Abstract
Objective:
To explore clinicopathologic features of children with congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) enrolled on Children‟s Oncology Group study AREN03B2 and a historical cohort of CMN patients.
Background:
CMN is a pediatric renal tumor of infancy, with histologic subtypes of cellular, mixed, and classic. Given its rarity, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are unavailable. We collected clinicopathologic findings and outcomes data in 2 large cohorts of children with CMN.
Methods:
From 2004–2019, 6412 patients enrolled in AREN03B2 and underwent prospective central review of pathology materials, imaging studies, and operative reports. CMNs were identified and subclassified. Similar data was extracted from a historical cohort of CMNs collected by pathology reviewers between 1973–2001.
Results:
In total, 535 children were included (139 from AREN03B2; 396 from the historical cohort). In the ARE03B2 cohort, 137 had available follow-up data (median follow-up: 4.5 years). Ten children (7.2%) relapsed, and 4/10 children died of disease. Four of 55 (7.3%) children with local stage II cellular or mixed CMNs relapsed, and 6/37 (16.2%) children with local stage III cellular or mixed CMNs relapsed. No child with local stage I or classic CMNs (of any stage) relapsed. All relapses occurred within 1.5 years of diagnosis, and 4/10 relapses occurred within 3 months. In the historical cohort, 31 children (7.8%) relapsed; all relapses were local stage II or III cellular or mixed.
Conclusions:
While recurrences are uncommon, they are highly associated with cellular or mixed histologic subtypes and stage, providing key clinical information that may guide consideration of therapy and surveillance.
Keywords: Congenital mesoblastic nephroma, CMN, Clinicopathologic features, Outcomes
Introduction
Congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) is a rare tumor constituting 3–5% of all pediatric renal neoplasms.1–3 Most children with CMNs present in the first three months of life,2–5 and over 90% are diagnosed by age six months.6 There are two histologically and genetically distinct patterns of CMN: 1) classic CMN, composed of uniform spindle cells arranged in fascicles with low cellularity and mitotic rate,7 and 2) cellular CMN, composed of densely packed, plump, blue spindle cells with a higher mitotic rate.8, 9 Most cellular CMNs are characterized by NTRK gene fusions, most commonly ETV6-NTRK3 as a result of t(12;15).10–12 EML4-NTRK3, BRAF, and RET fusions have also been described.13–17 Cases in which the classic and cellular patterns coexist are also recognized and are classified as mixed CMN.18, 19 Some mixed CMNs contain NTRK gene fusions, with a wide variation of NTRK fusion rates reported in the literature (0–83% of cases).10, 12, 20–23 EGFR alterations have been described in all CMN subtypes.24, 25 Given identical genetic alterations and histomorphology, similar ages at presentation, recurrence patterns, and outcomes, cellular CMNs have been postulated to represent intrarenal occurrences of infantile fibrosarcoma (IFS).26–28
Overall, children with CMN have an excellent prognosis and are usually cured by surgical excision alone.5 Rarely, however, CMN can recur or metastasize.27–30 Some of these children can be treated successfully for relapse, while others die of disease.31 Proposed risk factors for CMN relapse are cellular histology, incomplete surgical excision, and age at diagnosis over three months.32–35 Prior studies have been limited by small sample sizes. To enhance understanding of this rare entity, pathologic and clinical features of children with CMN enrolled on the Children‟s Oncology Group (COG) AREN03B2 Renal Tumor Classification, Biology, and Banking study (AREN03B2) were explored and compiled with data extracted from a historical cohort of CMN patients presenting prior to AREN03B2.
Methods
AREN03B2 Patient Cohort
Children eligible for inclusion and enrolled on AREN03B2 with tumors classified as CMN on central pathology review from 2004 to 2019 were included in this study. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained before enrollment. Consent for participation in AREN03B2 was obtained from parents or legal guardians.
Required submissions for central pathology review included radiologic imaging, operative reports, and a full set of H&E slides. Histologic subtype and local stage were determined by central review pathologists (EJP, LNP, ALT, DAH, and MMC). CMNs were subclassified as cellular, classic, or mixed as follows: tumors with >80% cellular component were classified as cellular, those with 5–80% cellular pattern were classified as mixed, and all others were classified as classic. Additional data collected included age at diagnosis, sex, type of surgical procedure, tumor size, tumor weight, and pathologic staging parameters. The central reviewers documented the COG local stage through central pathologic and central surgical review.36 All cases were reviewed prospectively without knowledge of clinical outcome.
Referring centers were not consistently required to have pulmonary imaging to be eligible for AREN03B2 as some CMNs are considered „benign‟, however, all patients were required to submit an abdominal CT. When available, chest CTs were centrally reviewed for evidence of pulmonary metastatic disease for patients on AREN03B2 (other imaging modalities were not documented).
During the study period, clinical reporting forms were required for five years after initial diagnosis, and information on treatment regimens (if given), site and timing of relapse, and patient deaths were extracted from these forms.
Historical CMN Cohort
Between 1973 and 2001 (prior to AREN03B2), pediatric renal tumors were often sent to the National Wilms Tumor Study (NWTS)/COG pathology central reviewers, either as consults from the referring pathologist or as part of central review for NWTS studies. The NWTS/COG central review pathologists collected and recorded the clinicopathologic characteristics of a large series of tumors from patients with CMNs during this time. These files were searched for a diagnosis of CMN. In this database, 396 cases of CMN were identified. Of the 396 identified CMN patients, 135 were registered in NWTS-5 but had no follow-up data. The historical database documented relapses when reported by the referring institution, along with relapse site, time to relapse, and any patient deaths.
Results
AREN03B2 Patient Cohort
Patients
Between 2004 and 2019, 6,412 total patients were registered on AREN03B2, and 139 had a confirmed central review diagnosis of CMN. Clinicopathologic features of these 139 AREN03B2 patients/tumors are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1:
Clinicopathologic features of CMNs on AREN03B2 and the Historical (NWTS or Consult) Cohorts
| Characteristic | AREN03B2, N = 1391 | NWTS or Consult, N = 3961 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Months) | 0.7 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (2.6, 1.1) | (4.2, 2.0) | |
| (Range) | (0.0, 25.0) | (0.0, 48.0) | |
| Unknown | 0 | 10 | |
| Pattern | 0.3 | ||
| Cellular | 83 (61%) | 239 (60%) | |
| Classic | 30 (22%) | 69 (17%) | |
| Mixed | 23 (17%) | 88 (22%) | |
| Unknown | 3 | 0 | |
| Disease Stage | 0.4 | ||
| Stage I | 15 (16%) | 58 (24%) | |
| Stage II | 47 (51%) | 112 (47%) | |
| Stage III | 29 (32%) | 65 (27%) | |
| Stage IV | 1 (1.1%) | 2 (0.8%) | |
| Unknown | 47 | 159 | |
| Tumor Diameter (cm) | 0.3 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (7.9, 7.9) | (7.5, 7.0) | |
| (Range) | (2.2, 15.0) | (0.6, 17.0) | |
| Unknown | 10 | 187 | |
| Tumor Weight (g) | 0.3 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (256, 167) | (275, 203) | |
| (Range) | (4, 1,160) | (19, 2,006) | |
| Unknown | 27 | 127 | |
| Recurrence | 10 (7.2%) | 31 (7.8%) | 0.8 |
| Recurrence Type | 0.2 | ||
| Both | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.5%) | |
| Local | 4 (40%) | 20 (65%) | |
| Metastatic | 6 (60%) | 9 (29%) | |
| Site of metastatic recurrence | 0.3 | ||
| Bone | 1 (17%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Bone and Lung | 0 (0%) | 1 (7.7%) | |
| Brain | 0 (0%) | 3 (23%) | |
| Lung | 5 (83%) | 9 (69%) |
n (%)
Wilcoxon rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test; Fisher’s exact test
Pathology
Of the 139 children with centrally confirmed CMN, 131 were initially enrolled on AREN03B2 with an institutional pathologic diagnosis of CMN, three with a diagnosis of Wilms tumor (WT), one with a diagnosis of clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK), one with a differential diagnosis of “CMN versus CCSK”, and three cases came to central review with no institutional diagnosis. Of the 139 centrally confirmed CMN cases, 136 could be further subclassified as classic, cellular, or mixed (detailed clinicopathologic features by histologic subtype are summarized in Table 2). Of the three cases that were not further subclassified, one had insufficient slides for classification and two had unusual histologic findings that precluded definitive subclassification. In 94 cases, lymph nodes (LNs) were sampled with nephrectomy. No nodes were found to be positive for tumor, excepting one patient with a mixed CMN involving a lymph node by direct extension (this is included as one case with a “positive LN” in Table 2).
Table 2.
AREN03B2 Cohort by Pattern - Demographics and Tumor Characteristics
| Characteristic | Cellular, N = 831 | Classic, N = 301 | Mixed, N = 231 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Months) | <0.001 | |||
| (Mean, Median) | (3.60, 2.16) | (0.83, 0.48) | (1.29, 0.25) | |
| (Range) | (0.02, 25.03) | (−0.01, 4.79) | (0.02, 7.61) | |
| Sex | 0.5 | |||
| Female | 34 (41%) | 15 (50%) | 12 (52%) | |
| Male | 49 (59%) | 15 (50%) | 11 (48%) | |
| Race | 0.079 | |||
| Asian | 6 (8.6%) | 1 (3.7%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Black | 4 (5.7%) | 3 (11%) | 4 (25%) | |
| Multiple Races | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.7%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Native American | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.7%) | 0 (0%) | |
| White | 60 (86%) | 21 (78%) | 12 (75%) | |
| Unknown | 13 | 3 | 7 | |
| Local Stage | 0.2 | |||
| Stage 1 | 14 (17%) | 3 (10%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Stage 2 | 39 (47%) | 17 (57%) | 16 (70%) | |
| Stage 3 | 30 (36%) | 10 (33%) | 7 (30%) | |
| Disease Stage | 0.4 | |||
| Stage I | 11 (17%) | 2 (13%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Stage II | 30 (48%) | 9 (56%) | 7 (70%) | |
| Stage III | 22 (35%) | 4 (25%) | 3 (30%) | |
| Stage IV | 0 (0%) | 1 (6.3%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Unknown | 20 | 14 | 13 | |
| Rupture/Spill | 22 (27%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.7%) | <0.001 |
| Rupture/Spill Timing | 0.10 | |||
| Indeterminate | 4 (18%) | 0 (NA%) | 2 (100%) | |
| Intraoperative Spill | 16 (73%) | 0 (NA%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Preoperative Rupture | 2 (9.1%) | 0 (NA%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Tumor Weight (g) | <0.001 | |||
| (Mean, Median) | (355, 298) | (81, 75) | (198, 128) | |
| (Range) | (29, 1,160) | (4, 243) | (23, 730) | |
| Unknown | 20 | 4 | 3 | |
| Tumor Diameter (cm) | <0.001 | |||
| (Mean, Median) | (9.18, 9.10) | (5.46, 5.00) | (7.02, 7.20) | |
| (Range) | (3.70, 15.00) | (3.10, 10.00) | (2.20, 13.00) | |
| Unknown | 9 | 1 | 0 | |
| LN Sampling | 64 (77%) | 13 (43%) | 17 (74%) | 0.002 |
| LN Status | 0.3 | |||
| Negative | 64 (100%) | 13 (100%) | 16 (94%) | |
| Positive | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.9%) |
n (%)
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test; Fisher’s exact test
Radiology
AREN03B2 patients with and without a chest CT are summarized in Supplemental Digital Content Table 1, http://links.lww.com/SLA/F556. Evaluation of pulmonary metastatic disease was not possible in 47 of 139 (34%) CMN cases (CT not submitted or technically uninterpretable), thus, a significant proportion of patients had unknown overall disease stage (Table 2). Of the 92 patients with evaluable pulmonary CTs, only one with classic CMN was classified at time of diagnosis as stage IV. Although this patient is included in this report as stage IV, on review of follow-up information, we confirmed that the lung lesions were not biopsied or resected, no further therapy was given, and there was no further documented relapse or progression. This prompted a repeat (blinded for reason) expert radiology review, which favored atelectasis.
Surgery
Two patients had initial biopsy; one received neoadjuvant EE4A and then underwent delayed nephrectomy, and one had biopsy followed by nephrectomy and received no chemotherapy. Neither of these patients relapsed. All other patients underwent upfront nephrectomy.
LN sampling was performed in 70% of children overall (77%, 74%, and 43% for those with cellular, mixed, and classic histology, respectively) (Table 2).
Thirty-four percent of patients (30–36% across histology subtypes) were stage III due to preoperative rupture, intraoperative spill, or positive surgical margin. Rupture/spill was noted in 27% of patients with cellular histology (73% intraoperative spill, 9.1% preoperative rupture, and 18% indeterminate). No rupture/spill was noted in any patient with classic histology and in only two patients (8.7%) with mixed histology.
Chemotherapy
Twelve children, 10 with cellular CMN and 2 with mixed CMN, were reported to have received adjuvant/neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy after initial diagnosis. The official responses in the AREN03B2 Case Reporting Forms (CRFs) regarding chemotherapy are reported and statistically analyzed in Supplemental Digital Content Table 2, http://links.lww.com/SLA/F556. These included 6 children receiving EE4A (vincristine and dactinomycin for 19 weeks) and an additional 6 children reported as “other” or “indeterminate.” Further individual review of narrative comments in AREN03B2 records (by JJD and EAM) clarified that for these patients, 1 additional child received EE4A, 3 received VAC (vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide), 1 received vincristine, doxorubicin, dactinomycin, and etoposide, and 1 received vincristine, daunomycin, and cyclophosphamide. For all other patients, institutions reported no chemotherapy given.
Outcomes
Outcome data were available for 137 of the AREN03B2 CMN patients, with a median follow-up of 4.5 years. Ten relapsed (7.2%), with a time to relapse ranging from 1.5 to 18 months (Table 3). Of the relapse cases, four children had local stage II tumors and six had local stage III tumors at time of diagnosis. For stage III cases, four were due to positive margin and two were due to rupture or spill. In six of the relapses (60%), LNs were removed at time of nephrectomy. In four of those cases, the LNs were sent for central pathology review and were negative for metastatic tumor. Relapse sites included four cases of local recurrence in the tumor bed and six cases of distant metastatic disease. Four children with relapse died within one year following relapse (three with local recurrence and one with metastatic disease to the lung). All were reported to have died of progressive disease.
Table 3.
Description of Relapses for Patients on AREN03B2 (N = 137)
| Local (abdominal) Stage | Reason | Chemo | Relapse Site | Relapse Months | Followed Years | Vital Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 2 | Sinus | None | Tumor Bed | 1.54 | 0.28 | Dead |
| Stage 2 | Sinus | None | Bone | 14.16 | 5.96 | Alive |
| Stage 2 | Capsule | None | Lung | 2.46 | 0.97 | Dead |
| Stage 2 | Sinus | None | Lung | 3.68 | 4.05 | Alive |
| Stage 3 | Preoperative Rupture | None | Lung | 6.64 | 6.59 | Alive |
| Stage 3 | Margin | None | Tumor Bed | 3.29 | 5.14 | Alive |
| Stage 3 | Margin | None | Lung | 2.46 | 5.44 | Alive |
| Stage 3 | Margin | Other | Tumor Bed | 2.07 | 0.20 | Dead |
| Stage 3 | Margin | None | Lung | 17.94 | 2.03 | Alive |
| Stage 3 | Rupture and/or spill (indeterminate) | None | Tumor Bed | 10.61 | 0.93 | Dead |
All relapses occurred in children with tumors classified at diagnosis as cellular or mixed histology. Four of 55 (7.3%) patients with local stage II cellular or mixed CMNs relapsed, and six of 37 (16.2%) with local stage III cellular or mixed CMNs relapsed. Table 4 compares characteristics of CMN patients that relapsed versus those that did not. Median tumor weight in children that relapsed was larger than in children who did not relapse (430g vs. 154g; p = 0.005) (Table 4). Tumor weight also correlated with histology (Table 2). Tumor diameter correlated with relapses and histology in a similar manner (Tables 2, 3, and 4).
Table 4.
Non-Relapsed vs Relapsed AREN03B2 CMNs
| Characteristic | Non-Relapsed CMN, N = 1291 | Relapsed CMN, N = 101 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Months) | 0.2 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (2.36, 1.07) | (6.06, 4.39) | |
| (Range) | (−0.01, 15.59) | (0.05, 25.03) | |
| Tumor Diameter | 0.016 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (7.68, 7.20) | (9.87, 10.25) | |
| (Range) | (2.20, 15.00) | (3.50, 13.00) | |
| Unknown | 10 | 0 | |
| Tumor Weight | 0.005 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (242, 154) | (470, 430) | |
| (Range) | (4, 1,160) | (195, 670) | |
| Unknown | 24 | 3 | |
| Disease Stage | 0.7 | ||
| Stage I | 15 (17%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Stage II | 44 (51%) | 3 (50%) | |
| Stage III | 26 (30%) | 3 (50%) | |
| Stage IV | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Unknown | 43 | 4 |
n (%)
Wilcoxon rank sum test; Fisher’s exact test
Six of the 10 children who relapsed had full staging with chest CT imaging submitted for central review, and all six demonstrated no evidence of pulmonary metastases at time of diagnosis. The remaining four children did not have evaluable upfront pulmonary imaging, resulting in incomplete upfront disease staging.
Of the 10 children who relapsed, one received initial adjuvant chemotherapy (VAC, Supplemental Digital Content Table 2, http://links.lww.com/SLA/F556). Three relapsed patients were given chemotherapy after a diagnosis of relapse. One patient received DD4A and ICE, one received DD4A only, and one received vincristine and dactinomycin. No child received radiation therapy.
Historical CMN Patient Cohort
There were 396 children with confirmed historical CMNs and are summarized alongside AREN03B2 patients in Table 1. Additional details by histologic pattern are presented in Table 5 and Supplemental Digital Content Table 3, http://links.lww.com/SLA/F556. Overall disease stage and details on chemotherapy received, surgical approach, and intraoperative events were not available.
Table 5.
NWTS/OC Cohort by Pattern - Demographics, Tumor, Relapse Sites
| Characteristic | Cellular, N = 2391 | Classic, N = 691 | Mixed, N = 881 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Months) | <0.001 | |||
| (Mean, Median) | (5.6, 3.0) | (0.9, 0.0) | (2.7, 0.0) | |
| (Range) | (0.0, 48.0) | (0.0, 24.0) | (0.0, 20.0) | |
| Unknown | 4 | 2 | 4 | |
| Stage | 0.009 | |||
| Stage I | 45 (25%) | 9 (18%) | 4 (6.2%) | |
| Stage II | 63 (35%) | 22 (45%) | 27 (42%) | |
| Stage II vs III | 26 (14%) | 10 (20%) | 21 (32%) | |
| Stage III | 44 (24%) | 8 (16%) | 13 (20%) | |
| Stage IV | 2 (1.1%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Unknown | 59 | 20 | 23 | |
| Tumor Weight (g) | <0.001 | |||
| (Mean, Median) | (356, 290) | (102, 93) | (203, 150) | |
| (Range) | (23, 2,006) | (19, 380) | (27, 745) | |
| Unknown | 80 | 20 | 27 | |
| Tumor Diameter (cm) | <0.001 | |||
| (Mean, Median) | (8.4, 8.0) | (5.0, 4.5) | (7.6, 7.0) | |
| (Range) | (0.6, 17.0) | (1.6, 8.5) | (3.0, 15.0) | |
| Unknown | 111 | 28 | 48 | |
| Fusion Transcript | 0.9 | |||
| Negative | 4 (44%) | 0 (NA%) | 3 (30%) | |
| Positive | 5 (56%) | 0 (NA%) | 7 (70%) | |
| Unknown | 230 | 69 | 78 | |
| Internal-Renal VI | <0.001 | |||
| No | 177 (82%) | 63 (100%) | 73 (95%) | |
| Possible | 11 (5.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.6%) | |
| Yes | 29 (13%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.6%) | |
| Unknown | 22 | 6 | 11 | |
| Vascular Pattern | 0.030 | |||
| Angiocentric Necrosis | 89 (44%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (22%) | |
| No Vascular Pattern | 51 (25%) | 1 (100%) | 19 (38%) | |
| Vascular Pattern | 64 (31%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (40%) | |
| Unknown | 35 | 68 | 38 | |
| Recurrence | 21 (8.8%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (11%) | 0.021 |
| Recurrence Type | 0.8 | |||
| Local | 14 (67%) | 0 (NA%) | 6 (60%) | |
| Metastatic | 6 (29%) | 0 (NA%) | 3 (30%) | |
| Both | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (NA%) | 1 (10%) | |
| Distant Recurrence | 0.3 | |||
| Bone and Lung | 1 (11%) | 0 (NA%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Brain | 1 (11%) | 0 (NA%) | 2 (50%) | |
| Lung | 7 (78%) | 0 (NA%) | 2 (50%) |
n (%)
Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test
Outcomes
Outcomes from the historical cohort are summarized in Table 6. There were 31 children (7.8%) with reported relapse, with a time to relapse ranging from two to 11.5 months post-nephrectomy. Of the relapse cases, ten died of disease (32%). Relapse was more likely to occur in local stage III disease (Table 7). As in AREN03B2, all relapses were cellular or mixed tumors.
Table 6.
Description of Relapses for patients in the Historical Cohort (N = 31)
| ID | Disease_Stage | Relapse_Site | Relapse_Months | Vital |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stage II | Bone and Lung | 5.0 | Died of Disease |
| 2 | Stage II | Brain | 7.0 | Died of Disease |
| 3 | Stage II | Brain | 2.0 | Died of Disease |
| 4 | Stage II | Lung | 11.5 | Alive |
| 5 | Stage II | Lung | 10.0 | Alive |
| 6 | Stage II | Lung | 3.0 | Alive |
| 7 | Stage II | Local and Lung | 2.0 | Alive |
| 8 | Stage II | Local | 7.0 | Died other Causes |
| 9 | Stage II vs III | Local | 6.0 | Died of Disease |
| 10 | Stage II vs III | Local | 3.0 | Alive |
| 11 | Stage II vs III | Local | 4.0 | Alive |
| 12 | Stage II vs III | Local | 4.0 | Died of Disease |
| 13 | Stage III | Local and Lung | 2.0 | Died of Disease |
| 14 | Stage III | Lung | 9.0 | Died of Disease |
| 15 | Stage III | Lung | 3.0 | Alive |
| 16 | Stage III | Local | 2.0 | Alive |
| 17 | Stage III | Local | 2.0 | Alive |
| 18 | Stage III | Local | 3.0 | Alive |
| 19 | Stage III | Local | 2.5 | Alive |
| 20 | Stage III | Local | 2.0 | Alive |
| 21 | Stage III | Local | 9.0 | Alive |
| 22 | Stage III | Local | 2.0 | Alive |
| 23 | Stage III | Local | 5.0 | Alive |
| 24 | Stage III | Local | 7.0 | Alive |
| 25 | Stage III | Local | 7.5 | Died of Disease |
| 26 | Stage III | Local | 3.0 | Died of Disease |
| 27 | Stage III | Local | 11.0 | Alive |
| 28 | Stage III | Local | 11.0 | Alive |
| 29 | Stage III | Local | 4.0 | Died of Disease |
| 30 | Stage III | Local | 6.0 | Alive |
| 31 | Unknown | Lung | 6.0 | Alive |
Table 7.
Non-Relapsed vs Relapsed Historical CMNs
| Characteristic | Non-Relapsed CMN, N = 3651 | Relapsed CMN, N = 311 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (Months) | 0.2 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (4.0, 2.0) | (5.7, 3.0) | |
| (Range) | (0.0, 48.0) | (0.0, 25.0) | |
| Unknown | 10 | 0 | |
| Tumor Diameter | 0.051 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (7.4, 7.0) | (9.3, 9.0) | |
| (Range) | (0.6, 17.0) | (4.0, 15.0) | |
| Unknown | 169 | 18 | |
| Tumor Weight | 0.004 | ||
| (Mean, Median) | (263, 190) | (400, 350) | |
| (Range) | (19, 2,006) | (31, 1,130) | |
| Unknown | 120 | 7 | |
| Disease Stage | <0.001 | ||
| Stage I | 58 (22%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Stage II | 104 (39%) | 8 (27%) | |
| Stage II vs III | 53 (20%) | 4 (13%) | |
| Stage III | 47 (18%) | 18 (60%) | |
| Stage IV | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Unknown | 101 | 1 | |
| Mitoses | 0.2 | ||
| 1 | 33 (9.7%) | 1 (3.8%) | |
| 2 | 251 (74%) | 19 (73%) | |
| 3 | 51 (15%) | 4 (15%) | |
| 4 | 6 (1.8%) | 2 (7.7%) | |
| Unknown | 24 | 5 | |
| Necrosis | 0.054 | ||
| Extensive | 191 (56%) | 19 (73%) | |
| No | 98 (29%) | 2 (7.7%) | |
| Yes | 52 (15%) | 5 (19%) | |
| Unknown | 24 | 5 | |
| Internal-Renal VI3 | 0.002 | ||
| No | 298 (89%) | 15 (65%) | |
| Possible | 12 (3.6%) | 1 (4.3%) | |
| Yes | 24 (7.2%) | 7 (30%) | |
| Unknown | 31 | 8 | |
| Sinus VI | 0.021 | ||
| No | 281 (87%) | 14 (67%) | |
| Possible | 8 (2.5%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Yes | 35 (11%) | 7 (33%) | |
| Unknown | 41 | 10 |
n (%)
Wilcoxon rank sum test; Fisher’s exact test
VI: vascular invasion
Comparisons Between the AREN03B2 and Historical Cohort
The overall distribution of histologic CMN subtypes was similar between those enrolled on AREN03B2 and the historical cohort (Table 1). Age at diagnosis (p = 0.7), tumor diameter (p = 0.2), and tumor weight (p = 0.3) were also similar.
Discussion
In this study, we present an analysis of pathologic and clinical data from children with CMN enrolled on the AREN03B2 Renal Tumor Biology and Classification Study, as well as data from a large patient cohort of retrospectively collected CMNs. Of note, the historical collection is not included with the AREN03B2 analysis for three major reasons: 1) these cases were subject to selection bias as most were referrals for consult, 2) overall disease stage was unknown for all cases in this group, and 3) clinical treatment, surgical approach, and outcome data were limited as most cases were not part of a formal clinical protocol and follow-up was not collected. Despite the limitations outlined above, the AREN03B2 and historical cohorts are remarkably similar (Table 1). We initially aimed to study the impact of individual prognostic factors on outcome through multivariable modeling, with a goal to guide clinical decisions. However, given the rarity of the primary diagnosis of CMN compounded by its overall low relapse rate, the number of children with events are too few in this cohort to reasonably fit a multivariable Cox regression model.
Our data support that risk of relapse is restricted to children with stage II and III mixed and cellular subtypes. Tumor weight and diameter correlated with histology and risk of relapse, with larger tumors more likely to be mixed and cellular CMN subtypes. Tumor rupture/spill notably occurred largely in patients with cellular histology (27% of cellular CMNs had tumor spill/rupture, and the majority of these [73%] occurred as intraoperative spill).
Despite the frequency of rupture and spill in cellular CMNs, the limited number of patient relapse events did not allow us to draw firm conclusions regarding a correlation of rupture/spill and risk of relapse. However, the high rate of intraoperative spill highlights a need for continued investigation into non-invasive methods, such as circulating tumor DNA, to identify an NTRK fusion. There is growing evidence on the use of neoadjuvant TRK inhibitors in NTRK fusion-positive tumors resulting in remarkable reduction in tumor size and potentially improving safe surgical resectability.37 Of note, establishing histology and molecular data through tumor biopsy is not an advocated approach for patients with renal tumors that are considered resectable in the COG treatment paradigm because biopsy and gross residual disease after the diagnostic procedure are criteria for stage III disease. For malignant tumors other than CMN, this would result in additional therapy. We continue to advocate for upfront radical nephrectomy, acknowledging that this can be challenging in cellular CMN given the tendency towards tumor infiltration medially along the renal hilar vessels, as well as common cystic changes. Additionally, given the young age of many of these infants, these renal tumors are generally quite large relative to the body cavity size. These tumor characteristics pose distinct technical challenges.
Interestingly, no CMNs of any subtype in this cohort were reported to metastasize to LNs. However, LN sampling was performed in only 77% and 74% of patients with cellular and mixed histology, respectively, and in only 43% of patients with classic histology. The COG Renal Tumors Committee strongly recommends routine LN sampling for all pediatric renal tumors, as this is critical for staging and therapy assignment, including avoidance of any subsequent chemotherapy whatsoever for very low risk Wilms tumor. Tumor histology is often not known at the time of surgery.
The risks and benefits of upfront and surveillance imaging merit careful consideration in patients with cellular or mixed CMNs. Patients with local stage II cellular or mixed CMNs had an overall relapse rate of 7.3%, and local stage III cellular or mixed CMNs had an overall relapse rate of 16.2% in the AREN03B2 cohort. An important limitation of this study is that not all patients had available or evaluable pulmonary CT scans at diagnosis. The data presented here suggest that children with classic CMN of any local stage, or local stage I patients with any histology, may not benefit from diagnostic lung imaging because there were no recurrences in these groups. For children with cellular or mixed histology and local stage II or III tumors, diagnostic lung imaging is recommended. This can be performed post-operatively, when histology and local stage is established, however, appropriateness of pre- versus post-surgical chest imaging should consider the age of the infant, as it relates to the likelihood of histologic diagnosis. Infants are more likely to have CMN than WT in the first month, but after 2 months, the probability of WT increases significantly4 if WT is the more likely histology, pre-operative CT should be considered as this staging will be required and may be complicated post-operatively by atelectasis and effusions. For these same children considered at risk for relapse, post-surgical short-interval surveillance of lungs and the local tumor site at least every three months is also recommended as relapses occurred quickly (4/10 relapses occurred within three months). The use of CT to detect relapse for patients with WT was shown not to provide a survival advantage over chest x-ray and ultrasound;37 we do not know if this would also apply to CMNs. However, with the low risk of recurrence and the concern of radiation exposure for young infants, the use of chest x-ray and ultrasound are reasonable considerations for surveillance in children with CMN. Recurrences were not reported beyond 1.5 years from diagnosis, so longer-term follow-up is likely unnecessary.
It has long been recognized that the overall risk of recurrence for infants with CMN is low. On AREN03B2, 92.7% of patients with stage II mixed or cellular CMNs did not relapse, and 83.8% with stage III mixed or cellular CMNs did not relapse. However, 30–40% of children with relapse died of disease, underlining the gravity of the occurrence of relapse and need for surveillance, particularly in the identified higher risk sub-group of children with stage II- III tumors with any cellular histology (mixed or cellular subtypes.) Factors preventing relapse for those children with higher risk tumors are not known. Only one of the ten children with relapsed CMN on AREN03B2 was reported to have received adjuvant chemotherapy, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that adjuvant therapy prevented relapse in others. Of the 92 children with higher risk for relapse (stage II/III cellular/mixed CMNs), 12 (13%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, and only one relapsed (8%). Of the 80 higher-risk children that were not reported to have received adjuvant chemotherapy, nine relapsed (11%). To our knowledge, the use of newer targeted treatments using NTRK inhibitors were not available to any of the patients in either cohort, but are an area of needed future study for this population, given multiple reports of demonstrable clinical activity in both adjuvant and neo-adjuvant settings.39–43
In summary, this analysis of a combined cohort of 535 children represents the largest reported cohort of centrally reviewed patients with CMN. Our review has established the following conclusions:
Stage II and III mixed and cellular subtypes have the highest risk for relapse, and there is a low risk of relapse for all other children with CMN.
No CMNs of any subtype were reported to metastasize to LNs; higher local stage (III) was due to positive margins and intraoperative spill in many cases, emphasizing the challenges of surgery in young infants with large, cellular tumors.
Tumor weight and diameter correlated with histology (mixed and cellular CMNs were larger) and with risk of relapse.
Tumor rupture/spill notably occurred almost exclusively in patients with cellular histology.
No clear role for adjuvant therapy has been demonstrated. It is likely unnecessary for patients with classic histology CMNs and stage I CMNs of any subtype. It may be unnecessary for all patients prior to relapse.
Historic relapse therapy is shown to be inadequate, and the poor outcomes after relapse highlight the need for prospective study of the role of NTRK inhibitors for children with CMN.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the patients and their families for their participation in AREN03B2. We also thank all referring institutions for enrolling patients, contributing clinical information to the AREN03B2 database, and submitting tissue to the COG Biobank.
Sources of Funding:
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute under award numbers U10CA180886, U10CA180899, U10CA098543, and U10CA098413 to the Children‟s Oncology Group and a Clinician Scientist Research Specialist award to JSD (R50CA275931). EAM reports support from Solder True Life Foundation.
Footnotes
Data sharing
COG considers requests to make its research data available. Participant data will be deidentified (18 identifiers delineated in the HIPAA privacy rule will not be provided). Data will be made available upon formal request and approval by COG based on merit, feasibility, and availability of the data. Requests are usually considered once the primary study analyses have been published. See https://www.childrensoncologygroup.org/data-sharing for further details.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors report no potential conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Husain AN, Dehner LP. Stocker and Dehner’s pediatric pathology. Fifth edition ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 2.England RJ, Haider N, Vujanic GM, et al. Mesoblastic nephroma: a report of the United Kingdom Children’s Cancer and Leukaemia Group (CCLG). Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011; 56(5):744–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Gooskens SL, Houwing ME, Vujanic GM, et al. Congenital mesoblastic nephroma 50 years after its recognition: A narrative review. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017; 64(7). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, Grundy P, Graf N, et al. Characteristics and survival of 750 children diagnosed with a renal tumor in the first seven months of life: A collaborative study by the SIOP/GPOH/SFOP, NWTSG, and UKCCSG Wilms tumor study groups. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008; 50(6):1130–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Howell CG, Othersen HB, Kiviat NE, et al. Therapy and outcome in 51 children with mesoblastic nephroma: a report of the National Wilms’ Tumor Study. J Pediatr Surg 1982; 17(6):826–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lamb MG, Aldrink JH, O’Brien SH, et al. Renal Tumors in Children Younger Than 12 Months of Age: A 65-Year Single Institution Review. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2017; 39(2):103–107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bolande RP, Brough AJ, Izant RJ Jr., Congenital mesoblastic nephroma of infancy. A report of eight cases and the relationship to Wilms’ tumor. Pediatrics 1967; 40(2):272–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Beckwith JB. Mesenchymal renal neoplasms of infancy revisited. J Pediatr Surg 1974; 9(6):803–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Joshi VV, Kasznica J, Walters TR. Atypical mesoblastic nephroma. Pathologic characterization of a potentially aggressive variant of conventional congenital mesoblastic nephroma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1986; 110(2):100–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Knezevich SR, Garnett MJ, Pysher TJ, et al. ETV6-NTRK3 gene fusions and trisomy 11 establish a histogenetic link between mesoblastic nephroma and congenital fibrosarcoma. Cancer Res 1998; 58(22):5046–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Knezevich SR, McFadden DE, Tao W, et al. A novel ETV6-NTRK3 gene fusion in congenital fibrosarcoma. Nat Genet 1998; 18(2):184–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Argani P, Fritsch M, Kadkol SS, et al. Detection of the ETV6-NTRK3 chimeric RNA of infantile fibrosarcoma/cellular congenital mesoblastic nephroma in paraffin-embedded tissue: application to challenging pediatric renal stromal tumors. Mod Pathol 2000; 13(1):29–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Church AJ, Calicchio ML, Nardi V, et al. Recurrent EML4-NTRK3 fusions in infantile fibrosarcoma and congenital mesoblastic nephroma suggest a revised testing strategy. Mod Pathol 2018; 31(3):463–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Antonescu CR, Dickson BC, Swanson D, et al. Spindle Cell Tumors With RET Gene Fusions Exhibit a Morphologic Spectrum Akin to Tumors With NTRK Gene Fusions. Am J Surg Pathol 2019; 43(10):1384–1391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Misove A, Vicha A, Zapotocky M, et al. An unusual fusion gene EML4-ALK in a patient with congenital mesoblastic nephroma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2021; 60(12):837–840. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Davis JL, Lockwood CM, Stohr B, et al. Expanding the Spectrum of Pediatric NTRK-rearranged Mesenchymal Tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 2019; 43(4):435–445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Treece AL. Pediatric Renal Tumors: Updates in the Molecular Era. Surg Pathol Clin 2020; 13(4):695–718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Pettinato G, Manivel JC, Wick MR, et al. Classical and cellular (atypical) congenital mesoblastic nephroma: a clinicopathologic, ultrastructural, immunohistochemical, and flow cytometric study. Hum Pathol 1989; 20(7):682–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Schofield DE, Yunis EJ, Fletcher JA. Chromosome aberrations in mesoblastic nephroma. Am J Pathol 1993; 143(3):714–24. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Vokuhl C, Nourkami-Tutdibi N, Furtwangler R, et al. ETV6-NTRK3 in congenital mesoblastic nephroma: A report of the SIOP/GPOH nephroblastoma study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2018; 65(4). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Anderson J, Gibson S, Sebire NJ. Expression of ETV6-NTRK in classical, cellular and mixed subtypes of congenital mesoblastic nephroma. Histopathology 2006; 48(6):748–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.El Demellawy D, Cundiff CA, Nasr A, et al. Congenital mesoblastic nephroma: a study of 19 cases using immunohistochemistry and ETV6-NTRK3 fusion gene rearrangement. Pathology 2016; 48(1):47–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rubin BP, Chen CJ, Morgan TW, et al. Congenital mesoblastic nephroma t(12;15) is associated with ETV6-NTRK3 gene fusion: cytogenetic and molecular relationship to congenital (infantile) fibrosarcoma. Am J Pathol 1998; 153(5):1451–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lei L, Stohr BA, Berry S, et al. Recurrent EGFR alterations in NTRK3 fusion negative congenital mesoblastic nephroma. Pract Lab Med 2020; 21:e00164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Wegert J, Vokuhl C, Collord G, et al. Recurrent intragenic rearrangements of EGFR and BRAF in soft tissue tumors of infants. Nat Commun 2018; 9(1):2378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Fisher C. Fibromatosis and fibrosarcoma in infancy and childhood. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A(12):2094–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gonzalez-Crussi F, Sotelo-Avila C, Kidd JM. Malignant mesenchymal nephroma of infancy: report of a case with pulmonary metastases. Am J Surg Pathol 1980; 4(2):185–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Steinfeld AD, Crowley CA, O’Shea PA, et al. Recurrent and metastatic mesoblastic nephroma in infancy. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2(8):956–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Heidelberger KP, Ritchey ML, Dauser RC, et al. Congenital mesoblastic nephroma metastatic to the brain. Cancer 1993; 72(8):2499–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Vujanic GM, Delemarre JF, Moeslichan S, et al. Mesoblastic nephroma metastatic to the lungs and heart--another face of this peculiar lesion: case report and review of the literature. Pediatr Pathol 1993; 13(2):143–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Loeb DM, Hill DA, Dome JS. Complete response of recurrent cellular congenital mesoblastic nephroma to chemotherapy. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2002; 24(6):478–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Beckwith JB, Weeks DA. Congenital mesoblastic nephroma. When should we worry? Arch Pathol Lab Med 1986; 110(2):98–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Gormley TS, Skoog SJ, Jones RV, et al. Cellular congenital mesoblastic nephroma: what are the options. J Urol 1989; 142(2 Pt 2):479–83; discussion 489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Bisceglia M, Carosi I, Vairo M, et al. Congenital mesoblastic nephroma: report of a Case with review of the most significant literature. Pathol Res Pract 2000; 196(3):199–204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Furtwaengler R, Reinhard H, Leuschner I, et al. Mesoblastic nephroma--a report from the Gesellschaft fur Padiatrische Onkologie und Hamatologie (GPOH). Cancer 2006; 106(10):2275–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Perlman EJ. Pediatric renal tumors: practical updates for the pathologist. Pediatr Dev Pathol 2005; 8(3):320–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Mullen EA, Chi YY, Hibbitts E, et al. Impact of Surveillance Imaging Modality on Survival After Recurrence in Patients With Favorable-Histology Wilms Tumor: A Report From the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(34):JCO1800076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Loh ML, Ahn P, Perez-Atayde AR, et al. Treatment of infantile fibrosarcoma with chemotherapy and surgery: results from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Children’s Hospital, Boston. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2002; 24(9):722–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.McCahon E, Sorensen PH, Davis JH, et al. Non-resectable congenital tumors with the ETV6-NTRK3 gene fusion are highly responsive to chemotherapy. Med Pediatr Oncol 2003; 40(5):288–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Ferguson WS. Advances in the adjuvant treatment of infantile fibrosarcoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2003; 3(2):185–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Albert CM, Davis JL, Federman N, et al. TRK Fusion Cancers in Children: A Clinical Review and Recommendations for Screening. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37(6):513–524. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Orbach D, Sparber-Sauer M, Laetsch TW, et al. Spotlight on the treatment of infantile fibrosarcoma in the era of neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase inhibitors: International consensus and remaining controversies. Eur J Cancer 2020; 137:183–192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.DuBois SG, Laetsch TW, Federman N, et al. The use of neoadjuvant larotrectinib in the management of children with locally advanced TRK fusion sarcomas. Cancer 2018; 124(21):4241–4247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Nagasubramanian R, Wei J, Gordon P, et al. Infantile Fibrosarcoma With NTRK3-ETV6 Fusion Successfully Treated With the Tropomyosin-Related Kinase Inhibitor LOXO-101. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2016; 63(8):1468–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Bielack SS, Cox MC, Nathrath M, et al. Rapid, complete and sustained tumour response to the TRK inhibitor larotrectinib in an infant with recurrent, chemotherapy-refractory infantile fibrosarcoma carrying the characteristic ETV6-NTRK3 gene fusion. Ann Oncol 2019; 30(Suppl_8):viii31-viii35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Laetsch TW, DuBois SG, Mascarenhas L, et al. Larotrectinib for paediatric solid tumours harbouring NTRK gene fusions: phase 1 results from a multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 study. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19(5):705–714. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
