tumor monitoring. Factors such as the patient's previous medical history and presence of nephrogenic rests and nephroblastomatosis should be considered.[13]
Hemihypertrophy can occur as part of a syndrome (most commonly Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome) or an isolated phenomenon. The Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome International Consensus Group suggested that individuals with florid Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome phenotype and those with isolated hemihypertrophy who have similar molecular findings as those with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome should be considered part of the Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome spectrum and managed according to the subtype of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. Molecular testing may be considered for patients with isolated hemihypertrophy based on the clinical scoring system proposed by the Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome International Consensus Group.[148]
Children with isolated hemihypertrophy and negative molecular tests may not need surveillance because the risk may be very low. However, more studies of large cohorts of molecularly tested children with isolated hemihypertrophy are needed to determine the risk.[92,148]
Wilms tumor develops in association with an underlying germline predisposition in 10% to 15% of cases. A genetics referral is recommended for all children with Wilms tumor who have a positive family history of cancer, bilateral kidney involvement, or presence of syndrome-specific features.[158]
The McGill Interactive Pediatric OncoGenetic Guidelines (MIPOGG) study aims to develop an eHealth tool to assist physicians in identifying children at increased risk of having a cancer predisposition syndrome. Based on a thorough literature review, a decisional algorithm specific to Wilms tumor was developed. This algorithm consists of five tumor-specific criteria (age <2 years, bilaterality/multifocality, stromal-predominant histology, nephrogenic rests, and overgrowth features) and universal criteria, including features of family history suspicious for a cancer predisposition syndrome and congenital anomalies. This tool was applied retrospectively to 180 consecutive pediatric patients with Wilms tumor, diagnosed and/or treated at The Hospital for Sick Children (1997–2016) who underwent targeted molecular diagnostic testing.[159]
If a child is found to harbor a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a Wilms tumor predisposition gene, then their parents and close relatives can also be offered testing. Affected individuals should be counseled about the risk of additional neoplasms and oncologic manifestations, as appropriate, as well as the risk to future offspring.[158]
Most Wilms tumor patients present asymptomatically with an abdominal mass noticed by a parent or pediatrician on a well-child visit. In children with known predisposing clinical syndromes, renal tumors can be found during routine screening. Clinical findings may include the following:
Children with Wilms tumor or other renal malignancies may also seek medical attention as a result of the following:
The Children's Oncology Group Diagnostic Imaging Committee and the Society for Pediatric Radiology Oncology Committee have published a white paper with recommendations for the imaging of pediatric renal tumors.[161] Tests and procedures used to diagnose and stage Wilms tumor and other childhood kidney tumors include the following:
Biopsy of a renal mass may be indicated if the mass is atypical by radiographic appearance for Wilms tumor, and the patient is not going to undergo immediate nephrectomy. If a primary nephrectomy cannot be performed, a biopsy, either open or with multiple cores, is required. The contraindications to primary nephrectomy are the following:
If a child undergoes a biopsy as the first procedure, they are considered stage III because they have gross residual tumors.
Biopsy tissue from inoperable Wilms tumor obtained before chemotherapy may be used for histological review and initial treatment decisions. However, the use of biopsy to determine histology in an inoperable tumor remains controversial because biopsy may cause local tumor spread and the histological classification of the Wilms tumor cannot be determined by biopsy.[173]
Anaplastic histology can be difficult to detect in any biopsy sample because of tumor heterogeneity. Data from NWTS-4 and NWTS-5 (COG-Q9401/NCT00002611) demonstrated that, because of the histological heterogeneity of Wilms tumor, a significant number of patients have anaplastic histology that is missed during an up-front biopsy whether it be a core needle biopsy or an incisional biopsy [174] but revealed at the time of definitive surgery after chemotherapy.
Detection of a contralateral renal lesion in a child with Wilms tumor can change the stage and initial management of the patient, indicating a role for a renal-sparing approach without up-front surgery. The detection of contralateral renal lesions is important at baseline imaging because routine intraoperative exploration of the contralateral kidney is no longer recommended on the basis of the results of the NWTS-4 study.[164,175] Treatment as a bilateral Wilms tumor should be considered if the initial imaging studies suggests a bilateral process. If the origin of the other lesion is indeterminate, a pathological assessment of that lesion should be considered before proceeding with a nephrectomy.[164,175]
Children who have bilateral Wilms tumor are often treated without a biopsy.[176] Biopsy can be avoided if the child is of typical age and the tumor has the usual radiographic appearance. This was assessed on the COG AREN0534 (NCT00945009) study where 187 of 189 patients with Wilms tumor were treated initially without a biopsy. If after 6 weeks of therapy, response was less than 30% by RECIST1.1 criteria, bilateral biopsies were performed to assess for anaplasia, stromal differentiation, and rhabdomyomatous changes. If anaplasia was detected, the chemotherapy treatment was changed. If stromal differentiation or rhabdomyomatous changes were detected, further chemotherapy was unlikely to result in tumor shrinkage and definitive surgery was the suggested approach.[176]
For patients with suspected Wilms tumor, additional preoperative staging studies are performed to assess lymph node status, intravascular extension, and rupture of Wilms tumor.[163]
In North America, local staging of Wilms tumor is performed with CT or MRI of the abdomen and pelvis. Contrast-enhanced CT for Wilms tumor patients has high sensitivity and specificity for detection of cavoatrial tumor thrombus that may impact surgical approach. Routine Doppler evaluation may be done after CT has been performed but is not necessarily required.[165] If the tumor is at or above the hepatic veins, a biopsy with preoperative chemotherapy is suggested because of the lower rate of serious intraoperative complications. Before surgical approach to the renal mass is performed, large tumor thrombi need to be controlled, especially when they extend above the hepatic vein, to avoid embolization of the tumor. In some cases, cardiopulmonary bypass is required.[178]
Wilms tumor is a curable disease in most affected children. Since the 1980s, the 5-year survival rate for Wilms tumor with favorable histology (FH) has been consistently greater than 90%.[179] This favorable outcome occurred with changes in therapy that included reductions in the length of therapy, dose of radiation, extent of fields irradiated, and the percentage of patients receiving radiation therapy.[180]
The prognosis for patients with Wilms tumor depends on the following:[181-184]
Wilms tumor in patients older than 16 years is rare, with an incidence rate of around 0.2 cases per 1 million per year in patients aged 15 to 39 years.[2] The 5-year relative survival rate is 75% for this group of patients.[2,188] In Europe, the median age at diagnosis for adult patients with Wilms tumor (defined as age >15 years) is 34 years. However, patients older than 60 years have been reported.[189] Three percent of Wilms tumors occur in adults. Wilms tumor represents less than 1% of all renal tumors in adults and may be an unexpected finding after nephrectomy for presumed renal cell carcinoma, which is the most common adult renal cancer.
Wilms tumor occurring in adults differs from that occurring in children in several ways. Adults rarely present with bilateral disease (<1%). More adult patients had additional primary malignancies (both before and after the diagnosis of Wilms tumor) compared with their pediatric counterparts.[190] Wilms tumors occurring in adults have not been shown to develop in association with nephrogenic rests or be associated with developmental conditions such as WAGR, Denys-Drash, or Beckwith-Wiedemann syndromes.[136] For information about the molecular features of Wilms tumor in adults, see the Genomics of Wilms Tumor section.
A situation that is specific to adults is the diagnosis of Wilms tumor in pregnant women. This diagnosis is made incidentally during the ultrasonography monitoring of the pregnancy or because of clinical symptoms such as abdominal pain and fever.[191,192]
The outcomes for adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients (aged 15 to 39 years) and adult patients are inferior to the outcomes for children.
The inferior outcome of the adult patients may be multifactorial, including differences in tumor biology between children and adults, incorrect diagnosis, inadequate staging (e.g., more likely to be staged as localized disease or to not receive lymph node sampling), undertreatment/poor compliance (e.g., not receiving radiation therapy), unfamiliarity of medical oncologists and pathologists with Wilms tumors in adults (possibly leading to diagnostic error and delay), delays in initiating the appropriate risk-adapted therapy, and lack of specific treatment protocols for adults.[194][Level of evidence C1]
As Wilms tumor rarely occurs in adults, there is no standard treatment protocol. Better results have been reported for adults when they are treated in pediatric trials.
A Wilms tumor in an adult represents a therapeutic emergency because of the tumor's rapid growth and because urologists and oncologists are more familiar with the indolent growth of renal cell carcinoma.
The NWTS Group reported the outcomes for adult patients with Wilms tumor from the NWTS-1, -2, and -3 trials.[195-197]
For adults with refractory or recurrent disease, screening for potential therapeutic targets in the tumor should be considered.[198]
The following recommendations from the renal tumor committees of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) and COG encourage a uniform approach to improve outcome for adults with Wilms tumor.[199]
In a series of 14 adult Wilms tumors that were evaluated by expanded targeted sequencing, 5 (36%) demonstrated BRAF V600E variants. These tumors contained areas that were morphologically identical to BRAF V600E–altered metanephric adenoma. All of the BRAF V600E–altered Wilms tumors in this cohort occurred in patients older than 30 years. Identifying a BRAF V600E variant has therapeutic significance because these patients may respond to therapy with BRAF/MEK inhibitors.[136] There was one report of a male (aged 51 years) who had a relapsed metastatic Wilms tumor that harbored a BRAF V600E variant. The patient was treated with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib, and they had a prolonged and dramatic response.[198]
Although most patients with a histological diagnosis of Wilms tumor do well with current treatment, approximately 10% of patients have histopathological features that are associated with a worse prognosis, and in some types, with a high incidence of relapse and death. Wilms tumor can be separated into the following two prognostic groups on the basis of tumor and kidney histopathology:
Histologically, Wilms tumor mimics the triphasic development of a normal kidney consisting of blastemal, epithelial (tubules), and stromal cell types. Not all tumors are triphasic, and monophasic patterns may present diagnostic difficulties.
While associations between histological features and prognosis or responsiveness to therapy have been suggested, with the exception of anaplasia, none of these features have reached statistical significance in North American treatment algorithms. Therefore, histological features do not direct the initial therapy.[200] A strong association between the epithelial subtype and TRIM28 variants has been identified.[125][Level of evidence C1]
In the AREN03B2 (NCT00898365) study, patients with stage I disease were analyzed on the basis of epithelial histology (n = 177) and treatment. When analyzed by epithelial histology, the 4-year EFS rate was 96%, and the OS rate was 100%. When these patients were analyzed according to treatment, patients treated with vincristine and dactinomycin (regimen EE-4A) (n = 117) had a 4-year EFS rate of 96%, compared with a 4-year EFS rate of 98% for patients who underwent nephrectomy only (n = 57) (P = .549).[201]
In a series of 14 adults (aged 17–46 years) with Wilms tumors, targeted tumor sequencing revealed BRAF V600E variants in 5 of the tumors. All of these tumors had better-differentiated areas that were identical to metanephric adenoma, in combination with epithelial Wilms tumor. Adults who have tumors with this histological manifestation may benefit from sequencing of their tumors.[136]
Anaplastic histology accounts for about 10% of Wilms tumor cases. Anaplastic histology is the single most important histological predictor of response and survival in patients with Wilms tumor. Tumors occurring in older patients (aged 10–16 years) have a higher incidence of anaplastic histology.[202] In bilateral tumors, 12% to 14% have been reported to have anaplastic histology in one kidney.[203,204]
The following two histological criteria must be present to confirm the diagnosis of anaplasia:
Changes on 17p consistent with variants in the TP53 gene have been associated with foci of anaplastic histology.[120] Focal anaplasia is defined as the presence of one or more sharply localized regions of anaplasia in a primary tumor. All of these factors lend support to the hypothesis that anaplasia evolves as a late event from a subpopulation of Wilms tumor cells that have acquired additional genomic lesions.[205] Focal anaplasia does not confer as poor a prognosis as does diffuse anaplasia.[183,206,207]
Anaplasia correlates best with responsiveness to therapy rather than to tumor aggressiveness. It is most consistently associated with poor prognosis when it is diffusely distributed and when identified at advanced stages. These tumors are more resistant to the chemotherapy traditionally used in children with FH Wilms tumor.[183]
To identify patients with germline variants in TRIM28, routine assessment of Wilms tumors by immunohistochemistry with the anti-KAP1 antibody should be performed to look for TRIM28 loss. Even though most TRIM28-altered tumors are epithelial (predominant) Wilms tumors, testing should be considered for all subtypes, because other histological subtypes have been reported to have the TRIM28 variant. Subsequently, genetic analysis of TRIM28 in blood-derived DNA can be performed in all patients who display loss of TRIM28 in the tumor.[128]
Nephrogenic rests are abnormally retained (past 36 weeks) embryonic kidney precursor cells arranged in clusters. Nephrogenic rests are found in about 1% of unselected pediatric autopsies, 35% of kidneys with unilateral Wilms tumor, and nearly 100% of kidneys with bilateral Wilms tumor.[84,208] Preoperative chemotherapy does not appear to affect the overall prevalence of nephrogenic rests. Congenital anomalies have been reported in 12% of patients with nephrogenic rests, including in 9% of patients with unilateral Wilms tumor and in 33% of patients with bilateral disease.[8]
The term nephroblastomatosis is defined as the presence of diffuse or multifocal nephrogenic rests. In unilateral Wilms tumors, nephrogenic rests are usually only detectable by histology, whereas in bilateral Wilms tumor, the proliferating nephrogenic rests may be large enough to be seen on imaging.[209] Nephrogenic rests can be subclassified according to the anatomical location of the rest (intralobar or perilobar nephrogenic rests) and their growth phase (incipient or dormant nephrogenic rests, hyperplastic nephrogenic rests, and regressing or sclerosing nephrogenic rests). The underlying genetic defects have an impact on the presence of nephrogenic rests.[8] WT1-related Wilms tumors will frequently have few intralobar nephrogenic rests located centrally, with or adjacent to the renal medulla. TRIM28-associated or Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome–associated Wilms tumors tend to harbor perilobar nephrogenic rests in the adjacent kidney tissue. Although only a few nephrogenic rests have been assayed, nephrogenic rests seem to carry even fewer variants than their adjacent Wilms tumors.[210,211]
Distinguishing between nephrogenic rests and Wilms tumors by imaging is challenging because there is an overlap in their appearance. A retrospective study evaluated 52 young children (aged <5 years) with nephrogenic rests and small Wilms tumors (all lesions <5 cm) that had been surgically sampled and pathologically evaluated before any medical intervention. The investigators found that a Wilms tumor diagnosis should be favored over a nephrogenic rest diagnosis when a renal mass is spherical, exophytic, and larger than 1.75 cm in maximal diameter. Homogeneity by imaging favors the diagnosis of perilobar nephrogenic rests, whereas intralobar rests and Wilms tumors are more likely to be inhomogeneous.[166][Level of evidence C1]
Diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephroblastomatosis represents one unique category of nephroblastomatosis that forms a thick rind around one or both kidneys and is considered a preneoplastic condition. Distinguishing between Wilms tumor and diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephrogenic rests may be a challenge, and it is critical to examine the juncture between the lesion and the surrounding renal parenchyma. Incisional biopsies are of no diagnostic value unless they include the margin between the lesion and the normal renal parenchyma.[212]
The type and percentage of nephrogenic rests vary in patients with unilateral or bilateral disease. Patients with bilateral Wilms tumor have a higher proportion of perilobar rests (52%) than of intralobar or combined rests (32%) and higher relative proportions of rests, compared with patients with unilateral tumors (18% perilobar and 20% intralobar or both).[213] Intralobar nephrogenic rests have been associated with stromal-type Wilms tumor and younger age at diagnosis.[8]
Patients with any type of nephrogenic rest in a kidney removed for nephroblastoma are considered at increased risk of tumor formation in the remaining kidney. This risk decreases with patient age.[214]
For information about the treatment of bilateral diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephroblastomatosis, see the Nephroblastomatosis section.
Extrarenal nephrogenic rests are rare and may develop into extrarenal Wilms tumor.[215]
Both the results of the imaging studies and the surgical and pathological findings at nephrectomy are used to determine the stage of disease. The stage is the same for tumors with FH or anaplastic histology. Thus, the stage information is characterized by a statement of both criteria (for example, stage II, FH or stage II, anaplastic histology).[200,216]
The staging system was originally developed by the NWTS Group and is still used by the COG. The staging system used in North America and incidence by stage are outlined below.[200] Lymph node sampling is strongly recommended for all patients, even in the absence of clinically abnormal nodes, to achieve the most accurate stage.
In stage I Wilms tumor (43% of patients), all of the following criteria must be met:
For a tumor to qualify for certain therapeutic protocols such as very low-risk stage I, regional lymph nodes must be examined microscopically.
In stage II Wilms tumor (20% of patients), the tumor is completely resected, and there is no evidence of tumor at or beyond the margins of resection. The tumor extends beyond the kidney as evidenced by any one of the following criteria:
All lymph nodes sampled are negative.
Rupture or spillage confined to the flank, including biopsy of the tumor, is now included in stage III by the COG Renal Tumor Committee (COG RTC); however, data to support this approach are controversial.[173,217]
In stage III Wilms tumor (21% of patients), there is postsurgical residual nonhematogenous tumor that is confined to the abdomen. Any one of the following may occur:
Lymph node involvement and microscopic residual disease are reported as highly predictive of outcome in patients with stage III FH Wilms tumor.[218]
In stage IV Wilms tumor (11% of patients), one of the following is present:
The presence of tumor within the adrenal gland is not interpreted as metastasis and staging depends on all other staging parameters present. According to the criteria described above, the primary tumor is assigned a local stage, which determines local therapy. For example, a patient may have stage IV, local stage III disease.
In stage V Wilms tumor (5% of patients), bilateral involvement by tumor is present at diagnosis. The current paradigm treats all patients with bilateral Wilms tumor the same for the first 6 or 12 weeks. After definitive surgery, the treatment is based on the highest stage of the remaining kidneys and the posttreatment pathology.[176]
Because of the relative rarity of Wilms tumor, all patients with this tumor should be considered for entry into a clinical trial. Treatment planning by a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists (pediatric surgeon and/or pediatric urologist, pediatric radiation oncologist, and pediatric oncologist) who have experience treating children with Wilms tumor is necessary to determine and implement optimal treatment.
Most randomized clinical studies for treatment of children with Wilms tumor have been conducted by two large clinical groups (COG RTC and SIOP). Differences between the two groups affect staging and classification. There are two standard approaches to Wilms tumor treatment: the COG RTC uses immediate surgery for all unilateral tumors and the SIOP uses preoperative chemotherapy as the first step in treatment. Both groups use postoperative chemotherapy, except for selected cases who do not receive chemotherapy, and in advanced stages, radiation therapy is used in a risk-adapted approach.
This summary focuses on the NWTS (now COG RTC) results and studies.
The major treatment and study conclusions of NWTS-1, NWTS-2, NWTS-3, NWTS-4, and NWTS-5 are as follows:
The following operative principles have also evolved from NWTS (COG) trials:
For patients with resectable tumors, preoperative biopsy or intraoperative biopsy is not performed because either would upstage the tumor in the current COG staging system.[228]
Renal-sparing surgery remains controversial and is not supported by the data, except for children with the following:[231,232]; [233][Level of evidence C1]
Renal-sparing surgery does not appear to be feasible for most patients at the time of diagnosis because of the location of the tumor within the kidney, even in patients with very low-risk tumors.[235] In North America, renal-sparing surgery (partial nephrectomy) of unilateral Wilms tumor after administration of chemotherapy to shrink the tumor mass is considered investigational.[236,237]
Wilms tumor rarely invades adjacent organs; therefore, resection of contiguous organs is seldom indicated. There is an increased incidence of complications occurring in more extensive resections that involve removal of additional organs beyond the diaphragm and adrenal gland. This finding has led to the recommendation in current COG protocols that patients in whom nephrectomy will require removal of additional organs should be considered for initial biopsy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and then secondary resection.[238] Primary resection of liver metastasis is not recommended.[239]
Lymph node status is a major long-term predictor of outcome in patients with Wilms tumor.[228] Data from Wilms tumor studies suggest that the lymph node number and location may impact therapy and outcome, although NWTS and COG renal tumor protocols have never defined the number of lymph nodes or locations of lymph nodes to be sampled.[228] The ideal number of lymph nodes that should be sampled remains unknown.
The presence of a pleural effusion does not appear to necessitate a change in therapy. In a multi-institutional retrospective review of 1,259 children with newly diagnosed Wilms tumor, 94 (7.5%) had a pleural effusion.[169][Level of evidence C1]
Preoperative chemotherapy before nephrectomy is indicated in the following situations, which have been listed previously under situations requiring a biopsy:[228,238,243-246]
For more information, see the Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor section.
A large contemporary series included 124 patients with Wilms tumor and intracaval extension who were treated at North American centers. Most patients (82%) received a three-drug neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy reduced the need for cardiopulmonary bypass and also avoided the complexity of intrahepatic caval thrombus resection.[246]
Preoperative chemotherapy follows a biopsy. The biopsy may be performed through a flank approach.[178,247-251] Adequate tissue is essential for accurate histological assessment and molecular studies. Preoperative chemotherapy includes doxorubicin in addition to vincristine and dactinomycin unless anaplastic histology is present. In these cases, chemotherapy then includes treatment with regimen I (see Table 2). The chemotherapy generally makes tumor removal easier by decreasing the size and vascular supply of the tumor. Chemotherapy may also reduce the frequency of surgical complications.[173,178,238,243,252,253]
In a meta-analysis that investigated the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on thrombus viability for Wilms tumor where intravascular extension was defined as any Wilms tumor with extension beyond the renal vein. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was found to be effective in achieving thrombus nonviability in around 50% of patients with tumor extension into the inferior vena cava. No added benefit was identified from extended cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Most patients received chemotherapy consisting of dactinomycin and vincristine with or without doxorubicin.[254]
In North America, the use of preoperative chemotherapy in patients with evidence of a contained preoperative rupture has been suggested to avoid intraoperative spill, but this is controversial.[255,256] The preoperative diagnosis of a contained retroperitoneal rupture on CT is difficult, even for experienced pediatric radiologists.[162]
All infants younger than 12 months (including newborns) who will be treated with chemotherapy require a 50% reduction in chemotherapy dose compared with the dose given to older children.[257] Dosing for infants (younger than 12 months) is calculated per kilogram of weight, not body surface area. This reduction diminishes the toxic effects reported in children in this age group enrolled in NWTS studies while maintaining an excellent overall outcome.[258]
Liver function tests in children with Wilms tumor are monitored closely during the early course of therapy because severe hepatic toxic effects (including sinusoidal obstructive syndrome, which was previously called veno-occlusive disease) have been reported in these patients.[259,260] In a cohort of 8,862 children with renal tumors from the NWTS-3, -4, and -5 trials, the incidence of severe hepatopathy was low (0.8%). Careful reintroduction of chemotherapy appeared to be feasible for most patients who developed severe chemotherapy- and/or radiation therapy–induced liver toxicity.[261] Dactinomycin or doxorubicin should not be administered during radiation therapy.
Patients who develop renal failure while undergoing therapy can continue chemotherapy with vincristine, dactinomycin, and doxorubicin. Vincristine and doxorubicin can be given at full doses. However, dactinomycin is associated with severe neutropenia. Dose reductions for these agents may not be necessary, but accurate pharmacological and pharmacokinetic studies are needed while the patient is receiving therapy.[262,263]
Augmentation of therapy improves EFS for patients with FH Wilms tumor and loss of heterozygosity of 1p and 16q. In the AREN0532 (NCT00352534) and AREN0533 (NCT00379340) trials, patients with stage I and stage II FH Wilms tumor who were treated with the DD-4A regimen (dactinomycin, vincristine, and doxorubicin) demonstrated a 4-year EFS rate of 87.3%, compared with the 4-year EFS rate of 68.8% (P = .042) for stage I and stage II patients treated on the NWTS-5 trial. Patients with stage III and stage IV disease had a 4-year EFS rate of 90.2% when treated with regimen M (see Table 2), compared with a 61.3% 4-year EFS rate (P = .001) for stage III and stage IV patients treated on the NWTS-5 trial. Trends toward improved 4-year OS rates were seen in stage I and II patients and in stage III and IV patients.[264][Level of evidence C2]
Postoperative radiation therapy to the tumor bed is required when a biopsy is performed or in the setting of local tumor stage III. In a study of 1,488 patients with Wilms tumors who underwent surgery and radiation therapy, delay in starting radiation therapy after surgery of greater than 14 days was associated with an increased risk of mortality for patients with nonmetastatic Wilms tumor.[265][Level of evidence C1]
Table 2 describes the accepted chemotherapy regimens used to treat Wilms tumor.
Regimen Name | Regimen Description |
---|---|
Regimen EE-4A [110] | Vincristine, dactinomycin × 18 weeks postnephrectomy |
Regimen DD-4A [110] | Vincristine, dactinomycin, doxorubicin × 24 weeks; baseline nephrectomy or biopsy with subsequent nephrectomy |
Regimen I [183] | Vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, etoposide × 24 weeks postnephrectomy |
Regimen M [266] | Vincristine, dactinomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide with subsequent radiation therapy |
Regimen UH1 [267] | Vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, carboplatin, and etoposide × 30 weeks + radiation therapy |
Regimen UH2 [267] | Vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, carboplatin, etoposide, vincristine, and irinotecan × 36 weeks + radiation therapy |
Radiation therapy is used to improve local control and treat sites of metastatic disease. Radiation therapy has historically been dependent on stage and histology, but more recently is also guided by the tumor molecular signature.[185]
Up-front surgery provides histological confirmation and tumor extent, providing the rationale for adjuvant therapy, including radiation therapy. Besides histology, postoperative risk factors for worse local control include: (1) incomplete resection, (2) positive margins, and (3) nodal involvement. Radiation therapy is not used in patients with stage I or stage II FH Wilms tumor. For patients with FH stage III Wilms tumor, flank or abdominal radiation therapy is used for treatment. In cases of unfavorable histology (focal or diffuse anaplasia), flank or abdominal radiation therapy is indicated for all patients. For more information, see Table 3.
Results of NWTS (COG RTC) trials have shown the following:
Local/Locoregional Disease | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
XRT = radiation therapy. | ||||
aRequires whole-abdominal XRT in 1.5 Gy daily fractions. Patients with diffuse unresectable peritoneal implants receive 21 Gy. | ||||
bWhole-lung irradiation is given in 1.5 Gy daily fractions. | ||||
cNot all patients receive radiation therapy. | ||||
dA boost is given for macroscopic disease. | ||||
Stage I | Stage II | Stage III | Stage III (diffuse spill, peritoneal metastasis, preoperative rupture)a | |
Favorable histology | No XRT | No XRT | 10.8 Gy | 10.5 Gy |
Focal anaplasia | 10.8 Gy | 10.8 Gy | 10.8 Gy | 10.5 Gy |
Diffuse anaplasia | 10.8 Gy | 10.8 Gy | 19.8 Gy | 10.5 Gy + 9 Gy boost |
Metastatic Disease | ||||
Stage IV Lung | Stage IV Liver | Stage IV Brain | Stage IV Bone | |
Favorable histology | 10.5 Gy for age <12 monthsb,c; 12 Gy for age >12 monthsb,c | 19.8 Gy +/- 5.4 to 10.8 Gy boostd | 21.6 Gy + 10.8 Gy boost for age <16 years; 30.6 Gy for age >16 years | 25.2 Gy for age <16 years; 30.6 Gy for age >16 years |
Focal or diffuse anaplasia | 10.5 Gy for age <12 monthsb; 12 Gy for age >12 monthsb | 19.8 Gy +/- 5.4 to 10.8 Gy boostd | 21.6 Gy + 10.8 Gy boost for age <16 years; 30.6 Gy for age >16 years | 25.2 Gy for age <16 years; 30.6 Gy for age >16 years |
Based on the experience of previous SIOP trials, children who need radiation therapy undergo postoperative treatment to the flank and/or metastatic sites. The SIOP 1 to 9 trials demonstrated that preoperative radiation therapy or preoperative chemotherapy decreased the proportion of patients who developed tumor spillage, from more than 20% to 5%. The noninferiority of preoperative chemotherapy to preoperative radiation therapy in the SIOP 5 trial, and the concern over secondary malignancies with preoperative radiation therapy, led SIOP to recommend preoperative chemotherapy as the standard initial treatment.[222] Over time, the percentage of children who were treated with postoperative radiation therapy decreased, from more than 90% to 15% and 25% in SIOP trials 6 to 9, SIOP 93-01, and SIOP-2001, respectively.[220]
Abdominal radiation therapy has been omitted for patients with metastatic, local stage III Wilms tumor who had complete necrosis after 6 weeks of preoperative chemotherapy. It was also omitted in patients with stage III Wilms tumor who received 4 weeks of preoperative chemotherapy (n = 19) and had complete necrosis. The outcomes were excellent for both groups of patients with stage III Wilms tumor who had complete necrosis. The 5-year EFS and OS rates were 100% for patients with stage III disease and 95% for patients with metastatic local stage III disease.[272,273]
Table 4 provides an overview of the standard treatment options and survival data for patients with stage I Wilms tumor, based on published results.
Histology | 4-Year RFS or EFS | 4-Year OS | Treatmentb |
---|---|---|---|
DA = diffuse anaplastic; EFS = event-free survival; FA = focal anaplastic; FH = favorable histology; LOH = loss of heterozygosity; OS = overall survival; RFS = relapse-free survival; XRT = radiation therapy. | |||
aSource: Grundy et al.,[110] Shamberger et al.,[184] Fernandez et al.,[185] Dix et al.,[264] and Daw et al.[274] | |||
bFor chemotherapy regimen descriptions, see Table 2. | |||
cOne patient with a pulmonary relapse 4.12 years after diagnosis. | |||
FH <24 mo/tumor weight <550g | 90% | 100% | Surgery, including lymph node biopsy only |
FH >24 mo/tumor weight >550g | 94% RFS | 98% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by regimen EE-4A |
FH with LOH 1p/16q (n = 8) | 100% EFS | 100% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by regimen DD-4A |
FA | 100% | 100% (n = 8) | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by regimen DD-4A and XRT |
DA | 100%c | 100% (n = 10) | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by regimen DD-4A and XRT |
Evidence (surgery only for children younger than 2 years at diagnosis with stage I FH tumor that weighed <550 g):
In the AREN0532 (NCT00352534) trial, the COG validated the findings from the NWTS-5 trial that nephrectomy only is appropriate therapy for patients younger than 2 years at diagnosis with stage I FH Wilms tumor that weighed less than 550 g.
Evidence (treatment of stage I epithelial-predominant FH Wilms tumor):
Evidence (treatment of anaplastic stage I Wilms tumor):
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Table 5 provides an overview of the standard treatment options and survival data for patients with stage II Wilms tumor, based on published results.
Histology | 4-Year RFS or EFS | 4-Year OS | Treatmentb |
---|---|---|---|
DA = diffuse anaplastic; EFS = event-free survival; FA = focal anaplastic; FH = favorable histology; LOH = loss of heterozygosity; OS = overall survival; RFS = relapse-free survival; XRT = radiation therapy. | |||
aSource: Grundy et al.,[110] Dome et al.,[183] Dix et al.,[264] and Daw et al.[267] | |||
bFor chemotherapy regimen descriptions, see Table 2. | |||
FH | 86% RFS | 98% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by regimen EE-4A |
FH LOH 1p/16q (n = 24) | 83% EFS | 100% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by regimen DD-4A |
FA | 80% EFS | 80% (n = 5) | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen DD-4A |
DA | 84% EFS | 84% (n = 19) | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen UH1 |
In a review of 499 patients from the NWTS-4 trial with stage II FH Wilms tumor, 95 of the patients experienced tumor spill. The 8-year RFS and OS rates for patients who experienced intraoperative tumor spill and were treated with vincristine and dactinomycin without flank radiation therapy were lower (75.7% and 90.3%, respectively) than the rates for those who did not experience tumor spill (85% and 95.6%, respectively). None of these differences achieved statistical significance.[217]
On the NWTS-3, NWTS-4, and NWTS-5 trials, patients with intraoperative spill were divided into two groups: (1) those with diffuse spillage involving the whole abdominal cavity; and (2) those with local spillage confined to the flank. Patients with diffuse spillage were treated with radiation therapy to the entire abdomen and three-drug chemotherapy (vincristine, dactinomycin, and doxorubicin), whereas patients with local spillage were treated with vincristine and dactinomycin only. On the basis of an analysis of patients treated on NWTS-3 and NWTS-4 indicating that patients with stage II disease and local spillage had inferior OS compared with patients with stage II disease without local spillage, COG studies treat patients with local spillage with doxorubicin and flank radiation.[276] This approach is controversial and has not been tested; therefore, it should not be considered standard.
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Table 6 provides an overview of the standard treatment options and survival data for patients with stage III Wilms tumor, based on published results.
For information about patients classified as stage III purely on the basis of local spill, see the Treatment of stage II Wilms tumor section.
Histology | 4-Year RFS or EFS | 4-Year OS | Treatmentb |
---|---|---|---|
DA = diffuse anaplastic; EFS = event-free survival; FA = focal anaplastic; FH = favorable histology; LOH = loss of heterozygosity; OS = overall survival; RFS = relapse-free survival; XRT = radiation therapy. | |||
aSource: Grundy et al.,[110] Dome et al.,[183] Fernandez et al.,[242] Dix et al.,[264] and Daw et al.[267] | |||
bFor chemotherapy regimen descriptions, see Table 2. | |||
FH (all patients) | 88% EFS | 97% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen DD-4A |
FH (without LOH of 1p and/or 16q) and positive lymph nodes (n = 109) | 82% EFS | 97% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen DD-4A |
FH (without LOH of 1p and/or 16q) and negative lymph nodes (n = 169) | 97% EFS | 99% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen DD-4A |
FH (with LOH of 1p and 16q) (n = 31) | 87% EFS | 94% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen M |
FH (with LOH of 1p and 16q) and negative lymph nodes (n = 12) | 92% | 92% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen M |
FH (with LOH of 1p or 16q) and negative lymph nodes (n = 13) | 85% | 92% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen M |
FH (with LOH of 1p or 16q) and negative lymph nodes (n = 68) | 87% | 97% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen DD-4A |
FH (with LOH of 1p or 16q) and positive lymph nodes (n = 48) | 74% | 92% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen DD-4A |
FA | 88% RFS | 100% (n = 8) | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen DD-4A |
FA (preoperative treatment) | 71% RFS | 71% (n = 7) | Preoperative treatment with regimen DD-4A followed by nephrectomy + lymph node sampling and abdominal XRT |
DA | 46% EFS | 53% (n = 16) | Preoperative treatment with regimen I followed by nephrectomy + lymph node sampling and abdominal XRT |
DA | 82% EFS | 91% (n = 23) | Immediate nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT and regimen UH1 |
Early initiation of radiation therapy is a critical component of multimodal therapy for patients with nonmetastatic Wilms tumor. In a review of 1,488 patients with Wilms tumor who underwent surgery and radiation therapy, a surgery-to-radiation therapy interval of greater than 14 days was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR, 2.13; P = .013). This underscores the importance of initiating radiation therapy within 14 days of surgery, which is specified in Wilms tumor treatment protocols.[265][Level of evidence C1]
Loss of heterozygosity of 1p or 16q was shown to influence EFS but not OS in 635 patients with stage III FH Wilms tumor enrolled in the COG AREN0532 or AREN03B2 protocols. When combined, a negative lymph node status (related to histology) and a negative loss of heterozygosity status (related to the primary tumor) was a strong predictor of excellent EFS and OS.[277]
Lymph Node Status | LOH 1p or 16q | 4-Year EFS Ratea | HRb |
---|---|---|---|
- = negative; + = positive; EFS = event-free survival; HR = hazard ratio; LOH = loss of heterozygosity. | |||
aCompared with patients both negative for lymph node and singular LOH, a significant difference in EFS across the groups was observed (log-rank P < .0001). | |||
bOverall survival did not reach statistical significance between groups. | |||
- | - | 96.2% | - (n = 212) |
- | +1p or 16q | 89.5% | 3.04 (n = 72) |
+ | +1p | 73.9% | 6.33 (n = 37) |
+ | +16q | 79.3% | |
+ | - | 86.0% | 3.57 (n = 104) |
Therapy was augmented for patients with loss of heterozygosity of 1p and 16q who were enrolled in the AREN0533 (NCT00379340) trial. Patients with stage III and stage IV Wilms tumor with loss of heterozygosity were treated with regimen M. The 4-year EFS rate was 90.2%, and the OS rate was 96.1%, compared with a 4-year EFS rate of 61.3% (P = .001) and a 4-year OS rate of 86.0% (P = .087) for patients in the NWTS-5 trial. The study suggested an improvement in survival, but it was not powered to detect differences in survival.[264][Level of evidence C2]
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Table 8 provides an overview of the standard treatment options and survival data for patients with stage IV Wilms tumor, based on published results.
Histology | 4-Year RFS or EFS | 4-Year OS | Treatmentb |
---|---|---|---|
CR = complete response; DA = diffuse anaplasia; EFS = event-free survival; FA = focal anaplasia; FH = favorable histology; LOH = loss of heterozygosity; OS = overall survival; RFS = relapse-free survival; XRT = radiation therapy. | |||
aSource: Grundy et al.,[110] Dome et al.,[183] Dix et al.,[266] Dix et al.,[264] Daw et al.,[267] and Benedetti et al.[278] | |||
bFor chemotherapy regimen descriptions, see Table 2. | |||
cAbdominal XRT is planned according to local stage of renal tumor. | |||
dPulmonary XRT is reserved for patients with chest x-ray/chest computed tomography evidence of pulmonary metastases. | |||
eFor more information, see the AREN0533 (NCT00379340) study. | |||
FH (with isolated lung nodules) | 85% EFS | 96% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling, followed by abdominal XRT,c +/- bilateral pulmonary XRT,d and regimen DD-4A or regimen Me |
FH (no LOH of 1p and 16q) with isolated lung nodules with CR to DD-4A | 80% EFS | 96% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling, followed by abdominal XRTc and regimen DD-4A |
FH (no LOH of 1p and 16q) with isolated lung nodules with incomplete response to DD-4A | 99% EFS | 95% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling, followed by abdominal XRTc and bilateral pulmonary XRTd and regimen M |
FH (LOH of 1p and 16q) with isolated lung nodules (n = 18) | 100% | 100% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRTc and bilateral pulmonary XRTd and regimen M |
FH (with LOH of 1p and/or 16q) (n = 20) | 95% EFS | 100% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling, abdominal XRTc radiation to sites of metastases, and regimen M |
FH with extrapulmonary metastases, with or without lung metastases | 76% EFS | 89% | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRTc, regimen M, and local control of other metastatic sites; if lung metastases are present, bilateral pulmonary XRTd |
FA | 61% EFS | 72% (n = 11) | Nephrectomy + lymph node sampling, followed by abdominal XRT,c radiation to sites of metastases, bilateral pulmonary XRT,d and regimen DD-4A |
DA | 33% EFS | 33% (n = 10) | Immediate nephrectomy + lymph node sampling followed by abdominal XRT,c radiation to sites of metastases, whole-lung XRT,d and regimen I |
DA (preoperative treatment) | 60% EFS | 70% (n = 10) | Preoperative treatment with regimen UH2 followed by nephrectomy + lymph node sampling, followed by abdominal XRT,c radiation to sites of metastases, and whole-lung XRTd |
Stage IV disease is defined by the presence of hematogenous metastases to the lung, liver, bone, brain, or other sites, with the lung being the most common site. The presence of liver metastases at diagnosis is not an independent adverse prognostic factor in patients with stage IV Wilms tumor.[239]
In the AREN0533 (NCT00379340) trial, 30% of patients with stage IV pulmonary disease had 1q gain. These patients trended toward worse EFS, regardless of lung response and whether they received regimen DD-4A or M.[266] Patients in this trial with stage IV lung-only disease who had a rapid complete response to DD-4A and did not receive pulmonary radiation had a lower EFS compared with patients without 1q gain (4-year EFS rates, 57% vs. 86%; P = .0013). The 4-year OS rate, although not statistically significant, was better in patients without 1q gain compared with patients with 1q gain and pulmonary disease (97% vs. 89%; P = .16).[266] Patients who were slow incomplete responders with pulmonary-only disease and 1q gain (treated with DD-4A followed by pulmonary radiation therapy and regimen M) had 4-year EFS and OS rates of 86% and 93%, respectively. In comparison, patients with slow incomplete response without 1q gain had 4-year EFS and OS rates of 92% and 96%, respectively.[266]
Historically, chest x-rays were used to detect pulmonary metastases. The introduction of CT created controversy because many patients had lung nodules detected by chest CT scans that were not seen on chest x-rays. Management of newly diagnosed patients with FH Wilms tumor who have lung nodules detected only by CT scans (with negative chest x-ray) has elicited controversy as to whether they need to be treated with additional intensive treatment that is accompanied by acute and late toxicities.
Evidence (treatment of pulmonary nodules detected by chest CT scan only):
Retrospective studies from Europe have examined the impact of omitting pulmonary radiation in patients with pulmonary metastases diagnosed by chest x-ray. European investigators omitted radiation from the treatment of most patients with Wilms tumor and pulmonary metastases as identified on chest x-ray who were treated on the SIOP-93-01 (NCT00003804) trial. The European approach to renal tumors differs from the approach used in North America. All patients who were shown to have a renal tumor by imaging underwent 9 weeks of prenephrectomy chemotherapy consisting of vincristine, dactinomycin, and doxorubicin.
Evidence (omission of pulmonary irradiation):
Although fewer patients were spared pulmonary radiation when treated in the COG trial than in the European trials, it is important to note several differences between the studies and why the studies cannot be directly compared.[266,280] Patients in Europe receive a more dose-dense regimen of dactinomycin and doxorubicin before their pulmonary metastases are reevaluated than do patients in North America (135 ug/kg dactinomycin and 100 mg/m2 doxorubicin in Europe, compared with 45 ug/kg dactinomycin and 45 mg/m2 of doxorubicin in North America). European studies allow lung radiation therapy to be omitted for patients with a complete remission achieved by chemotherapy or pulmonary metastasectomy, whereas radiation therapy was only omitted in the United States for patients with a complete remission using chemotherapy alone. Imaging studies were not centrally reviewed in the European studies, whereas they were in the United States, and the definition of complete remission may have been more stringent in the AREN0533 (NCT00379340) trial.
The liver is an infrequent site of metastases at diagnosis for patients with stage IV FH Wilms tumor, but it is the most common site after the lung. In 634 patients with stage IV FH Wilms tumor from the NWTS-4 and -5 studies, 96 (15%) presented with liver involvement.[239] In the AREN0533 study of 47 patients (14%) with FH Wilms tumor who presented with extrapulmonary metastases, there were 37 patients with isolated liver metastases and 10 patients with liver metastases in combination with other metastatic sites. Thirty-eight patients presented with lung and extrapulmonary sites. All patients were treated with regimen M and abdominal radiation therapy depending on local tumor stage. The 4-year EFS rate was 76%, and the OS rate was 89%. Only 2 patients had a resection of the liver metastases (both of whom also received liver radiation therapy). Of the patients who received liver radiation therapy (27 of 39), none relapsed in the liver.[278]
The impact of liver metastases at diagnosis on patient care management has not been studied in a prospective manner. Most reported experiences come from single institutions and/or retrospective studies that do not include more modern surgical approaches or contemporary risk stratification parameters. In aggregate, there are not sufficient data to support liver metastases as an unfavorable site for metastatic disease, although there were some early SIOP studies that conflicted with this finding.[239,281-285]
A retrospective analysis of 742 patients with stage IV Wilms tumor who were treated on the NWTS-4 and -5 trials examined the outcomes of patients with and without lung metastases alone. The study also investigated survival outcomes for these patients according to whether they underwent a resection of their hepatic tumors.[239]
The SIOP/Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Hämatologie und Onkologie (GPOH) group has recommended a more aggressive surgical approach. This recommendation was based on the reported outcomes of 29 patients treated on the SIOP93-01/GPOH and SIOP2001/GPOH trials that enrolled 1,365 patients between 1994 and 2004. Two of the patients had diffuse anaplasia.[282]
The French cohort enrolled on the SIOP2001 trial included 131 patients with stage IV FH Wilms tumor. Of these patients, 18 (14%) had liver metastases at diagnosis, including 4 (3%) with isolated liver metastases.[285]
In the AREN0321 (NCT00335556) study, the combination of vincristine and irinotecan (VI) was tested in an up-front window for patients with diffuse anaplastic Wilms tumor and measurable disease.[267][Level of evidence C2]
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, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted:
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Currently, there is not a standard approach for the treatment of stage V Wilms tumor (bilateral Wilms tumor at diagnosis) and those predisposed to developing bilateral Wilms tumor. However, for the first time, a prospective study of the treatment of patients with bilateral Wilms tumor has been completed and provides guidance for the approach.[176]
Management of a child with bilateral Wilms tumor is very challenging. The goals of therapy are to eradicate all tumor and to preserve as much normal renal tissue as possible, with the hope of decreasing the risk of chronic renal failure among these children.[287]
Historically, based on the NWTS-4 and NWTS-5 trials and trials performed in Europe, patients with bilateral Wilms tumor have had a lower EFS and OS than have patients with localized Wilms tumor. The NWTS-4 study reported that the 8-year EFS rate for patients with bilateral FH Wilms tumor was 74%, and the OS rate was 89%; for patients with anaplastic histology, the EFS rate was 40%, and the OS rate was 45%.[204] The NWTS-5 study reported that the 4-year EFS rate for all bilateral Wilms tumor patients was 56%, and the OS rate was 81%; the 4-year EFS rates for patients with FH (65%), focal anaplastic histology (76%), and diffuse anaplastic histology (25%) were also reported.[110,183] Similar outcomes for patients with bilateral Wilms tumor have been reported in Europe.[203,288] In a single-institution experience in the Netherlands (N = 41), there was significant morbidity in terms of renal failure (32%) and secondary tumors (20%).[288] The incidence of end-stage renal failure in the Dutch study may be a reflection of a longer follow-up period.
Treatment options for stage V (bilateral) Wilms tumor include the following:
For patients with bilateral Wilms tumor, the goal of therapy is to preserve as much renal tissue as possible without compromising overall outcome. This approach is used to avoid the late effect of end-stage renal disease, which can be caused by underlying germline genetic aberrations and treatment-related loss of functional renal tissue. End-stage renal disease occurs more frequently in patients with bilateral Wilms tumor (12% nonsyndromic) than in patients with unilateral Wilms tumor (<1%). Functional renal outcome is considerably better after bilateral nephron-sparing surgery than after other types of surgery.[176]
Traditionally, patients have undergone bilateral renal biopsies, with staging of each kidney followed by preoperative chemotherapy. In the first prospective multi-institutional treatment trial (COG AREN0534 [NCT00945009]), pretreatment biopsies were not required if results of imaging tests were consistent with Wilms tumor.[176] This approach was taken because the bilateral occurrence of non-Wilms renal tumors is very low. Also, core-needle and wedge biopsies are not highly successful in identifying anaplasia in Wilms tumor.[174] In the setting of an unusual clinical situation, such as age older than 10 years or atypical imaging features, when a diagnosis other than Wilms should be considered, a tissue diagnosis is obtained.[176]
For patients who are treated with preoperative chemotherapy, the tumor pathology needs to be evaluated after 4 to 8 weeks. For patients not treated in a clinical trial, the ideal time to perform a biopsy or resection is unknown because minimal shrinkage may reflect chemotherapy-induced differentiation or anaplastic histology. A planned attempt at resection or biopsy of apparently unresectable tumor is undertaken no later than 12 weeks from diagnosis. Continuing therapy without evaluating tumor pathology in a patient with bilateral Wilms tumor may miss anaplastic histology or chemotherapy-induced differentiation (including rhabdomyomatous differentiation) and thus increase toxicity for the patient without providing additional benefit for tumor control. Anaplastic histology occurs in 10% of patients with bilateral Wilms tumor, and these tumors respond poorly to chemotherapy.[204]
Once the diagnosis is confirmed, a complete resection is performed. Histological confirmation of the diagnosis is not straightforward. In a series of 27 patients from the NWTS-4 study, discordant pathology (unilateral anaplastic tumor) was seen in 20 cases (74%), which highlights the need to obtain tissue from both kidneys. Seven children who were later diagnosed with diffuse anaplastic tumors had core biopsies performed to establish the diagnosis; however, anaplasia was not found. Anaplasia was identified in only three of the nine patients when an open-wedge biopsy was performed and in seven of nine patients who had a partial or complete nephrectomy.[204]
The decision to administer chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy after biopsy or a second-look operation is dependent on the tumor's response to initial therapy. More aggressive therapy is required for patients with inadequate response to initial therapy observed at the second procedure or in the setting of anaplasia.[216,289,290]
End-stage renal disease is the most clinically significant morbidity in patients with bilateral Wilms tumor and can be caused by underlying germline genetic aberrations, as well as treatment-related loss of functional renal tissue. Long-term monitoring of renal function is required after treatment for bilateral disease.
Evidence (preoperative chemotherapy and resection for bilateral Wilms tumor):
For information about recurrent disease, see the Treatment and outcomes of recurrent Wilms tumor section.
On the basis of an identified subpopulation of patients with Wilms tumor who are at risk for metachronous disease, coupled with an increased risk of end-stage renal disease, the COG conducted the largest prospective study (AREN0534 [NCT00945009]) of these patients. The goal of this study was to preserve renal tissue while maintaining excellent overall outcomes.[4,92]
Patients were identified by the treating institution as having a predisposition syndrome. Induction chemotherapy was determined by the presence of localized or metastatic disease found on imaging (and histology if a biopsy had been performed) at the time of diagnosis. Surgery, including renal-sparing surgery, was based on the radiographic response at 6 or 12 weeks, and additional chemotherapy was determined by histology. Patients with favorable histology and stage III or IV disease or any patient with anaplasia received radiation therapy.[147][Level of evidence C1]
The comprehensive International WAGR Syndrome Association survey was used to analyze tumor characteristics, treatment, congenital risk factors, and kidney function in children with WAGR syndrome and Wilms tumors. Of 145 children with WAGR syndrome, 64 developed Wilms tumors (44%).[18]
Renal transplant for children with stage V Wilms tumor is usually delayed until 1 to 2 years have passed without evidence of malignancy because most relapses occur within 2 years of diagnosis.[296] Similarly, renal transplant for children with Denys-Drash syndrome and Wilms tumor, all of whom require bilateral nephrectomy, is generally delayed 1 to 2 years after completion of initial treatment.[296]
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, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Patients with recurrent Wilms tumor should consider enrolling in available phase I and phase II clinical trials. Other treatment options for recurrent Wilms tumor are discussed below.
Palliative care remains a central focus of management regardless of whether disease-directed therapy is pursued at the time of progression. This ensures that quality of life is maximized while attempting to reduce symptoms and stress related to the terminal illness.
Approximately 15% of patients with FH Wilms tumor and 50% of patients with anaplastic histology Wilms tumor experience recurrence.[180] The most common site of relapse is lung, followed by abdomen/flank and liver. Recurrence in the brain (0.5%) or bone is rare in children with Wilms tumor.[297,298] Historically, the salvage rate for patients with recurrent FH Wilms tumor was 25% to 40%. As a result of modern treatment combinations, the outcome after recurrence has improved to up to 60%.[299,300]
About 95% of first Wilms tumor recurrences occur within 2 years of initial diagnosis. Relapse more than 5 years after diagnosis is considered a late recurrence and is rare. In the largest retrospective study of more than 1,300 children enrolled in various Wilms tumor trials, the median time to late recurrence after first recurrence was 13 years (range, 5–17 years).[301,302]
A number of potential prognostic features influencing postrecurrence outcomes have been analyzed, but it is difficult to determine whether these factors are independent of each other. Also, the following prognostic factors appear to be changing as therapy for primary and recurrent Wilms tumor evolves:
The NWTS-5 trial showed that time to recurrence and site of recurrence are no longer prognostically significant.[299,304] However, in a SIOP study, patients who experienced a pulmonary relapse within 12 months of diagnosis had a poorer prognosis (5-year OS rate, 47%) than did patients who experienced a pulmonary relapse 12 months or more after diagnosis (5-year OS rate, 75%).[305]
On the basis of these results, the following three risk categories have been identified:
In children who had small stage I Wilms tumor and were treated with surgery alone, the EFS rate was 84%. All but one child who relapsed was salvaged with treatment tailored to the site of recurrence.[184,304]
Successful retreatment can be accomplished for Wilms tumor patients whose initial therapy consisted of immediate nephrectomy followed by chemotherapy with vincristine and dactinomycin and who relapse.
Treatment options for standard-risk relapsed Wilms tumor include the following:
Evidence (surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy):
Treatment options for high-risk and very high-risk relapsed Wilms tumor include the following:
Evidence (chemotherapy, surgery, and/or radiation therapy):
Patients with stage II, stage III, and stage IV anaplastic tumors at diagnosis have a very poor prognosis upon recurrence.[183] The combination of ifosfamide, etoposide, and carboplatin demonstrated activity in this group of patients, but significant hematologic toxic effects have been observed.[307]
High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous HSCT has been used for recurrent high-risk patients.[308,309]; [310,311][Level of evidence C1]
Evidence (HSCT):
No randomized trials comparing chemotherapy and transplant have been reported, and case series suffer from selection bias.
Patients in whom such salvage attempts fail should be offered treatment on available phase I or phase II clinical trials.
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, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted:
For patients who have completed therapy for Wilms tumor and exhibit features consistent with genetic predisposition, such as bilateral Wilms tumor, screening involves renal ultrasonography examination every 3 months for metachronous tumors during the risk period for that particular syndrome (5 years for WT1-related syndromes; 8 years for Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome).
Children treated for Wilms tumor are at increased risk of developing the following:
Late renal effects in patients with Wilms and underlying genetic abnormalities include the following:
For a full discussion of the late effects of cancer treatment in children and adolescents, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.
Malignant epithelial tumors arising in the kidneys of children account for more than 5% of new pediatric renal tumors; therefore, they are more common than clear cell sarcoma of the kidney or rhabdoid tumors of the kidney. The annual incidence rate is approximately 4 cases per 1 million children, compared with an incidence of Wilms tumor of the kidney that is at least 29-fold higher.[1]
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the most common primary malignancy of the kidney in adults, is rare in children younger than 15 years. In the older age group of adolescents (aged 15–19 years), approximately two-thirds of renal malignancies are RCC.[2] In one study, children and adolescents with RCC (n = 515) presented with more advanced disease than those aged 21 to 30 years.[1]
Conditions associated with RCC include the following:
Testing for the VHL gene is available.[4] Annual screening with abdominal ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended, beginning at age 8 to 11 years. Annual screening is used to detect clear cell renal carcinoma in these individuals when the lesions are smaller than 3 cm, and thus, renal-sparing surgery can be performed.[5]
For more information, see Von Hippel-Lindau Disease.
SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD are Krebs cycle enzyme genes that have been associated with the development of familial RCC occurring with pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Germline variants in a subunit of the gene have been reported in individuals with renal cancer and no history of pheochromocytoma.[9,10]
Indications for germline genetic testing of children and adolescents with RCC to check for a related syndrome are described in Table 9. For more information, see Genetics of Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Indication for Testing | Tumor Histology | Gene Test | Related Syndrome |
---|---|---|---|
RCC = renal cell carcinoma; VHL = von Hippel-Lindau. | |||
aAdapted from Linehan et al.[31] | |||
Multifocal RCC or VHL lesions | Clear cell | VHL gene | VHL syndrome |
Family history of clear cell RCC or multifocal RCC with absent VHL variant | Clear cell | Chromosome 3 gene translocations | Hereditary non-VHL clear cell RCC syndrome |
Multifocal papillary RCC or family history of papillary RCC | Papillary | MET gene | Hereditary papillary RCC syndrome |
Multifocal RCC or cutaneous fibrofolliculoma or pulmonary cysts or spontaneous pneumothorax | Chromophobe or oncocytic or clear cell | Germline sequence BHD gene | Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome |
Personal or family history of early-onset uterine leiomyomata or cutaneous leiomyomata | Type 2 papillary or collecting duct carcinoma | FH gene | Hereditary leiomyomata/RCC syndrome |
Multifocal RCC or early-onset RCC or presence of paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma or family history of paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma | Clear cell or chromophobe | SDHB gene, SDHC gene, SDHD gene | Hereditary paraganglioma/pheochromocytoma syndrome |
Translocation-positive carcinomas of the kidney are recognized as a distinct form of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and may be the most common form of RCC in children, accounting for 40% to 50% of pediatric RCC.[32]; [33][Level of evidence C1] In a Children's Oncology Group (COG) prospective clinical trial of 120 childhood and adolescent patients with RCC, nearly one-half of patients had translocation-positive RCC.[34,35] These carcinomas are characterized by translocations involving the TFE3 gene located on Xp11.2. The TFE3 gene may partner with one of the following genes:
In a single-institution investigation, molecular data from 22 patients with translocation-positive RCCs were pooled with previously published data. Investigators found that certain copy-number variations were associated with disease aggressiveness in patients with translocation-positive RCCs. Tumors bearing 9p loss, 17q gain, or a genetically high burden of copy-number variations were associated with poor survival in these patients. Three pediatric patients who had an indolent disease course were included in the study and were found to have lower copy-number burdens, which supports the less-aggressive disease course in these patients, as compared with adult patients.[37][Level of evidence C1]
Another less-common translocation subtype, t(6;11)(p21;q12), involving a TFEB gene fusion, induces overexpression of TFEB. The translocations involving TFE3 and TFEB induce overexpression of these proteins, which can be identified by immunohistochemistry.[38]
Previous exposure to chemotherapy is the only known risk factor for the development of Xp11 translocation RCCs. In one study, the postchemotherapy interval ranged from 4 to 13 years. All reported patients received either a DNA topoisomerase II inhibitor or an alkylating agent.[39,40]
Controversy exists as to the biological behavior of translocation RCC in children and young adults. Whereas some series have suggested a good prognosis when translocation-positive RCC is treated with surgery alone despite presenting at a more advanced stage (III/IV), a meta-analysis reported that these patients have poorer outcomes.[41-43] The outcomes for these patients are being studied in the ongoing COG AREN03B2 (NCT00898365) biology and classification study. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–targeted therapies and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors seem to be active in Xp11 translocation metastatic RCC.[44] Recurrences have been reported 20 to 30 years after initial resection of the translocation-associated RCC.[27]
Diagnosis of Xp11 translocation RCC needs to be confirmed by a molecular genetic approach, rather than using TFE3 immunohistochemistry alone, because reported cases have lacked the translocation.
There is a rare subset of RCC cases that is positive for TFE3 and lack a TFE3 translocation, showing an ALK translocation instead. This subset of cases represents a newly recognized subgroup within RCC that is estimated to involve 15% to 20% of unclassified pediatric RCC. In the eight reported cases in children aged 6 to 16 years, the following was observed:[45-48]
Pediatric RCC differs histologically from the adult counterpart. Although the two main morphological subgroups of papillary and clear cell can be identified, about 25% of RCCs show heterogeneous features that do not fit into either of these categories.[3] Childhood RCCs are more frequently of the papillary subtype (20%–50% of pediatric RCCs) and can sometimes occur in the setting of Wilms tumor, metanephric adenoma, and metanephric adenofibroma.[49]
RCC in children and young adults has a different genetic and morphological spectrum than that seen in older adults.[3,40,49,50]
Prognostic factors for RCC include the following:
The primary prognostic factor for RCC is stage of disease. In 304 children and adolescents with RCC identified in the National Cancer Database, the median age was 13 years; 39% of patients presented with localized stage I disease, 16% with stage II disease, 33% with stage III disease, and 12% with stage IV disease. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 100% for patients with stage I and stage II disease, 71% for stage III disease, and 8% for stage IV disease.[51] Age and sex had no significant impact on survival. Survival was negatively impacted by increasing tumor size (P < .001), positive nodal status (P = .001), and higher pathological stage (P < .001).[51] The data attained in this article from the National Cancer Database are limited, as some patient details are not available and follow-up is incomplete. Tumor size of 4 cm or smaller may or may not impact survival and local lymph node involvement may not be as significant in children.
An important difference between the outcomes in children and adults with RCC is the prognostic significance of local lymph node involvement. Adults presenting with RCC and involved lymph nodes have a 5-year OS rate of approximately 20%, but the literature suggests that 72% of children with RCC and local lymph node involvement at diagnosis (without distant metastases) survive their disease.[32]
In a COG prospective clinical trial of 40 patients with small (7 cm) primary tumors whose lymph nodes were adequately sampled, 19 had positive nodes.[34] Outcome results of this trial are pending.
RCC may present with the following:
For more information about the clinical features and diagnostic evaluation of childhood kidney tumors, see the sections on Clinical Features of Wilms Tumor and Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor. For more information about the staging evaluation, see the Stage Information for Renal Cell Cancer section in Renal Cell Cancer Treatment.
Survival of patients with RCC is affected by stage of disease at presentation and the completeness of resection at radical nephrectomy. In a COG prospective clinical trial of patients with newly diagnosed RCC, 68 patients (aged <30 years) were enrolled over a 6-year period. Complete surgical resection was attempted in all patients, regardless of the stage of their disease. Eight patients who had an incomplete surgical resection received chemotherapy. The 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was 80.2%, and the 4-year OS rate was 84.8%. For the 16 patients with N1M0 disease who underwent complete resection and no adjuvant therapy, the 4-year EFS and OS rates were 87.5% and 87.1%, respectively.[53][Level of evidence C1]
Standard treatment options for RCC include the following:
The primary treatment for RCC includes total surgical removal of the kidney and associated lymph nodes.[34]
Pediatric patients with translocation-positive RCC often have a better outcome than adult patients, which is generally attributed to a smaller percentage of distant metastasis in pediatric patients.[41] In younger patients, the disease is often managed with surgery alone. Of three pediatric patients (aged 3–12 years) in one study, two had previously received chemotherapy to treat retinoblastoma and neuroblastoma. All three patients underwent surgery only and remained disease free. These patients had a lower copy-number burden than the adults in the series.[37][Level of evidence C1]
Renal-sparing surgery may be considered for carefully selected patients with low-volume localized disease. In two small series, patients who had partial nephrectomies seemed to have outcomes equivalent to those who had radical nephrectomies.[34]
As with adult RCC, there is no standard treatment for unresectable metastatic disease in children. The response to radiation therapy is poor, and chemotherapy is not effective. Immunotherapy with agents such as interferon-alpha and interleukin-2 may have some effect on cancer control.[54,55] Spontaneous regression of pulmonary metastasis rarely occurs with resection of the primary tumor.
Several targeted therapies (e.g., sorafenib, sunitinib, bevacizumab, temsirolimus, pazopanib, axitinib, and everolimus) have been approved for use in adults with RCC. However, these agents have not been tested in pediatric patients with RCC. Case reports of pediatric and adolescent patients with TFE3 translocation–positive RCC suggest responsiveness to multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors.[35,56,57]; [58][Level of evidence C1] Disease regression and improvement in symptoms have been reported with the use of cabozantinib in pediatric patients with translocation-positive RCC expressing MET.[59] Any RCC that is positive for TFE3 and lacks a translocation should be tested for ALK expression and translocation. Recognition of this subtype may lead to consideration of ALK inhibitor therapy.[45]
For more information about the use of targeted therapies, see Renal Cell Cancer Treatment.
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, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Rhabdoid tumors are extremely aggressive malignancies that generally occur in infants and young children. The most common locations are the kidney (termed malignant rhabdoid tumors) and the central nervous system (CNS) (atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor), although rhabdoid tumors can also arise in most soft tissue sites. Relapses occur early (median time from diagnosis, 8 months).[1,2] For information about the treatment of CNS disease, see Childhood Central Nervous System Atypical Teratoid/Rhabdoid Tumor Treatment.
A distinct clinical presentation that suggests a diagnosis of rhabdoid tumor of the kidney includes the following:[3]
For more information about the clinical features and diagnostic evaluation of childhood kidney tumors, see the sections on Clinical Features of Wilms Tumor and Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor.
Approximately two-thirds of patients will present with advanced-stage disease. Bilateral cases have been reported.[1] Rhabdoid tumors of the kidney tend to metastasize to the lungs and the brain. As many as 10% to 15% of patients with rhabdoid tumors of the kidney also have CNS lesions.[4] The staging system used for rhabdoid tumor of the kidney is the same system used for Wilms tumor. For more information, see the Stage Information for Wilms Tumor section.
Histologically, the most distinctive features of rhabdoid tumors of the kidney are rather large cells with large vesicular nuclei, a prominent single nucleolus, and in some cells, the presence of globular eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusions.
Independent of their anatomical locations, rhabdoid tumors have a common genetic abnormality—loss of function of the SMARCB1 gene located at chromosome 22q11.2 (>95% of tumors).[5] The following text refers to rhabdoid tumors without regard to their primary site. SMARCB1 encodes a component of the SWItch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable (SWI/SNF) chromatin remodeling complex that has an important role in controlling gene transcription.[6,7] Loss of function occurs by deletions that lead to loss of part or all of the SMARCB1 gene and by variants that are commonly frameshift or nonsense variants that lead to premature truncation of the SMARCB1 protein.[5,7] A common pathway for achieving complete loss of SMARCB1 function is the combination of a SMARCB1 variant or partial/complete gene deletion for one SMARCB1 allele in conjunction with uniparental disomy for the chromosomal region containing SMARCB1 with loss of part or all of the parental chromosome that has a wild-type SMARCB1 allele.[8] A small percentage of rhabdoid tumors are caused by alterations in SMARCA4, which is the primary ATPase in the SWI/SNF complex.[9,10] Exome sequencing of 35 cases of rhabdoid tumor identified a very low variant rate, with no genes having recurring variants other than SMARCB1, which appeared to contribute to tumorigenesis.[11]
Germline variants of SMARCB1 have been documented in patients with one or more primary tumors of the brain and/or kidney, consistent with a genetic predisposition to the development of rhabdoid tumors.[12,13] Approximately one-third of patients with rhabdoid tumors have germline SMARCB1 alterations.[7,14] In most cases, the variants are de novo and not inherited. The median age at diagnosis of children with rhabdoid tumors and a germline variant or deletion is younger (6 months) than that of children with apparently sporadic disease (18 months).[15] Early-onset, multifocal disease and familial cases with the presence of SMARCB1 strongly support the possibility of rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome, type 1.
In a study of 100 patients with rhabdoid tumors of the brain, kidney, or soft tissues, 35 were found to have a germline SMARCB1 abnormality. These abnormalities included single nucleotide and frameshift variants, intragenic deletions and duplications, and larger deletions. Nine cases demonstrated parent-to-child transmission of an altered copy of SMARCB1. In eight of the nine cases, one or more family members were also diagnosed with rhabdoid tumor or schwannoma. Two of the eight families presented with multiple affected children, consistent with gonadal mosaicism.[7] It appears that patients with germline variants may have the worst prognosis.[16,17]
Rarely, extracranial rhabdoid tumors can harbor the alternative inactivation of SMARCA4 instead of SMARCB1.[9,10,18] In a series of 12 patients diagnosed with extracranial rhabdoid tumors with SMARCA4 inactivation, 4 cases occurred in the kidney.[19] All four cases had germline alteration of SMARCA4. The cases of SMARCA4 inactivation were comparable to the extracranial rhabdoid tumors with SMARCB1 inactivation on a clinical, pathological, and genomic level. Using DNA methylation and transcriptomics-based tumor classification, the extracranial rhabdoid tumors with SMARCA4 inactivation display molecular features intermediate between small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type (driven by SMARCA4 alterations), and extracranial rhabdoid tumors with SMARCB1 inactivations. Extracranial rhabdoid tumors with SMARCA4 inactivation display concomitant lack of SMARCA4 (BRG1) and SMARCA2 (BRM) expression at the protein level, similar to what is seen in small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type. These results help to expand the similarities and differences between these three tumor types within the rhabdoid tumor spectrum.[19]
Germline analysis should be considered for individuals of all ages with rhabdoid tumors. Genetic counseling is also part of the treatment plan, given the low-but-actual risk of familial recurrence. In cases of variants, parental screening should be considered, although such screening carries a low probability of positivity. Prenatal diagnosis can be performed in situations in which a specific SMARCB1 variant or deletion has been documented in the family.[7]
To date, there is little evidence regarding the effectiveness of surveillance for patients with rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome type 1 (RTPS1) caused by loss-of-function germline SMARCB1 variants. However, because of the aggressive nature of the tumors with significant lethality and young age of onset in SMARCB1 carriers with truncating variants, consensus recommendations have been developed. These recommendations were developed by a group of pediatric cancer genetic experts (including oncologists, radiologists, and geneticists). They have not been formally studied to confirm the benefit of monitoring patients with germline SMARCB1 variants. Given the potential survival benefit of surgically resectable disease, it is postulated that early detection might improve overall survival (OS).[20-22]
Surveillance for patients with germline SMARCB1 variants includes the following:
For more information about SMARCB1 and RTPS1, see Rhabdoid Tumor Predisposition Syndrome Type 1.
Patients with rhabdoid tumors of the kidney have a poor prognosis. In a review of 142 patients from the National Wilms Tumor Studies (NWTS) (NWTS-1, NWTS-2, NWTS-3, NWTS-4, and NWTS-5 [COG-Q9401/NCT00002611]), age and stage were identified as important prognostic factors:[4]
One study that used the National Cancer Database identified 202 patients (aged younger than 18 years) with non-CNS malignant rhabdoid tumors.[23][Level of evidence C1]
Because of the relative rarity of this tumor, all patients with rhabdoid tumor of the kidney should consider entering into a clinical trial. Treatment planning by a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists (pediatric surgeon or pediatric urologist, pediatric radiation oncologist, and pediatric oncologist) with experience treating renal tumors is required to determine and implement optimal treatment.
There are no standard treatment options for rhabdoid tumor of the kidney.[24]
The following results have been observed in studies of rhabdoid tumor of the kidney:
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, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted:
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Clear cell sarcoma of the kidney is an uncommon renal tumor that comprises approximately 5% of all primary renal malignancies in children, accounts for approximately 20 new cases per year in the United States, and is observed most often before age 3 years.[1]
Clear cell sarcoma of the kidney is not a Wilms tumor variant, but it is an important primary renal tumor associated with a higher rate of relapse and death than is favorable histology (FH) Wilms tumor.[1] The classic pattern of clear cell sarcoma of the kidney is defined by nests or cords of cells separated by regularly spaced fibrovascular septa. In addition to pulmonary metastases, clear cell sarcoma also spreads to bone, brain, and soft tissue.[1] For more information about the clinical features and diagnostic evaluation of childhood kidney tumors, see the sections on Clinical Features of Wilms Tumor and Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor.
Younger age and stage IV disease have been identified as adverse prognostic factors for event-free survival (EFS).[2]
Historically, relapses have occurred up to 14 years after the completion of chemotherapy. However, with current therapy, relapses after 3 years are uncommon.[3] The brain is a frequent site of recurrent disease, suggesting that it is a sanctuary site for cells that are protected from the intensive chemotherapy that patients receive.[2-5] An awareness of the clinical signs of recurrent disease in the brain is important during regular follow-up. There are no standard recommendations for the frequency of brain imaging during follow-up.
Clear cell sarcoma of the kidney is rare in adults but has been reported. In a series of 17 patients, the median age was 25 years (range, 19–62 years). The ratio of male to female patients was 13:4. The pathological diagnosis can be achieved with microscopy and immunohistochemistry panels that include BCOR. The primary treatment for adult patients is nephrectomy and regional lymphadenectomy, although chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy may be helpful in preventing local recurrence and distant metastases.[6]; [7][Level of evidence C3]
The molecular background of clear cell sarcoma of the kidney is poorly understood because of its rarity and lack of experimental models. However, several molecular features of clear cell sarcoma of the kidney have been described, including the following:
Because of the relative rarity of this tumor, all patients with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney should consider entering into a clinical trial. Treatment planning by a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists (pediatric surgeon or pediatric urologist, pediatric radiation oncologist, and pediatric oncologist) with experience treating renal tumors is required to determine and implement optimal treatment.
The approach for treating clear cell sarcoma of the kidney is different from the approach for treating Wilms tumor because the overall survival (OS) of children with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney remains lower than that for patients with FH Wilms tumor. All patients, except those who have lymph nodes sampled and are stage I, undergo postoperative radiation therapy to the tumor bed and receive doxorubicin as part of their chemotherapy regimen.
The standard treatment option for stage I (must have lymph nodes sampled) clear cell sarcoma of the kidney is the following:
The standard treatment option for stages II through IV clear cell sarcoma of the kidney is the following:
Evidence (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy):
Patients with most forms of recurrent childhood cancer should consider enrolling in available phase I and phase II clinical trials. Other treatment options for clear cell sarcoma of the kidney are discussed below.
Palliative care remains a central focus of management regardless of whether disease-directed therapy is pursued at the time of progression. This ensures that quality of life is maximized while attempting to reduce symptoms and stress related to the terminal illness.
Clear cell sarcoma of the kidney has been characterized by late relapses. However, in trials after 1992, most relapses occurred within 3 years, and the most common sites of recurrence were the brain and the lungs.[3,5,16] In a series of 37 patients with clear cell sarcoma of the kidney who relapsed, the 5-year EFS rate after relapse was 18%, and the OS rate after relapse was 26%.[5]
The optimal treatment of relapsed clear cell sarcoma of the kidney has not been established. Treatment of patients with recurrent clear cell sarcoma of the kidney depends on initial therapy and site of recurrence.
Treatment options for recurrent clear cell sarcoma of the kidney include the following:
Cyclophosphamide and carboplatin should be considered if not used initially. Patients with recurrent clear cell sarcoma of the kidney, in some cases involving the brain, have responded to treatment with ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE), coupled with local control consisting of surgical resection, radiation therapy, or both.[5]; [4][Level of evidence B4]
The use of high-dose chemotherapy followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is undefined in patients with recurrent clear cell sarcoma of the kidney. A total of 24 patients with relapsed clear cell sarcoma of the kidney received high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous HSCT. Of those patients, 12 (50%) were alive without disease after a median of 52 months. Patients who had already achieved a second complete remission were more likely to receive high-dose chemotherapy.[4,5,19]
Information about NCI-supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Mesoblastic nephroma comprises about 5% of childhood kidney tumors, and more than 90% of cases appear within the first year of life. More than 15% of the cases are detected prenatally.[1] It is the most common kidney tumor found in infants younger than 6 months, with a median age at diagnosis of 1 to 2 months.[2] Twice as many males as females are diagnosed. The diagnosis should be questioned when applied to individuals older than 2 years.[1]
When patients are diagnosed in the first 7 months of life, the 5-year event-free survival rate is 94%, and the overall survival (OS) rate is 96%.[3] In a report from the United Kingdom of 50 children with mesoblastic nephroma studied on clinical trials and 80 cases from the national registry in the same time period, there were no deaths.[1] However, in a comprehensive review of the literature, 12 deaths were reported, 7 of which were the result of surgical complications in infants.[4][Level of evidence C2]
Grossly, mesoblastic nephromas appear as solitary, unilateral masses indistinguishable from nephroblastoma. Microscopically, they consist of spindled mesenchymal cells. Mesoblastic nephroma can be divided into the following three histological subtypes:
A frequent genetic alteration is the translocation t(12;15)(q13;q25), resulting in a fusion of the ETV6 and NTRK3 genes on 15p15 that occurs almost exclusively in the cellular type of mesoblastic nephroma. In a cohort of 79 mesoblastic nephromas analyzed for the translocation, all classical (n = 38) and mixed (n = 12) mesoblastic nephromas were translocation negative.[8] Other rare variants in cellular congenital mesoblastic nephroma include EML4::NRTK3 and LMNA::NRTK1 fusions, BRAF internal duplications, RET fusions, and ALK fusions.[9,10] Classic congenital mesoblastic nephroma can also harbor EGFR internal tandem duplications.[11] Cellular congenital mesoblastic nephroma shares its genetic and morphological hallmarks with infantile fibrosarcoma because variants of NRTK3 and BRAF have been reported in both tumor types.[12]
The risk of recurrence for patients with mesoblastic nephroma is closely associated with the presence of a cellular subtype and with stage III disease.[5] In an International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP) series of 79 patients with congenital mesoblastic nephromas, patients within the cellular subgroup who had translocation-positive tumors had a significantly superior relapse-free survival (RFS) rate when compared with patients who did not have the gene fusion (100% vs. 73%, respectively).[8]
For more information about the clinical features and diagnostic evaluation of childhood kidney tumors, see the sections on Clinical Features of Wilms Tumor and Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor.
The OS of patients with congenital mesoblastic nephroma is excellent. However, reported causes of death are treatment related in about one-half of the cases. Additionally, most of these patients were very young (median age, <1 year).[4] This underscores the special attention that infants with renal tumors require, with respect to timing and type of treatment and the importance of a dedicated expert pediatric oncology setting.
Standard treatment options for stages I and II (80% of patients) and stage III (classic and mixed subtypes) congenital mesoblastic nephroma include the following:
Evidence (nephrectomy):
Adjuvant chemotherapy has been recommended for patients with stage III cellular subtype mesoblastic nephromas who are aged 3 months or older at diagnosis.[5] In a study of stage III cellular type congenital mesoblastic nephroma, 7 of 12 patients who were treated with surgery only suffered from a relapse, while 4 of 14 patients who were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (primarily dactinomycin/vincristine and sometimes doxorubicin) developed a relapse.[1,5,13] Cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide have been combined with these agents and have shown activity.[14]
Infants younger than 2 months with incompletely resected, stage III disease may not need chemotherapy.[1]
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, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
Patients with most forms of recurrent childhood cancer should consider enrolling in available phase I and phase II clinical trials. Other treatment options for recurrent congenital mesoblastic nephroma are discussed below.
Palliative care remains a central focus of management regardless of whether disease-directed therapy is pursued at the time of progression. This ensures that quality of life is maximized while attempting to reduce symptoms and stress related to the terminal illness.
Relapses were reported in 4% of patients with congenital mesoblastic nephroma, and all relapses occurred within 12 months after diagnosis. Most relapses occurred locally, although metastatic relapses have been reported.[4] About 70% of patients who relapsed survived with individualized treatment comprising combinations of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy.[4]
Targeted therapy should be considered for patients with recurrent or refractory disease containing the ETV6::NTRK3 fusion. Larotrectinib and entrectinib are NTRK inhibitors that are approved for adult and pediatric patients with solid tumors that have an NTRK gene fusion without a known acquired resistance variant, who are either metastatic or when surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity, and who have no satisfactory alternative treatments or whose cancer has progressed after treatment.[15,16]
Information about NCI-supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Ewing sarcoma (previously known as neuroepithelial tumor) of the kidney is extremely rare (<5% of renal tumors) and demonstrates a unique proclivity for young adults. It is a highly aggressive neoplasm, more often presenting with large tumors, penetration of the renal capsule, and extension into the renal vein.[1,2] In a literature review of 362 patients, the metastatic rate was 53.2%. Lymph node involvement was noted in 24% of the cases (13.9% in patients aged <18 years vs. 28.4% in adult patients; P = .07). All age groups showed a male predilection for nodal involvement, with significant sex differences seen in adolescent and young adult groups and adult groups (P = .007 and P = .002, respectively). The mortality rate was 21.5% at 1 year after diagnosis and 59.7% at 3 years after diagnosis.[3][Level of evidence C1]
Ewing sarcoma of the kidney is characterized by CD99 (MIC-2) positivity and the detection of EWS::FLI1 fusion transcripts. Focal, atypical histological features have been seen, including clear cell sarcoma, rhabdoid tumor, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, and paraganglioma.[1,4]
There is no consensus for the optimal treatment of Ewing sarcoma of the kidney because data are lacking. The current treatment approach is extrapolated from the experience of treating Ewing sarcoma at other sites with multimodal therapy consisting of multiagent chemotherapy, surgery, and/or radiation therapy for local control. The MD Anderson Cancer Center reported their experience with 30 patients (median age, 30.5 years) with Ewing sarcoma of the kidney over a period of 23 years.[5]
Treatment according to Ewing sarcoma protocols should be considered.[1]
For more information, see Ewing Sarcoma and Undifferentiated Small Round Cell Sarcomas of Bone and Soft Tissue Treatment.
Use our advanced clinical trial search to find NCI-supported cancer clinical trials that are now enrolling patients. The search can be narrowed by location of the trial, type of treatment, name of the drug, and other criteria. General information about clinical trials is also available.
Myoepithelial carcinomas are aggressive malignancies primarily affecting soft tissues with occasional visceral origin. Approximately 20% of all reported cases have been described in children and are associated with a particularly unfavorable outcome, frequent development of metastases, and short overall survival.[1]
Two cases of primary renal myoepithelial carcinoma have occurred in children, and both cases had a translocation involving EWSR1 and the novel fusion partner KLF15, a transcription factor uniquely functioning within the kidney. Helpful features to establish the diagnosis include coexpression of cytokeratins, S-100, smooth muscle markers, and the documentation of EWSR1 rearrangements.[2]
Although no standard therapy has been established, surgical resection of the primary tumor and pulmonary nodules (if present) has been used in addition to chemotherapy and radiation therapy.[2]
Cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma is a rare cystic variant of Wilms tumor (1%), with unique pathological and clinical characteristics. The median age at presentation is 12 months. No patients with metastatic disease have been reported. Bilateral disease has occurred (4.4%). It has also been reported to occur in combination with contralateral Wilms tumor. Two of 113 patients identified in the literature had previous, concomitant, or subsequent other tumors.[1] It is composed entirely of cysts, and their thin septa are the only solid portion of the tumor. The septa contain blastemal cells in any amount with or without embryonal stromal or epithelial cell type. Several pathological features distinguish this neoplasm from standard Wilms tumor. DICER1 variants have not been reported in cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma, which supports a distinction between multilocular cystic nephromas and cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma.[2] Somatic hyperdiploidy has been reported in nonsyndromic patients (7 of 8 karyotyped cases).[1]
Recurrence has been reported after tumor spillage during surgery.[3][Level of evidence C1]
For more information about the clinical features and diagnostic evaluation of childhood kidney tumors, see the sections on Clinical Features of Wilms Tumor and Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor.
Surgery is the main treatment. Preoperative chemotherapy administration was reported in 20 of 98 patients. None of the preoperatively treated patients showed response to chemotherapy on imaging or histological examination.[1]
Standard treatment options for cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma include the following:
Multilocular cystic nephromas are uncommon benign lesions consisting of cysts lined by renal epithelium. They are characterized by a bimodal age distribution, affecting either infants/young children or adult females. In the 167 cases reported in the literature, the median age at diagnosis was 16 months, with a range from prenatal diagnosis to age 16 years.[1] These lesions can occur bilaterally (5.3%), and a familial pattern has been reported. They have been reported to occur in combination with contralateral Wilms tumor.[1]
DICER1 variants (germline and/or somatic) were identified in 33 of 35 cases tested. In the series of 167 patients with cystic nephromas, 10 of the 12 patients with germline DICER1 variants had previously or subsequently developed other tumors in addition to the cystic nephroma.[1] Multilocular cystic nephroma has been associated with pleuropulmonary blastoma and the DICER1 variant. Anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney has also been associated with the DICER1 variant.[2] This is in contrast to adult cystic nephromas, which lack DICER1 variants, and supports the difference between adult and pediatric cases. Genetic counseling, DICER1 variant testing, and screening for lung lesions of a solid or cystic nature should be considered.[1,3-6]
For more information about the clinical features and diagnostic evaluation of childhood kidney tumors, see the sections on Clinical Features of Wilms Tumor and Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor.
The standard treatment option for multilocular cystic nephroma is surgery.
Anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney, a DICER1-related neoplasm, is a rare renal tumor that is distinct from Wilms tumor and resembles pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB). There have been approximately 47 reported cases.[1] Anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney is predominantly diagnosed in females, with a higher proportion than that seen in patients with Wilms tumor and other renal tumors of childhood. The average presenting age is 11.6 years. The median age of presentation is 8.7 years. The youngest presenting age was 7 months, and the oldest reported age was 41 years.[1,2]
Patients with anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney present with a renal mass. The abdomen (liver and regional lymph nodes), lung, and bone are the most common sites of metastases. Unlike PPB, there have been no reported cases of anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney–related brain metastases. Bone metastases occurred in 5 of 47 patients. After initial staging, 8 of 47 patients developed pulmonary metastases, suggesting that ongoing monitoring for pulmonary metastatic disease should be considered.[1] For more information about the clinical features and diagnostic evaluation of childhood kidney tumors, see the sections on Clinical Features of Wilms Tumor and Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor.
The relationship between anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney and DICER1 was established in a study that showed cystic nephromas had DICER1 somatic variants. These variants are not present in cystic partially differentiated nephroblastoma and Wilms tumor.[3] Additional studies showed that, like PPB, anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney has the potential to progress from a cystic lesion (i.e., cystic nephroma) to a high-grade, multipatterned, primitive sarcoma similar to PPB.[2,4,5] Pathogenic variants in DICER1 have been identified in anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney.[6-8]
Anaplastic sarcomas of the kidney share oncogenetic events with other DICER1-associated neoplasms. For example, both can progress beyond cystic lesions. Anaplasia and TP53 missense variants are present in Type II and Type III PPB. Strong TP53 expression (detected by immunohistochemistry) was reported in most anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney cases in the International PPB/DICER1 Registry.[1,6] BRAF V600E variants and PDGFRA variants have been reported in patients with anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney.[9,10] For more information about PPB, see Childhood Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Treatment.
Patients diagnosed with anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney should consider genetic counseling and DICER1 testing (both somatic tumor testing and germline genetic testing).[1] Screening for lung lesions of a solid or cystic nature should also be considered based on age and DICER1 variant testing.[3]
There is no standard treatment option for anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney.
In a series of 40 patients with anaplastic sarcoma of the kidney who had staging data available, 13 had stage I disease, 12 had stage II disease, 10 had stage III disease, and 5 had stage IV disease.[1]
In the posttherapy setting, surveillance for PPB, thyroid tumors, and/or ovarian tumors should be considered. Surveillance strategies will depend on which germline DICER1 variant is detected and whether mosaicism is present.[1,11]
Primary renal synovial sarcoma is a subset of embryonal sarcoma of the kidney that occurs more often on the right side in young adults (median age, 36.2 years).[1] It is similar in histology to the monophasic spindle cell synovial sarcoma and contains cystic structures derived from dilated, trapped renal tubules. It is considered an aggressive tumor, with adverse patient outcomes in more than 50% of cases (n = 16).[2] Primary renal synovial sarcoma is characterized by the t(x;18)(p11;q11) SS18::SSX translocation. A second alternative gene fusion variant, SS18::NEDD4, has also been identified.
For more information about the clinical features and diagnostic evaluation of childhood kidney tumors, see the sections on Clinical Features of Wilms Tumor and Diagnostic and Staging Evaluation for Wilms Tumor.
Although no standard treatment guidelines exist, surgery is considered the treatment of choice. Chemotherapy (ifosfamide with doxorubicin or epirubicin) has been used in about 31% of cases in the adjuvant setting.[1] The chemotherapy regimens used differ from those traditionally used for Wilms tumor.[3]
Some multifocal nephrogenic rests may become hyperplastic, which may produce a thick rind of blastemal or tubular cells that enlarge the kidney. Radiological studies may be helpful in making the difficult distinction between diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephroblastomatosis and Wilms tumor. On magnetic resonance imaging, nephrogenic rests appear homogeneous and hypointense with contrast, whereas Wilms tumor has mixed echogenicity and inhomogeneous appearance. Incisional biopsies are difficult to interpret, and it is essential that the biopsy includes the juncture between the lesion and surrounding renal parenchyma.[1] Differentiation may occur after chemotherapy is administered.
Left untreated, all patients with diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephroblastomatosis have been reported to develop Wilms tumors.[1,2] Although most cases of diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephroblastomatosis are bilateral, a few cases have been reported with unilateral occurrence.[1] Until recently, diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephroblastomatosis had not been prospectively studied by any of the pediatric oncology groups. As a result, patients have been treated in a variety of ways (observation, multiple chemotherapeutic agents in a nonstandard manner, or flank radiation therapy).[2] Additionally, a consistent definition of diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephroblastomatosis has not been uniformly applied to all cases.
Treatment options for diffuse hyperplastic perilobar nephroblastomatosis include the following:
Evidence (preoperative chemotherapy and surgery):
Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be 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 pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:
For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.
The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.
Added text to state that a study that used the International WAGR Syndrome Association survey found that 64 of 145 children developed Wilms tumor. Most children had unilateral stage I or stage II Wilms tumors and favorable histology. One child developed bilateral Wilms tumors. Two children presented with stage IV disease, both with favorable histology (cited Tracy et al. as reference 18).
Added Chan et al. as reference 188.
Added WAGR syndrome and Wilms tumor outcomes as a new subsection.
This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.
This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of Wilms tumor and other childhood kidney tumors. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.
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:
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 Wilms Tumor and Other Childhood Kidney Tumors Treatment are:
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.
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.
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 Wilms Tumor and Other Childhood Kidney Tumors Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/kidney/hp/wilms-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 26389282]
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.
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.
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.