Neuroblastoma: validation of the INRG classification system in a small series

  • E. Ramos ElbalEmail author
  • A. M. Galera Miñarro
  • M. E. Llinares Riestra
  • M. Bermúdez Cortés
  • J. L. Fuster Soler
Brief Research Article



In 2009, the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) published a new classification system of the childhood neuroblastic tumors. In this work, we present the results of the application of this new classification system in our patients.


We conducted a retrospective analysis of the patients diagnosed with a neuroblastic tumor in our center in the last 20 years. We classified them according to the new classification and performed a survival analysis based on the Kaplan–Meier method and Mantel–Cox test.


The five-year event-free survival (5-year EFS) was 95.8, 80.8, 50 and 45.9% for the very low, low, intermediate and high-risk groups. Mantel–Cox test showed statistically significant differences between these risk groups (p = 0.002).


The 5-year EFS for the different risk groups was similar to the expected by the INRG. Therefore, this classification allows us to predict the evolution of this tumor and apply the correct intensity of treatment.


Neuroblastoma Classification Tumor staging Prognosis 



We would like to acknowledge the Asociación Pablo Ugarte for its support for pediatric oncology research in Spain.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Maris JM, Hogarty MD, Bagatell R, Cohn SL. Neuroblastoma. Lancet. 2007;369:2106–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brodeur GM. Neuroblastoma: biological insights into a clinical enigma. Nat RevCancer. 2003;3(3):203–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Torbert VP, Matthay KK. Neuroblastoma: clinical and biological approach to risk stratification and treatment. Cell Tissue Res. 2018;372(2):195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pinto NR, Applebaum MA, Volchenboum SL, Matthay K, London WB, Ambros PF, et al. Advances in risk classification and treatment strategies for neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(27):3008–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brodeur GM, Seeger RC, Barrett A, Berthold F, Castleberry RP, D’Angio G, et al. International criteria for diagnosis, staging, and response to treatment in patients with neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6(12):1874–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    Cohn SL, Pearson ADJ, London WB, Monclair T, Ambros PF, Brodeur GM, et al. The International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) staging system: an INRG Task Force report. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(2):289–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Monclair T, Brodeur GM, Ambros PF, Brisse HJ, Ceccheto G, Holmes K, et al. The International Neuroblastoma risk Group (INRG) staging system: an INRG Task Force Report.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Federación de Sociedades Españolas de Oncología (FESEO) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la ArrixacaMurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations