The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Guidelines for Imaging and Staging of Neuroblastic Tumors: Consensus Report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Park, J. R., Bagatell, R., Cohn, S. L., Pearson, A. D., Villablanca, J. G., Berthold, F., Burchill, S., Boubaker, A., McHugh, K., Nuchtern, J. G., et al. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2016.72.0177 · Cited by 365
Self-citationPandit-Taskar, N., Zanzonico, P., Staton, K. D., Carrasquillo, J. A., Reidy-Lagunes, D., Lyashchenko, S., Burnazi, E., Zhang, H., Lewis, J. S., Blasberg, R., et al. (2018) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.193169 · Cited by 136
Pandit-Taskar, N., Zanzonico, P., Hilden, P., Ostrovnaya, I., Carrasquillo, J. A., & Modak, S. (2017) · Clinical Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.1097/rlu.0000000000001752 · Cited by 22
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.