Advertisement

Imaging in Pediatric Oncology: New Advances and Techniques

  • Daniel A. MorgensternEmail author
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo
  • Mark N. Gaze
Chapter
Part of the Pediatric Oncology book series (PEDIATRICO)

Abstract

The discovery of X-rays by Wilhelm Röntgen in 1895 was translated with remarkable speed into routine clinical practice. Since that time there has been an astonishing expansion in the range and medical use of imaging technologies. The current wide array of available imaging options makes the choice of modality of crucial importance, and, within the field of pediatric oncology, this requires an understanding of likely diagnoses, disease-specific tumor evaluation and staging methods, treatment protocols, and associated potential complications and long-term toxicities. Radiologists therefore have a crucial role within the multidisciplinary team that cares for these complex patients.

Keywords

Staging Toxicity Treatment protocol Multidisciplinary team Interventional Ultrasound Computerized tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Positron emission tomography Nuclear medicine 

References

  1. 1.
    Sweet E. Paediatric radiology in Great Britain and Ireland. In: Kaufmann HJ, Ringertz H, Sweet E, editors. The first 30 years of the ESPR. Berlin: Springer; 1993. p. 1–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomas AM, Banerjee AK. The history of radiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, Kohler B, Jemal A. Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(2):83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, Ries LAG, Melbert DL, O’Leary M, et al. Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15):2625–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steliarova-Foucher E, Colombet M, Ries LAG, Moreno F, Dolya A, Bray F, et al. International incidence of childhood cancer, 2001-10: a population-based registry study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(6):719–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linet MS, Kim KP, Rajaraman P. Children’s exposure to diagnostic medical radiation and cancer risk: epidemiologic and dosimetric considerations. Pediatr Radiol. 2009;39(Suppl 1):S4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Matthay KK, Shulkin B, Ladenstein R, Michon J, Giammarile F, Lewington V, et al. Criteria for evaluation of disease extent by (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scans in neuroblastoma: a report for the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Task Force. Br J Cancer. 2010;102(9):1319–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilson JS, Gains JE, Moroz V, Wheatley K, Gaze MN. A systematic review of 131I-meta iodobenzylguanidine molecular radiotherapy for neuroblastoma. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(4):801–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norman G, Fayter D, Lewis-Light K, Chisholm J, McHugh K, Levine D, et al. An emerging evidence base for PET-CT in the management of childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5(1):e006030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grundy PE, Green DM, Dirks AC, Berendt AE, Breslow NE, Anderson JR, et al. Clinical significance of pulmonary nodules detected by CT and Not CXR in patients treated for favorable histology Wilms tumor on national Wilms tumor studies-4 and -5: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59(4):631–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells CK. The Will Rogers phenomenon. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(25):1604–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brodeur GM, Pritchard J, Berthold F, Carlsen NL, Castel V, Castelberry RP, et al. Revisions of the international criteria for neuroblastoma diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(8):1466–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monclair T, Brodeur GM, Ambros PF, Brisse HJ, Cecchetto G, Holmes K, et al. The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) staging system: an INRG Task Force report. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(2):298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roebuck DJ, Aronson D, Clapuyt P, Czauderna P, de Ville de Goyet J, Gauthier F, et al. 2005 PRETEXT: a revised staging system for primary malignant liver tumours of childhood developed by the SIOPEL group. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(2):123–32. quiz249–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schoot RA, McHugh K, van Rijn RR, Kremer LCM, Chisholm JC, Caron HN, et al. Response assessment in pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma: can response evaluation criteria in solid tumors replace three-dimensional volume assessments? Radiology. 2013;269(3):870–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bagatell R, McHugh K, Naranjo A, Van Ryn C, Kirby C, Brock P, et al. Assessment of primary site response in children with high-risk neuroblastoma: an international multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(7):740–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Warren KE, Vezina G, Poussaint TY, Warmuth-Metz M, Chamberlain MC, Packer RJ, et al. Response assessment in medulloblastoma and leptomeningeal seeding tumors: recommendations from the response assessment in pediatric neuro-oncology committee. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Packer RJ, Gajjar A, Vezina G, Rorke-Adams L, Burger PC, Robertson PL, et al. Phase III study of craniospinal radiation therapy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed average-risk medulloblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(25):4202–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Furth C, Steffen IG, Amthauer H, Ruf J, Misch D, Schönberger S, et al. Early and late therapy response assessment with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in pediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma: analysis of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4385–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matthay KK, Edeline V, Lumbroso J, Tanguy ML, Asselain B, Zucker JM, et al. Correlation of early metastatic response by 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy with overall response and event-free survival in stage IV neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(13):2486–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Owens C, Li BK, Thomas KE, Irwin MS. Surveillance imaging and radiation exposure in the detection of relapsed neuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63(10):1786–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fraum TJ, Ludwig DR, Bashir MR, Fowler KJ. Gadolinium-based contrast agents: a comprehensive risk assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46:338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sinner B, Becke K, Engelhard K. General anaesthetics and the developing brain: an overview. Anaesthesia. 2014;69(9):1009–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Morgenstern
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo
    • 2
  • Mark N. Gaze
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Haematology/OncologyHospital for Sick ChildrenTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Global Pediatric MedicineSt Jude Children’s Research HospitalMemphisUSA
  3. 3.University College London HospitalsNHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
  4. 4.Great Ormond Street Hospitals for ChildrenNHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations