Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 520

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Guidelines for Imaging and Staging of Neuroblastic Tumors: Consensus Report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project

Brisse, Hervé J., McCarville, M. Beth, Granata, Claudio, Krug, K. Barbara, Wootton-Gorges, Sandra L., Kanegawa, Kimio, Giammarile, Francesco, Schmidt, Matthias, Shulkin, Barry L., Matthay, Katherine K., Lewington, Valerie J., Sarnacki, Sabine, Hero, Barbara, Kaneko, Michio, London, Wendy B., Pearson, Andrew D. J., Cohn, Susan L., Monclair, Tom·2011·Radiology

Abstract

Neuroblastoma is an enigmatic disease entity; some tumors disappear spontaneously without any therapy, while others progress with a fatal outcome despite the implementation of maximal modern therapy. However, strong prognostic factors can accurately predict whether children have "good" or "bad" disease at diagnosis, and the clinical stage is currently the most significant and clinically relevant prognostic factor. Therefore, for an individual patient, proper staging is of paramount importance for risk assessment and selection of optimal treatment. In 2009, the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Project proposed a new staging system designed for tumor staging before any treatment, including surgery. Compared with the focus of the International Neuroblastoma Staging System, which is currently the most used, the focus has now shifted from surgicopathologic findings to imaging findings. The new INRG Staging System includes two stages of localized disease, which are dependent on whether image-defined risk factors (IDRFs) are or are not present. IDRFs are features detected with imaging at the time of diagnosis. The present consensus report was written by the INRG Imaging Committee to optimize imaging and staging and reduce interobserver variability. The rationales for using imaging methods (ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and scintigraphy), as well as technical guidelines, are described. Definitions of the terms recommended for assessing IDRFs are provided with examples. It is anticipated that the use of standardized nomenclature will contribute substantially to more uniform staging and thereby facilitate comparisons of clinical trials conducted in different parts of the world.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.11101352

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 520

Metadata

Authors
Brisse, H. J., McCarville, M. B., Granata, C., Krug, K. B., Wootton-Gorges, S. L., Kanegawa, K., Giammarile, F., Schmidt, M., Shulkin, B. L., Matthay, K. K., Lewington, V. J., Sarnacki, S., Hero, B., Kaneko, M., London, W. B., Pearson, A. D. J., Cohn, S. L., & Monclair, T.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2011-10
Volume
261
Issue
1
Pages
243-257
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2158310959
Cited by
520
References
0
FWCI
9.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guidelines for Imaging and Staging of Neuroblastic Tumors: Consensus Report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.11101352
The paper
Brisse, H. J., McCarville, M. B., Granata, C., Krug, K. B., Wootton-Gorges, S. L., Kanegawa, K., Giammarile, F., Schmidt, M., Shulkin, B. L., Matthay, K. K., Lewington, V. J., Sarnacki, S., Hero, B., Kaneko, M., London, W. B., Pearson, A. D. J., Cohn, S. L., & Monclair, T. (2011). Guidelines for Imaging and Staging of Neuroblastic Tumors: Consensus Report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101352

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.