Childhood Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Types of Pleuropulmonary Blastoma

Pleuropulmonary blastoma is a rare and highly aggressive pulmonary malignancy that can present as a pulmonary or pleural mass. In most cases, pleuropulmonary blastoma is associated with germline pathogenic variants of the DICER1 gene. The International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry is a valuable resource for information about this rare malignancy.[1,2]

The following subtypes of pleuropulmonary blastoma have been identified:

Type I

Type I pleuropulmonary blastoma is a purely lung cystic neoplasm with subtle malignant changes that typically occurs in the first 2 years of life. Patients have a good prognosis. The median age at diagnosis for Type I tumors is 7 months,[3] and there is a slight male predominance. Transition from Type I to Type III occurs. However, a significant proportion of Type I lesions may not progress to Type II and Type III tumors.[2,4]

Histologically, these tumors appear as a multilocular cyst with variable numbers of primitive mesenchymal cells beneath a benign epithelial surface. Skeletal differentiation occurs in one-half of the cases.[4] This form of disease can be clinically and pathologically deceptive because of its resemblance to some developmental lung cysts, with over 10% discordance between local and central pathology review.[3]

Type Ir

Type Ir was originally recognized in older siblings of patients with pleuropulmonary blastoma but can also be seen in very young children. A lung cyst in an older individual with a DICER1 variant or in a relative of a patient with pleuropulmonary blastoma is most likely to be Type Ir.[2] This is a purely cystic tumor that lacks a primitive cell component. The r designation signifies regression or nonprogression. In the National Cancer Institute Natural History of DICER1 Syndrome study and the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry, people with germline DICER1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants who did not have computed tomography (CT) scans before age 12 years were screened with chest CT. Cystic lesions were identified in 38% of individuals (42 of 110). Five cysts were resected, four of which were classified as Type Ir. The other cysts were not biopsied to confirm the Type Ir diagnosis.[5]

In the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry, most Type I and Type Ir cysts are unilateral (74%), one-half are unifocal, and 55% are larger than 5 cm. Pneumothorax may be present at diagnosis in up to 30% of Type I and Type Ir pleuropulmonary blastoma cases.[2]

Type II

In the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry, the median age at diagnosis is 35 months, and distant metastases are present at the time of diagnosis in 7% of patients.[2]

Type II exhibits both cystic and solid components. The solid areas have mixed blastomatous and sarcomatous features. Most of the cases exhibit rhabdomyoblasts, and nodules with cartilaginous differentiation are common.[6] Anaplasia is present in up to 60% of the cases.[7]

Type III

In the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry, the median age at diagnosis is 41 months, and distant metastases are present at the time of diagnosis in 10% of patients.[2]

Type III is a purely solid neoplasm, with the blastomatous and sarcomatous elements described for Type II. Anaplasia is present in 70% of patients.[79]

In one report, 15 of 16 pleuropulmonary blastoma tumors were positive for IGF1R expression by immunohistochemistry.[10] Genomic profiling showed amplification of the IGF1R gene in 4 of 16 pleuropulmonary blastoma tumors. All of these gene-amplified tumors were Type III.

The International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry reported on 350 centrally reviewed and confirmed cases of pleuropulmonary blastoma over a 50-year period (see Table 1).[2]

Table 1. Relative Proportions and Features of Pleuropulmonary Blastomaa
  Type I Type Ir Type II Type II/III or III
aAdapted from Messinger et al.[2] and Nelson et al.[3]
Relative proportion of pleuropulmonary blastoma cases 33% 35% 32%
Presence of germline DICER1 pathogenic variant 75% 83% 63% 75%
Median age at diagnosis (months) 7 31 35 41
5-year overall survival rate 98% 100% 71% 53%
References
  1. The International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry. Minneapolis, Minn: Children’s Minnesota. Available online. Last accessed August 23, 2024.
  2. Messinger YH, Stewart DR, Priest JR, et al.: Pleuropulmonary blastoma: a report on 350 central pathology-confirmed pleuropulmonary blastoma cases by the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry. Cancer 121 (2): 276-85, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Nelson AT, Harris AK, Watson D, et al.: Type I and Ir pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB): A report from the International PPB/DICER1 Registry. Cancer 129 (4): 600-613, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Hill DA, Jarzembowski JA, Priest JR, et al.: Type I pleuropulmonary blastoma: pathology and biology study of 51 cases from the international pleuropulmonary blastoma registry. Am J Surg Pathol 32 (2): 282-95, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Nelson AT, Vasta LM, Watson D, et al.: Prevalence of lung cysts in adolescents and adults with a germline DICER1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant: a report from the National Institutes of Health and International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry. Thorax 79 (7): 644-651, 2024. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Priest JR, McDermott MB, Bhatia S, et al.: Pleuropulmonary blastoma: a clinicopathologic study of 50 cases. Cancer 80 (1): 147-61, 1997. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Dehner LP, Messinger YH, Schultz KA, et al.: Pleuropulmonary Blastoma: Evolution of an Entity as an Entry into a Familial Tumor Predisposition Syndrome. Pediatr Dev Pathol 18 (6): 504-11, 2015 Nov-Dec. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Priest JR, Hill DA, Williams GM, et al.: Type I pleuropulmonary blastoma: a report from the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry. J Clin Oncol 24 (27): 4492-8, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Miniati DN, Chintagumpala M, Langston C, et al.: Prenatal presentation and outcome of children with pleuropulmonary blastoma. J Pediatr Surg 41 (1): 66-71, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Vokuhl C, de Leon-Escapini L, Leuschner I: Strong Expression and Amplification of IGF1R in Pleuropulmonary Blastomas. Pediatr Dev Pathol 20 (6): 475-481, 2017 Nov-Dec. [PUBMED Abstract]

Risk Factors and Surveillance

Germline DICER1 Pathogenic Variants

Close to two-thirds of patients with pleuropulmonary blastoma have a germline DICER1 pathogenic variant. Approximately one-third of families of children with pleuropulmonary blastoma manifest a number of dysplastic and/or neoplastic conditions comprising the DICER1 syndrome.[13]

Germline DICER1 pathogenic variants have been associated with the following:[15]

  • Cystic nephroma and Wilms tumor. Up to 10% of patients with pleuropulmonary blastoma may develop cystic nephroma or Wilms tumor, which are the most relevant associated malignancies. These tumors are also more prevalent among family members.[6]
  • Ovarian sex cord–stromal tumors (especially Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor).
  • Multinodular goiter and thyroid carcinoma.[7]
  • Uterine cervix embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma.
  • Nasal chondromesenchymal hamartoma.
  • Renal sarcoma.
  • Pulmonary sequestration.
  • Juvenile intestinal polyps.
  • Ciliary body medulloepithelioma.
  • Medulloblastoma.
  • Pineoblastoma.
  • Pituitary blastoma.
  • Seminoma.

The penetrance of DICER1 germline pathogenic variants associated with each pathological condition is not well understood, but lung cysts, pleuropulmonary blastoma, and thyroid nodules are the most commonly reported manifestations in individuals who have loss-of-function variants.[5] Most associated conditions occur in children younger than 10 years, although ovarian tumors and multinodular goiters are described in children and adults aged up to 30 years.[3,5] A study of 102 individuals with DICER1 germline pathogenic variants revealed a neoplasm risk of 5% by the age of 10 years and 19% by the age of 50 years.[8] Surveillance and screening recommendations have been proposed.[5]

Surveillance

As with other cancer predisposition conditions, before individuals with DICER1 pathogenic variants are screened, factors that must be considered include typical age of onset of each disease, potential benefits of early detection, and risks and availability of screening modalities. A consensus panel convened by the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry has proposed guidelines for surveillance. In addition to imaging-based surveillance, individuals and families can be counseled at each visit regarding potential signs and symptoms of DICER1-associated conditions and undergo appropriate age- and sex-specific preventive screening studies (see Table 2).[5]

Table 2. Potential Signs and Symptoms and Suggested Imaging Surveillance by System for Individuals With Germline DICER1 Pathogenic Variantsa
System Associated Condition Signs/Symptoms to Consider Screening: Clinical and Radiographic
CBME = ciliary body medulloepithelioma; CT = computed tomography; CXR = chest x-ray; ERMS = embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NCMH = nasal chondromesenchymal hamartoma; PPB = pleuropulmonary blastoma; SLCT = Sertoli-Leydig cell tumor; US = ultrasonography.
aAdapted from Schultz et al.[5]
bWhen CT is performed, techniques to minimize radiation exposure should be used. As novel MRI techniques are developed that will eventually allow detection of small cystic lesions, transition to nonradiation containing cross-sectional imaging should be considered.
Central nervous system and head and neck (excluding thyroid) Macrocephaly Pineoblastoma: Headache, emesis, diplopia, decreased ability for upward gaze, altered gait Physical examination
Pineoblastoma Precocious puberty Annual routine dilated ophthalmologic examination (generally unsedated) with visual acuity screening from age 3 years through at least age 10 years
Pituitary blastoma Pituitary blastoma: Cushing syndrome Further testing if clinically indicated
CBME CBME: Decreased visual acuity and leukocoria Recommend urgent MRI for any symptoms of intracranial pathology
NCMH NCMH: Nasal obstruction
Thyroid Multinodular goiter Visible or palpable thyroid nodule(s) Baseline thyroid US by age 8 years, then every 3 years or with symptoms/findings on physical examination
Persistent cervical lymphadenopathy
Differentiated thyroid cancer Hoarseness With anticipated chemotherapy or radiation therapy: Baseline US and then annually for 5 years, decreasing to every 2–3 years if no nodules are detected
Dysphagia
Neck pain
Cough
Lung PPB Tachypnea CXR at birth and every 4–6 months until age 8 years, every 12 months at age 8–12 years; consider a chest CT at age 3–6 monthsb
Lung cysts Cough Toddlers, if initial CT normal: Repeat between age 2.5 and 3 yearsb
Pulmonary blastoma Fever If variant detected at age >12 years, consider baseline CXR or chest CT
Pain
Pneumothorax
Gastrointestinal Small intestine polyps Signs of intestinal obstruction Education regarding symptoms recommended
Renal Wilms tumor Abdominal or flank mass and/or pain Abdominal US every 6 months until age 8 years, then every 12 months until age 12 years
Renal sarcoma
Cystic nephroma Hematuria If variant detected at age >12 years, consider baseline abdominal US
Female reproductive tract SLCT Hirsutism For females beginning at age 8–10 years: Pelvic and abdominal US every 6–12 months at least until age 40 years
Gynandroblastoma Virilization End of interval is undetermined, but current oldest patient with DICER1-associated SLCT was aged 61 years
Cervical ERMS Abdominal distension, pain, or mass Education regarding symptoms strongly recommended
References
  1. Hill DA, Ivanovich J, Priest JR, et al.: DICER1 mutations in familial pleuropulmonary blastoma. Science 325 (5943): 965, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Slade I, Bacchelli C, Davies H, et al.: DICER1 syndrome: clarifying the diagnosis, clinical features and management implications of a pleiotropic tumour predisposition syndrome. J Med Genet 48 (4): 273-8, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Foulkes WD, Bahubeshi A, Hamel N, et al.: Extending the phenotypes associated with DICER1 mutations. Hum Mutat 32 (12): 1381-4, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Schultz KA, Pacheco MC, Yang J, et al.: Ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors, pleuropulmonary blastoma and DICER1 mutations: a report from the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry. Gynecol Oncol 122 (2): 246-50, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Schultz KAP, Williams GM, Kamihara J, et al.: DICER1 and Associated Conditions: Identification of At-risk Individuals and Recommended Surveillance Strategies. Clin Cancer Res 24 (10): 2251-2261, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Boman F, Hill DA, Williams GM, et al.: Familial association of pleuropulmonary blastoma with cystic nephroma and other renal tumors: a report from the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry. J Pediatr 149 (6): 850-854, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Chernock RD, Rivera B, Borrelli N, et al.: Poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma of childhood and adolescence: a distinct entity characterized by DICER1 mutations. Mod Pathol 33 (7): 1264-1274, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Stewart DR, Best AF, Williams GM, et al.: Neoplasm Risk Among Individuals With a Pathogenic Germline Variant in DICER1. J Clin Oncol 37 (8): 668-676, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]

Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation

Presenting symptoms for children with pleuropulmonary blastoma are not specific. They commonly include the following:

  • Respiratory distress.
  • Fever.
  • Chest pain.

The tumor is usually located in the lung periphery, but it may be extrapulmonary with involvement of the heart/great vessels, mediastinum, diaphragm, and/or pleura.[1,2] Tumor embolism is a known risk, and radiographic evaluation of the central circulation is performed to identify potentially fatal embolic complications.[3]

Imaging evaluation may include chest radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and echocardiography. Primary, recurrent, and/or extracranial metastatic pleuropulmonary blastoma presents with an fluorine F 18-fludeoxyglucose–avid lesion on positron emission tomography imaging.[4]

References
  1. Indolfi P, Bisogno G, Casale F, et al.: Prognostic factors in pleuro-pulmonary blastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 48 (3): 318-23, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Bisogno G, Brennan B, Orbach D, et al.: Treatment and prognostic factors in pleuropulmonary blastoma: an EXPeRT report. Eur J Cancer 50 (1): 178-84, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Priest JR, Andic D, Arbuckle S, et al.: Great vessel/cardiac extension and tumor embolism in pleuropulmonary blastoma: a report from the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry. Pediatr Blood Cancer 56 (4): 604-9, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Hagedorn KN, Nelson AT, Towbin AJ, et al.: Assessing the role of positron emission tomography and bone scintigraphy in imaging of pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB): A report from the International PPB/DICER1 Registry. Pediatr Blood Cancer 70 (11): e30628, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]

Prognostic Factors

In a comprehensive analysis of 350 patients reported by the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry, only two prognostic factors were identified: the type of pleuropulmonary blastoma and the presence of metastatic disease at diagnosis.[1] In three additional small cohort series, the ability to perform a complete surgical resection was also identified as a prognostic factor.[24]

The presence of a germline DICER1 pathogenic variant is not a prognostic factor.[1]

A retrospective study analyzed TP53 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in patients with pleuropulmonary blastoma.[5] A total of 143 cases were included in the study, with the following distribution of pleuropulmonary blastoma types: Type I, 23%; Type Ir, 14%; Type II, 32%; and Type III, 31%. TP53 expression was determined by IHC and grouped as follows: 0%, 1% to 25%, 26% to 75%, and 76% to 100%. All Type I pleuropulmonary blastomas showed TP53 expressions of 0% to 25%, compared with Type III pleuropulmonary blastomas, which had higher TP53 expressions (>25%) (P < .0001). High TP53 expression (staining observed in >25% of the tumor cells) was significantly associated with age older than 1 year (P = .0033), neoadjuvant therapy (P = .0009), positive resection margin (P = .0008), and anaplasia (P < .0001). TP53 expression was significantly associated with recurrence-free survival (P < .0001) and overall survival (P = .0350). Higher TP53 expression was associated with a worse prognosis. Comparisons of concordance statistics showed no significant difference in prognostication when using morphological types compared with TP53 expression groups (P = .647).[5]

References
  1. Messinger YH, Stewart DR, Priest JR, et al.: Pleuropulmonary blastoma: a report on 350 central pathology-confirmed pleuropulmonary blastoma cases by the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry. Cancer 121 (2): 276-85, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Indolfi P, Bisogno G, Casale F, et al.: Prognostic factors in pleuro-pulmonary blastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 48 (3): 318-23, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Bisogno G, Brennan B, Orbach D, et al.: Treatment and prognostic factors in pleuropulmonary blastoma: an EXPeRT report. Eur J Cancer 50 (1): 178-84, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Sparber-Sauer M, Seitz G, Kirsch S, et al.: The impact of local control in the treatment of type II/III pleuropulmonary blastoma. Experience of the Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS). J Surg Oncol 115 (2): 164-172, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. González IA, Mallinger P, Watson D, et al.: Expression of p53 is significantly associated with recurrence-free survival and overall survival in pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB): a report from the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry. Mod Pathol 34 (6): 1104-1115, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment of Childhood Pleuropulmonary Blastoma

There are no standard treatment options for childhood pleuropulmonary blastoma. Current treatment regimens for these rare tumors have been informed by consensus opinion. The European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors within the PARTNER project (Paediatric Rare Tumours Network–European Registry) published comprehensive recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of pleuropulmonary blastoma in children and adolescents.[1]

Treatment options for childhood pleuropulmonary blastoma include the following:

  1. Surgery.
  2. Adjuvant chemotherapy.

A complete surgical resection is required for cure.[2]

Data from the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry and the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy may reduce the risk of recurrence.[3]; [4][Level of evidence C1] Responses to chemotherapy have been reported with agents similar to those used for the treatment of rhabdomyosarcoma.[35]

Some general treatment considerations from the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry, according to subtype, are discussed below.[3,6]

Type I and Type Ir

Surgery is the treatment of choice for patients with Type I and Type Ir pleuropulmonary blastoma. In the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry series, the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 90% and 98%, respectively, for Type I, and 96% and 100%, respectively, for Type Ir. Approximately 10% of cases progressed to Type II or Type III after surgery. However, adjuvant chemotherapy has been used in almost 40% of patients with Type I disease, and it may be useful for patients at increased risk of recurrence or progression.[3,4,7]

The International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry reported that between 2006 and 2022, there were 205 children who had centrally reviewed Type I or Type Ir pleuropulmonary blastoma. Of these children, 39% with Type I and 5% with Type Ir received chemotherapy.[7]

  • Patient outcomes were favorable, although 11 children (9 with Type I and 2 with Type Ir) experienced progression to Type II or III (n = 8) or regrowth of Type I at the surgical site (n = 3). None of these 11 children received chemotherapy before progression.
  • The combination of age and cyst size was more useful than either factor alone in predicting whether a particular lesion was Type I or Type Ir.

Type II and Type III

For patients with Type II and Type III pleuropulmonary blastoma, a multimodal sarcoma treatment approach is recommended. This approach usually includes rhabdomyosarcoma regimens and either upfront or delayed surgery.[3,4,8] Anthracycline-containing regimens appear to be the most effective.[4]

In the Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry series, the 5-year DFS and OS rates were 59% and 71%, respectively, for Type II, and 37% and 53%, respectively, for Type III.[3] In this group of patients, approximately 50% of relapses occurred in the brain.[3]

The International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry reported the outcomes of children with Type II and Type III pleuropulmonary blastoma whose first treatment was ifosfamide, vincristine, dactinomycin, and doxorubicin (IVADo). From 1987 to 2021, 314 children with centrally confirmed Type II and Type III pleuropulmonary blastoma who received upfront chemotherapy were enrolled, 132 of whom (75 with Type II and 57 with Type III) received IVADo chemotherapy.[9]

  • Adjusted analyses suggested improved OS for children treated with IVADo, compared with historical controls, with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39–1.08).
  • Compared with localized disease, distant metastasis at diagnosis was associated with worse pleuropulmonary blastoma event-free survival and OS, with HRs of 4.23 (95% CI, 2.42–7.38) and 4.69 (95% CI, 2.50–8.80), respectively.

The role of radiation therapy is not well defined. While the use of radiation did not impact survival in the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry series, only 20% of patients with Type II and Type III received it.[3]

References
  1. Bisogno G, Sarnacki S, Stachowicz-Stencel T, et al.: Pleuropulmonary blastoma in children and adolescents: The EXPeRT/PARTNER diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations. Pediatr Blood Cancer 68 (Suppl 4): e29045, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Indolfi P, Bisogno G, Casale F, et al.: Prognostic factors in pleuro-pulmonary blastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 48 (3): 318-23, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Messinger YH, Stewart DR, Priest JR, et al.: Pleuropulmonary blastoma: a report on 350 central pathology-confirmed pleuropulmonary blastoma cases by the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Registry. Cancer 121 (2): 276-85, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Bisogno G, Brennan B, Orbach D, et al.: Treatment and prognostic factors in pleuropulmonary blastoma: an EXPeRT report. Eur J Cancer 50 (1): 178-84, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Venkatramani R, Malogolowkin MH, Wang L, et al.: Pleuropulmonary blastoma: a single-institution experience. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 34 (5): e182-5, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. The International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry. Minneapolis, Minn: Children’s Minnesota. Available online. Last accessed August 23, 2024.
  7. Nelson AT, Harris AK, Watson D, et al.: Type I and Ir pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB): A report from the International PPB/DICER1 Registry. Cancer 129 (4): 600-613, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Sparber-Sauer M, Seitz G, Kirsch S, et al.: The impact of local control in the treatment of type II/III pleuropulmonary blastoma. Experience of the Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS). J Surg Oncol 115 (2): 164-172, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Schultz KAP, Harris AK, Nelson AT, et al.: Outcomes for Children With Type II and Type III Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Following Chemotherapy: A Report From the International PPB/DICER1 Registry. J Clin Oncol 41 (4): 778-789, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment of Progressive or Recurrent Pleuropulmonary Blastoma

A retrospective review included 35 children with Type II or Type III pleuropulmonary blastoma and progressive or recurrent disease who were registered in national and European databases and trials (2000–2018).[1] Patients had a median age of 3.9 years (range, 0.5–17.8 years).

  • The median time to progression was 0.58 years (range, 0.02–1.27 years) from diagnosis despite surgery, chemotherapy (n = 9), and radiation therapy (n = 1). All of these patients died.
  • Patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease at a median age of 4.3 years (range, 1.7–15.1 years) and had a median delay to relapse of 1.03 years (range, 0.03–2.95 years).
  • Recurrent disease occurred locally (n = 12), in combined sites (locally and metastatic) (n = 1), and in metastatic sites (n = 13), including the central nervous system (n = 11) and unspecified sites (n = 2).
  • The 5-year event-free survival rate and overall survival (OS) rates for patients with recurrent disease were both 37% (± 19%; 95% confidence interval).
  • Local therapy (surgery and radiation therapy) had a favorable impact on OS (P = .03 and .02, respectively).
References
  1. Sparber-Sauer M, Tagarelli A, Seitz G, et al.: Children with progressive and relapsed pleuropulmonary blastoma: A European collaborative analysis. Pediatr Blood Cancer 68 (12): e29268, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood Pleuropulmonary Blastoma

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

Information about these tumors may also be found in sources relevant to adults with cancer.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Latest Updates to This Summary (04/03/2025)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

Types of Pleuropulmonary Blastoma

Added text to state that in the National Cancer Institute Natural History of DICER1 Syndrome study and the International Pleuropulmonary Blastoma/DICER1 Registry, people with germline DICER1 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants who did not have computed tomography (CT) scans before age 12 years were screened with chest CT. Cystic lesions were identified in 38% of individuals. Five cysts were resected, four of which were classified as Type Ir. The other cysts were not biopsied to confirm the Type Ir diagnosis (cited Nelson et al. as reference 5).

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood pleuropulmonary blastoma. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Pleuropulmonary Blastoma Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/lung/hp/child-pleuropulmonary-blastoma-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 31593396]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood Esophageal Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Esophageal Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Histology, Risk Factors, Symptoms, and Diagnosis

Esophageal cancer is rare in children and adolescents, although it is relatively common in older adults.[1,2]

Most of these tumors are squamous cell carcinomas, although sarcomas can also arise in the esophagus. The most common benign tumor is leiomyoma.

Risk factors include caustic ingestion, gastroesophageal reflux, and Barrett esophagus.[2]

Symptoms are related to difficulty in swallowing and associated weight loss. Diagnosis is made by histological examination of biopsy tissue.

Prognosis is generally poor for children with esophageal cancer.

References
  1. Gangopadhyay AN, Mohanty PK, Gopal SC, et al.: Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus in an 8-year-old boy. J Pediatr Surg 32 (8): 1259-60, 1997. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Issaivanan M, Redner A, Weinstein T, et al.: Esophageal carcinoma in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 34 (1): 63-7, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment of Childhood Esophageal Cancer

Treatment options for childhood esophageal carcinoma include the following:[1]

  1. External-beam intracavitary radiation therapy.
  2. Chemotherapy (agents commonly used to treat carcinomas, such as platinum derivatives, paclitaxel, and etoposide).
  3. Surgery.

Esophageal cancer in children can rarely be completely resected.

For more information, see Esophageal Cancer Treatment.

References
  1. Issaivanan M, Redner A, Weinstein T, et al.: Esophageal carcinoma in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 34 (1): 63-7, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood Esophageal Cancer

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

Information about these tumors may also be found in sources relevant to adults with cancer, such as Esophageal Cancer Treatment.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Latest Updates to This Summary (08/13/2024)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

This summary was comprehensively reviewed.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood esophageal cancer. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Esophageal Cancer Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Alberto S. Pappo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Esophageal Cancer Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/esophageal/hp/child-esophageal-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 31593387]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood Pulmonary Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumors Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Pulmonary Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumors Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Incidence and Histology

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (IMTs) occur throughout the body, but the lungs are the most commonly involved organs. IMTs are one of the most frequent lung tumors in children, accounting for between 16% and 38% of cases in various series.[13]

The biology of IMT is variable, with the potential for local recurrences and rare distant metastases.[4] The ALK locus (located on chromosome 2p23) is rearranged in approximately 50% of IMT cases. ALK rearrangements can involve various different genes.[5,6] Other potentially targetable fusions have been reported in a smaller fraction of IMTs, including ROS1, NTRK3, RET, and PDGFRB fusions.[6,7]

References
  1. Yu DC, Grabowski MJ, Kozakewich HP, et al.: Primary lung tumors in children and adolescents: a 90-year experience. J Pediatr Surg 45 (6): 1090-5, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Weldon CB, Shamberger RC: Pediatric pulmonary tumors: primary and metastatic. Semin Pediatr Surg 17 (1): 17-29, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Siemion K, Reszec-Gielazyn J, Kisluk J, et al.: What do we know about inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors? – A systematic review. Adv Med Sci 67 (1): 129-138, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Lichtenberger JP, Biko DM, Carter BW, et al.: Primary Lung Tumors in Children: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation From the Radiologic Pathology Archives. Radiographics 38 (7): 2151-2172, 2018 Nov-Dec. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Coffin CM, Hornick JL, Fletcher CD: Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor: comparison of clinicopathologic, histologic, and immunohistochemical features including ALK expression in atypical and aggressive cases. Am J Surg Pathol 31 (4): 509-20, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Lovly CM, Gupta A, Lipson D, et al.: Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors harbor multiple potentially actionable kinase fusions. Cancer Discov 4 (8): 889-95, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Antonescu CR, Suurmeijer AJ, Zhang L, et al.: Molecular characterization of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors with frequent ALK and ROS1 gene fusions and rare novel RET rearrangement. Am J Surg Pathol 39 (7): 957-67, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]

Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Evaluation

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (IMTs) present with a large, peripherally located lobulated mass with a lower lobe predominance. Chest wall, vascular, and mediastinal invasion may be seen. Calcification is occasionally present. Enhancement is heterogeneous on contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Magnetic resonance imaging findings are variable, but IMTs may be isointense relative to skeletal muscle.

Treatment of Childhood Pulmonary Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumors

Treatment options for pulmonary inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (IMTs) include the following:[13]

Surgery

If possible, surgical resection is the treatment of choice. Patients with completely resected tumors have an excellent prognosis.

Targeted Therapy

Patients with unresectable or recurrent tumors may respond to crizotinib if the ALK variant is present and crizotinib administration is followed by complete or incomplete resection. Treatment with ceritinib and entrectinib have also produced objective responses.

Evidence (targeted therapy):

  1. Crizotinib.
    1. One study included 14 patients with IMTs who were treated with crizotinib.[4][Level of evidence C3]
      • Five patients had complete responses, seven patients had partial responses, and the remaining two patients had stable disease.
      • No patients experienced a relapse when this article was published.
    2. An extensive review confirmed that crizotinib was effective in children who had IMTs (with various tumor sites).[5]

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved crizotinib for use in patients aged 1 year and older with unresectable, recurrent, or refractory ALK-positive IMTs.

  2. Ceritinib. In a multicenter phase I study, seven of ten patients with IMTs had objective responses to ceritinib.[6]
  3. Entrectinib. In a phase I/II study of entrectinib, two patients with IMTs and ALK fusions experienced a complete response and a partial response, respectively.[7]
  4. Alectinib. A case report described the successful treatment of a patient with an IMT and a FN1::ALK gene fusion using alectinib, a second-generation ALK inhibitor.[8]

A retrospective, international, multicenter study analyzed patients younger than 21 years with ROS1-altered IMTs who were enrolled in either the European paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) NRSTS-2005 study or the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Registry. Primary surgery was recommended if a microscopic radical resection without disfigurement was feasible. Of the 19 patients, 12 received neoadjuvant systemic therapy as first-line treatment (high-dose steroids, n = 2; vinorelbine/vinblastine with methotrexate, n = 6; ROS1 inhibitors, n = 8). With a median follow-up of 2.8 years, seven patients had an event. The 3-year event-free survival rate was 41% (95% CI, 11%–71%), and the overall survival rate was 100%. While many patients in this series received crizotinib, the specific ROS1 inhibitor used for each patient was not specified.[9]

For more information about the treatment of this tumor, see the Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor and epithelioid inflammatory myofibroblastic sarcoma section in Childhood Soft Tissue Sarcoma Treatment.

References
  1. Coffin CM, Hornick JL, Fletcher CD: Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor: comparison of clinicopathologic, histologic, and immunohistochemical features including ALK expression in atypical and aggressive cases. Am J Surg Pathol 31 (4): 509-20, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Butrynski JE, D’Adamo DR, Hornick JL, et al.: Crizotinib in ALK-rearranged inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor. N Engl J Med 363 (18): 1727-33, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Chavez C, Hoffman MA: Complete remission of ALK-negative plasma cell granuloma (inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor) of the lung induced by celecoxib: A case report and review of the literature. Oncol Lett 5 (5): 1672-1676, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Mossé YP, Voss SD, Lim MS, et al.: Targeting ALK With Crizotinib in Pediatric Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma and Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor: A Children’s Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 35 (28): 3215-3221, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Nakano K: Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors: recent progress and future of targeted therapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol 53 (10): 885-892, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Fischer M, Moreno L, Ziegler DS, et al.: Ceritinib in paediatric patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive malignancies: an open-label, multicentre, phase 1, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study. Lancet Oncol 22 (12): 1764-1776, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Desai AV, Robinson GW, Gauvain K, et al.: Entrectinib in children and young adults with solid or primary CNS tumors harboring NTRK, ROS1, or ALK aberrations (STARTRK-NG). Neuro Oncol 24 (10): 1776-1789, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Fujiki T, Sakai Y, Ikawa Y, et al.: Pediatric inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the bladder with ALK-FN1 fusion successfully treated by alectinib. Pediatr Blood Cancer 70 (4): e30172, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Schoot RA, Orbach D, Minard Colin V, et al.: Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor With ROS1 Gene Fusions in Children and Young Adolescents. JCO Precis Oncol 7: e2300323, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood Pulmonary Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumors

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Latest Updates to This Summary (12/03/2024)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

Treatment of Childhood Pulmonary Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumors (IMTs)

Added alectinib to the list of targeted therapies used for patients with IMTs. Also added text to state that a case report described the successful treatment of a patient with an IMT and a FN1::ALK gene fusion using alectinib, a second-generation ALK inhibitor (cited Fujiki et al. as reference 8).

Added text about the results of a retrospective, international, multicenter study that analyzed patients younger than 21 years with ROS1-altered IMTs who were enrolled in either the European paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group NRSTS-2005 study or the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Registry (cited Schoot et al. as reference 9).

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood pulmonary inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Pulmonary Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumors Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Pulmonary Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumors Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/lung/hp/child-pulmonary-inflammatory-myofibroblastic-tumor-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 35412727]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood Breast Tumors Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Breast Tumors Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Benign Breast Tumors (Fibroadenoma and Phyllodes)

Incidence and Risk Factors

Benign fibroadenomas are the most common breast tumors seen in children aged 18 years or younger.[1,2] The prevalence of fibroadenoma is 2.2% in females aged 10 to 30 years.[1,2] The incidence increases with age, although girls aged 12 to 16 years tend to have larger lesions than women aged 17 years and older.[3] More than 95% of patients are female. Types of fibroadenoma in children aged 18 years or younger include simple fibroadenoma (70%–90% of cases) and giant juvenile fibroadenoma (0.5%–2% of cases).[2]

Fibroadenomas have been associated with Beckwith-Wiedemann, Maffucci, and Cowden syndromes.[2]

Other benign breast masses include tubular adenomas, benign phyllodes tumors, and benign fibroepithelial neoplasms.[4]

Clinical Presentation

Fibroadenoma usually presents as an asymptomatic mass that can vary in size with a woman’s menstrual cycle. They can cause localized pain or breast asymmetry. They can also be associated with skin ulceration and venous engorgement.[2,4]

Giant juvenile fibroadenomas have been variably defined as any rapidly enlarging encapsulated fibroadenoma with a diameter greater than 5 cm, a weight more than 500 g, or displacement of at least four-fifths of the breast.[2,4]

In one retrospective series of 80 girls aged 12 to 18 years with fibroadenomas, 10% of patients had bilateral disease, and 2.5% of patients had unilateral disease but more than one nodule (multicentric fibroadenoma).[3]

Diagnosis

Fibroadenomas are benign biphasic tumors with epithelial and stromal components that have variable mitotic activity.[3] These tumors can be difficult to distinguish from phyllodes tumors when a tumor sample is obtained using fine needle aspiration or core needle biopsy.

Fine needle aspiration is not considered to be adequate for diagnosis. Indications for core needle biopsy or excision of a suspected fibroadenoma in children and adolescents are not based on evidence. The indications include tumor size at presentation of 2 cm to 5 cm (or larger), tumor enlargement during 2 to 12 months of observation, and multiple breast masses or bilateral breast masses.[2,5]

One single-institution retrospective review conducted between 1999 and 2018 aimed to characterize the breast masses of 70 females aged 19 years or younger with fibroadenomas who underwent excision of masses between 2 cm and 16 cm. Histological evaluation found that 87% of the breast masses were benign, 10% of the masses were benign phyllodes tumors that were aggressive in nature (n = 7), one mass was a malignant phyllodes tumor, and one mass was a metastatic sarcoma.[5]

Pathological examination of the core needle biopsy specimen may underestimate or overestimate the aggressiveness of lesions when compared with what is found on excision in about 13% of patients.[5]

Another single-institution retrospective analysis performed genomic profiling on 44 fibroadenomas and 36 giant fibroadenomas.[6] The giant fibroadenomas were biologically distinct from fibroadenomas of the breast, with overexpression of genes involved in the regulation of cell growth and immune response.

Treatment of Fibroadenoma and Phyllodes Tumors

Treatment options for fibroadenoma include the following:

Observation

Evidence (observation):

  1. A study of 29 patients with presumed fibroadenomas were diagnosed prospectively over a 13-month period via physical examination.[7]
    • Nine presumed fibroadenomas (31%) resolved during the follow-up period of 1 to 12 months, and four presumed fibroadenomas (14%) became smaller.
    • Twelve teenagers underwent ultrasonography and had solid masses. None of these masses resolved after a year of observation. In addition, resection determined that all of these masses were fibroadenomas.

There is no evidence that childhood or adolescent fibroadenomas have carcinomatous potential.

Surgery

Indications for resection include tumor size at presentation of 2 cm to 5 cm (or larger); tumor enlargement during 2 to 12 months of observation; multiple breast masses or bilateral breast masses; and patient, parental, or provider anxiety.[1,2]

Evidence (surgery):

  1. In one series of 39 patients with fibroadenomas who had follow-up after resection, the following was observed:[3]
    • Six patients experienced recurrences between 2 years and 7.5 years (median, 4.9 years) later.
    • Tumor size, mitotic index, and mesenchymal cellularity did not predict recurrences, and all recurrent tumors were benign.

Surgical complications have included breast hypoplasia, acute pain, and chronic pain.[8]

While recurrence is rare, careful follow-up monitoring is important. Recurrent tumors can be resected successfully using conservative techniques.[8]

Treatment options for phyllodes tumors include the following:

Surgery (wide local excision without mastectomy)

Phyllodes tumors can be very large and challenging to treat surgically in women with smaller breasts. Complete excision of the phyllodes tumor with grossly negative margins and a small amount of normal tissue circumferentially is necessary. Radical mastectomy or modified radical mastectomy should be avoided. Lymph node evaluation is not necessary.[9]

Phyllodes tumors present a small risk of recurrence, as they fall into the intermediate-grade sarcoma category. These tumors do not metastasize, but they can recur locally.

References
  1. Jayasinghe Y, Simmons PS: Fibroadenomas in adolescence. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21 (5): 402-6, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Lee M, Soltanian HT: Breast fibroadenomas in adolescents: current perspectives. Adolesc Health Med Ther 6: 159-63, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Sun C, Zhang W, Ma H, et al.: Main Traits of Breast Fibroadenoma Among Adolescent Girls. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 35 (4): 271-276, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. McLaughlin CM, Gonzalez-Hernandez J, Bennett M, et al.: Pediatric breast masses: an argument for observation. J Surg Res 228: 247-252, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Zmora O, Klin B, Iacob C, et al.: Characterizing excised breast masses in children and adolescents-Can a more aggressive pathology be predicted? J Pediatr Surg 55 (10): 2197-2200, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Yin Lee JP, Thomas AJ, Lum SK, et al.: Gene expression profiling of giant fibroadenomas of the breast. Surg Oncol 37: 101536, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Neinstein LS, Atkinson J, Diament M: Prevalence and longitudinal study of breast masses in adolescents. J Adolesc Health 14 (4): 277-81, 1993. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Javed A, Jenkins SM, Labow B, et al.: Intermediate and long-term outcomes of fibroadenoma excision in adolescent and young adult patients. Breast J 25 (1): 91-95, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Valdes EK, Boolbol SK, Cohen JM, et al.: Malignant transformation of a breast fibroadenoma to cystosarcoma phyllodes: case report and review of the literature. Am Surg 71 (4): 348-53, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

Information about these tumors may also be found in sources relevant to adults with cancer, such as Breast Cancer Treatment.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Childhood Breast Cancer

Incidence, Histological Types, and Prognosis

Breast cancer has been reported in both males and females younger than 21 years.[15]; [6][Level of evidence C1]

A review of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database of the National Cancer Institute shows that 75 cases of malignant breast tumors in females aged 19 years or younger were identified from 1973 to 2004.[7]

  • Fifteen percent of these patients had in situ disease, and 85% of patients had invasive disease.
  • Fifty-five percent of the tumors were carcinomas, and 45% of the tumors were sarcomas, most of which were phyllodes tumors.
  • Only three patients in the carcinoma group presented with metastatic disease, while 11 patients (27%) had regionally advanced disease. All patients with sarcomas presented with localized disease.
  • Of the carcinoma patients, 85% underwent surgical resection, and 10% received adjuvant radiation therapy.
  • Of the sarcoma patients, 97% had surgical resection, and 9% received radiation therapy.
  • The 5- and 10-year survival rates for patients with sarcomatous tumors were both 90%.
  • For patients with carcinomas, the 5-year survival rate was 63%, and the 10-year survival rate was 54%.

A National Cancer Database report described 181 cases of breast malignancies in patients aged 21 years and younger.[4]

  • Sixty-five percent of patients had invasive carcinoma, and the remaining patients had sarcoma or malignant phyllodes.
  • Pediatric patients were more likely to have an undifferentiated malignancy, more advanced disease at presentation, and more variable management.
  • Outcomes in children and adult patients were similar.

A subsequent report from the SEER database (1973–2009) discovered 91 girls aged 10 to 20 years with breast cancer.[6][Level of evidence C1]

  • These cancers were predominantly carcinomas (57% invasive, 5.5% in situ) and sarcomas (37%, mostly phyllodes tumors).
  • The mortality rate was 46.6% for patients with regional disease and 18.7% for patients with localized disease.
  • The mortality rates for the patients in this study were higher than the rates for premenopausal and postmenopausal women, although the sample size was small.

While rare, breast cancer in males has also been described. In a review of the National Cancer Database, 677 male adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients were diagnosed with breast cancer between 1998 and 2010.[3]

  • Most of these patients (82%) had invasive disease.
  • Age younger than 25 years and absence of nodal evaluation at the time of surgery were associated with worse outcomes.

Breast tumors may also occur as metastatic deposits from leukemia, rhabdomyosarcoma, other sarcomas, or lymphoma (particularly in patients who are infected with HIV).

Risk Factors

Risk factors for breast cancer in AYA people include the following:

  1. Previous malignancy. A retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database from 1998 to 2010 identified 106,771 patients aged 15 to 39 years with breast cancer.[8] Of these patients, 6,241 (5.8%) had experienced a previous histologically distinct malignancy. Patients with breast cancer as a subsequent neoplasm had a significantly decreased 3-year overall survival rate, compared with patients with breast cancer as a primary malignancy (79% vs. 88.5%, P < .001). Subsequent neoplasm status was identified as an independent risk factor for increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.41–1.77).
  2. Chest irradiation. There is an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer in female survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated with radiation to the chest area. However, breast cancer is also seen in patients who were treated with chest irradiation for any cancer.[913][Level of evidence A2] Carcinomas are more frequent than sarcomas in these patients.

    Mammography with adjunctive breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) starts at age 25 years or 8 years after exposure to radiation therapy (whichever came last). For more information about secondary breast cancers, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Genetic Factors

Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is a prevalent phenotype of breast cancer in AYA patients (aged 15–39 years). HRD influences the efficacy of PARP inhibitor–based therapy and platinum agent–based therapy.[14,15]

An analysis of 46 Japanese AYA patients with breast cancer and two existing breast cancer cohorts of U.S. and European patients identified an HRD-high phenotype that was associated with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, somatic TP53 variants, triple-negative subtype, and higher tumor grade.[14] A model based on three of these factors, excluding germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants, yielded high predictive power of death in cases from these two cohorts without germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variants; the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.92 and 0.90, respectively.

Treatment of Breast Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA)

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among AYA women aged 15 to 39 years, accounting for about 14% of all AYA cancer diagnoses.[16] Breast cancer in this age group has a more aggressive course and worse outcome than in older women. Expression of hormone receptors for estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) on breast cancer in the AYA group is also different from that in older women and correlates with a worse prognosis.[8,17]

In a review of data from the National Cancer Database, AYA patients (aged 15–39 years) had a higher incidence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or HER2-positive (HER2+) cancer than did adult patients (TNBC: 21.2% vs. 13.8%, respectively; HER2+: 26.0% vs. 18.6%, respectively; both P < .001). In addition, patients aged 15 to 29 years had more advanced disease and TNBC or HER2+ disease than did patients aged 30 to 39 years.[18][Level of evidence C1]

Treatment of AYA patients is similar to that of older women. However, unique aspects of management include attention to genetic implications (i.e., familial breast cancer syndromes) and fertility.[19,20]

For more information, see Breast Cancer Treatment and Genetics of Breast and Gynecologic Cancers.

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood and AYA Breast Cancer

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

The following is an example of a national and/or institutional clinical trial that is currently being conducted:

  • NCT05879926 (Testing the Addition of Chemotherapy to the Usual Treatment of Ovarian Function Suppression Plus Hormonal Therapy in Premenopausal Estrogen Receptor (ER)–Positive/HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Patients Who Are At High Risk of Cancer Returning [OFSET Trial]): This phase III trial will determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy added to ovarian function suppression and endocrine therapy improves invasive breast cancer–free survival among premenopausal, early-stage breast cancer patients (aged 18 years and older) with ER-positive, HER2-negative tumors and a 21-gene recurrence score between 16 and 25 (for pN0 patients) or 0 and 25 (for pN1 patients).
References
  1. Rivera-Hueto F, Hevia-Vázquez A, Utrilla-Alcolea JC, et al.: Long-term prognosis of teenagers with breast cancer. Int J Surg Pathol 10 (4): 273-9, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Costa NM, Rodrigues H, Pereira H, et al.: Secretory breast carcinoma–case report and review of the medical literature. Breast 13 (4): 353-5, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Flaherty DC, Bawa R, Burton C, et al.: Breast Cancer in Male Adolescents and Young Adults. Ann Surg Oncol 24 (1): 84-90, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Richards MK, Goldin AB, Beierle EA, et al.: Breast Malignancies in Children: Presentation, Management, and Survival. Ann Surg Oncol 24 (6): 1482-1491, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Veiga LH, Curtis RE, Morton LM, et al.: Association of Breast Cancer Risk After Childhood Cancer With Radiation Dose to the Breast and Anthracycline Use: A Report From the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. JAMA Pediatr 173 (12): 1171-1179, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Murthy V, Pawar S, Chamberlain RS: Disease Severity, Presentation, and Clinical Outcomes Among Adolescents With Malignant Breast Neoplasms: A 20-Year Population-Based Outcomes Study From the SEER Database (1973-2009). Clin Breast Cancer 17 (5): 392-398, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gutierrez JC, Housri N, Koniaris LG, et al.: Malignant breast cancer in children: a review of 75 patients. J Surg Res 147 (2): 182-8, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Sadler C, Goldfarb M: Comparison of primary and secondary breast cancers in adolescents and young adults. Cancer 121 (8): 1295-302, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Kaste SC, Hudson MM, Jones DJ, et al.: Breast masses in women treated for childhood cancer: incidence and screening guidelines. Cancer 82 (4): 784-92, 1998. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Metayer C, Lynch CF, Clarke EA, et al.: Second cancers among long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s disease diagnosed in childhood and adolescence. J Clin Oncol 18 (12): 2435-43, 2000. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Swerdlow AJ, Barber JA, Hudson GV, et al.: Risk of second malignancy after Hodgkin’s disease in a collaborative British cohort: the relation to age at treatment. J Clin Oncol 18 (3): 498-509, 2000. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. van Leeuwen FE, Klokman WJ, Veer MB, et al.: Long-term risk of second malignancy in survivors of Hodgkin’s disease treated during adolescence or young adulthood. J Clin Oncol 18 (3): 487-97, 2000. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Henderson TO, Amsterdam A, Bhatia S, et al.: Systematic review: surveillance for breast cancer in women treated with chest radiation for childhood, adolescent, or young adult cancer. Ann Intern Med 152 (7): 444-55; W144-54, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Watanabe T, Honda T, Totsuka H, et al.: Simple prediction model for homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancers in adolescents and young adults. Breast Cancer Res Treat 182 (2): 491-502, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Kataoka A, Tokunaga E, Masuda N, et al.: Clinicopathological features of young patients (<35 years of age) with breast cancer in a Japanese Breast Cancer Society supported study. Breast Cancer 21 (6): 643-50, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Keegan TH, DeRouen MC, Press DJ, et al.: Occurrence of breast cancer subtypes in adolescent and young adult women. Breast Cancer Res 14 (2): R55, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Anders CK, Hsu DS, Broadwater G, et al.: Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression. J Clin Oncol 26 (20): 3324-30, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Murphy BL, Day CN, Hoskin TL, et al.: Adolescents and Young Adults with Breast Cancer have More Aggressive Disease and Treatment Than Patients in Their Forties. Ann Surg Oncol 26 (12): 3920-3930, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  19. Gabriel CA, Domchek SM: Breast cancer in young women. Breast Cancer Res 12 (5): 212, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  20. Tichy JR, Lim E, Anders CK: Breast cancer in adolescents and young adults: a review with a focus on biology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11 (9): 1060-9, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]

Latest Updates to This Summary (09/11/2024)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

This summary was comprehensively reviewed.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood breast tumors. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Breast Tumors Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Alberto S. Pappo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Breast Tumors Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/breast/hp/child-breast-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 31593386]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood NUT Carcinoma Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood NUT Carcinoma Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Clinical Presentation

Childhood nuclear protein of the testis (NUT) carcinomas (also known as midline tract carcinomas) arise in midline epithelial structures, typically the mediastinum and upper aerodigestive tract. These tumors present as very aggressive, undifferentiated carcinomas, with or without squamous differentiation.[1,2]

Although the original description of this neoplasm was reported in children and young adults, individuals of all ages can be affected.[3] A retrospective series with clinicopathological correlation of 54 patients found that the median age at diagnosis was 16 years (range, 0.1–78 years).[4] One study identified 11 patients younger than 18 years with NUT carcinoma in a German registry.[5] The median age was 13.2 years (range, 6.6–17.8 years). Thoracic and mediastinal tumors were found to be the primary site in six patients, head and neck tumors were the primary site in four patients, and one patient had a multifocal tumor with an unknown primary. All patients presented with regional lymph node involvement, and eight patients (72.7%) had distant metastases. Despite treatment with multiple therapies, the median event-free survival was 1.5 months, and the overall survival was 6.5 months.

References
  1. French CA, Kutok JL, Faquin WC, et al.: Midline carcinoma of children and young adults with NUT rearrangement. J Clin Oncol 22 (20): 4135-9, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Chau NG, Hurwitz S, Mitchell CM, et al.: Intensive treatment and survival outcomes in NUT midline carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer 122 (23): 3632-3640, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. French CA: NUT midline carcinoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 203 (1): 16-20, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Bauer DE, Mitchell CM, Strait KM, et al.: Clinicopathologic features and long-term outcomes of NUT midline carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 18 (20): 5773-9, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Flaadt T, Wild H, Abele M, et al.: NUT carcinoma in pediatric patients: Characteristics, therapeutic regimens, and outcomes of 11 cases registered with the German Registry for Rare Pediatric Tumors (STEP). Pediatr Blood Cancer 71 (3): e30821, 2024. [PUBMED Abstract]

Molecular Features

NUT carcinoma is a very rare and aggressive malignancy that is genetically defined by rearrangements of the NUTM1 gene. In most cases (75%), the NUTM1 gene on chromosome 15q14 is fused with the BRD4 gene on chromosome 19p13, creating chimeric genes that encode BRD4::NUT fusion proteins. In the remaining cases, NUTM1 is fused to other partners, most commonly BRD3 on chromosome 9q34 or NSD3 on chromosome 8p11.[1]

References
  1. French CA, Rahman S, Walsh EM, et al.: NSD3-NUT fusion oncoprotein in NUT midline carcinoma: implications for a novel oncogenic mechanism. Cancer Discov 4 (8): 928-41, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]

Prognosis

The outcomes of patients with NUT carcinomas are very poor, with a median survival of less than 1 year. Preliminary studies suggested that patients with NUT carcinomas without the typical BRD4::NUTM1 fusion gene may have a better prognosis than patients with other NUT carcinomas.[1,2] A retrospective analysis of 124 patients (including 47 patients younger than 18 years) reported that NUT carcinomas could be divided into three risk groups based on the anatomical location and specific NUTM1 fusion partner. The group with the best prognosis (median overall survival, 36.5 months) consisted of 12 patients (9.7%) with nonthoracic primary tumors and NUTM1 fusions with genes other than BRD4.[3]

References
  1. French CA, Kutok JL, Faquin WC, et al.: Midline carcinoma of children and young adults with NUT rearrangement. J Clin Oncol 22 (20): 4135-9, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. French CA: NUT midline carcinoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 203 (1): 16-20, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Chau NG, Ma C, Danga K, et al.: An Anatomical Site and Genetic-Based Prognostic Model for Patients With Nuclear Protein in Testis (NUT) Midline Carcinoma: Analysis of 124 Patients. JNCI Cancer Spectr 4 (2): pkz094, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

Information about these tumors may also be found in sources relevant to adults with cancer.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment of Childhood NUT Carcinoma

Treatment options for childhood NUT carcinoma include the following:

  1. Chemotherapy.
  2. Surgery.
  3. Radiation therapy.

Treatment of childhood NUT carcinoma includes a multimodal approach with systemic chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy. Cisplatin, taxanes, and alkylating agents have been used with some success. While early response to these agents is common, tumor progression occurs early in the course of the disease.[1]; [2][Level of evidence C1]

In a report from the NUT Midline Carcinoma Registry, 40 patients with primary tumors in the head and neck were evaluable. The 2-year overall survival rate was 30%. The three long-term survivors (with survivals of 35, 72, and 78 months) underwent primary gross-total resection and received adjuvant therapy.[3]; [4][Level of evidence C1]

Because of the presence of the BRD4::NUTM1 gene fusion in NUT carcinomas, there has been increased interest in evaluating BET bromodomain inhibitors for adults and children with this malignancy.[5] Unfortunately, activity for this class of agents has been limited in reported clinical trials:

  • In a phase I study of the BET inhibitor molibresib, confirmed objective responses were observed in 2 of the 19 patients who were treated with a daily dose of 60 mg or higher.[6]
  • A subsequent phase II study of molibresib used a daily dose of 75 mg in patients with NUT carcinomas. Only 1 of the 12 patients achieved an objective response, which did not meet the prespecified bar for activity.[7]
  • In a phase I study of the BET inhibitor birabresib, three of the nine patients achieved responses, but only one response lasted longer than 2 months.[8]
References
  1. Lemelle L, Pierron G, Fréneaux P, et al.: NUT carcinoma in children and adults: A multicenter retrospective study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64 (12): , 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Bauer DE, Mitchell CM, Strait KM, et al.: Clinicopathologic features and long-term outcomes of NUT midline carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 18 (20): 5773-9, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Sopfe J, Greffe B, Treece AL: Metastatic NUT Midline Carcinoma Treated With Aggressive Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Radiation, and Resection: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 43 (1): e73-e75, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Chau NG, Hurwitz S, Mitchell CM, et al.: Intensive treatment and survival outcomes in NUT midline carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer 122 (23): 3632-3640, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Pearson AD, DuBois SG, Buenger V, et al.: Bromodomain and extra-terminal inhibitors-A consensus prioritisation after the Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of epigenetic modifiers in children-ACCELERATE. Eur J Cancer 146: 115-124, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Piha-Paul SA, Hann CL, French CA, et al.: Phase 1 Study of Molibresib (GSK525762), a Bromodomain and Extra-Terminal Domain Protein Inhibitor, in NUT Carcinoma and Other Solid Tumors. JNCI Cancer Spectr 4 (2): pkz093, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Cousin S, Blay JY, Garcia IB, et al.: Safety, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and clinical activity of molibresib for the treatment of nuclear protein in testis carcinoma and other cancers: Results of a Phase I/II open-label, dose escalation study. Int J Cancer 150 (6): 993-1006, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Lewin J, Soria JC, Stathis A, et al.: Phase Ib Trial With Birabresib, a Small-Molecule Inhibitor of Bromodomain and Extraterminal Proteins, in Patients With Selected Advanced Solid Tumors. J Clin Oncol 36 (30): 3007-3014, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood NUT Carcinoma

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

The following are examples of national and/or institutional clinical trials that are currently being conducted:

  • NCT05019716 (Testing the Safety and Efficacy of the Addition of A New Anti-cancer Drug, ZEN003694, to Chemotherapy Treatment [Etoposide and Cisplatin] for Adult and Pediatric Patients [Aged 12–17 Years] With NUT Carcinoma): This phase I/II trial will determine the maximum tolerated dose of the BET bromodomain inhibitor ZEN-3694 added to cisplatin and etoposide to treat patients with NUT carcinoma. This trial will also evaluate the efficacy of this treatment regimen.
  • NCT05372640 (Testing the Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of Two Anticancer Drugs, ZEN003694 and Abemaciclib, for Adult and Pediatric Patients [Aged 12–17 years] With Metastatic or Unresectable NUT Carcinoma, Breast Cancer, and Other Solid Tumors): This phase I trial will determine the maximum tolerated dose of the BET bromodomain inhibitor ZEN003694 given with abemaciclib to treat patients with metastatic or unresectable NUT carcinoma, breast cancer, or other solid tumors.

Latest Updates to This Summary (08/07/2024)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

This summary was comprehensively reviewed.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood NUT carcinoma. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood NUT Carcinoma Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Alberto S. Pappo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • D. Williams Parsons, MD, PhD (Texas Children’s Hospital)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood NUT Carcinoma Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/midline/hp-child-midline-tract-carcinoma-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 29337479]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood Laryngeal Tumors Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Laryngeal Tumors Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Laryngeal Cancer

Incidence

Tumors of the larynx are rare. In children, the most common benign vascular laryngeal tumor is subglottic hemangioma.[1] Malignant laryngeal tumors, which are especially rare, may be associated with benign tumors such as polyps and papillomas.[2,3]

Clinical Presentation

Laryngeal tumors may present with the following:

  • Hoarseness.
  • Difficulty swallowing.
  • Stridor.
  • Enlargement of the lymph nodes of the neck.

Histology

A review of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data from 1973 to 2016 identified 23 pediatric patients with laryngeal malignancies. Sixteen of the patients had squamous cell carcinoma. The other identified histologies included small cell carcinoma, mucoepidermoid carcinoma, myxosarcoma, embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma, and synovial sarcoma.[4]

Treatment of Childhood Laryngeal Cancer

Squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx in children is managed by surgery and radiation therapy, as in adults with carcinoma at this site.[4,5] Laser surgery may be the initial treatment used for these lesions. Outcomes of pediatric patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx are similar to those reported for adult patients.[4] For more information about the treatment of laryngeal cancer in adults, see Laryngeal Cancer Treatment.

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood Laryngeal Cancer

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

References
  1. Bitar MA, Moukarbel RV, Zalzal GH: Management of congenital subglottic hemangioma: trends and success over the past 17 years. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132 (2): 226-31, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. McGuirt WF, Little JP: Laryngeal cancer in children and adolescents. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 30 (2): 207-14, 1997. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Bauman NM, Smith RJ: Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Pediatr Clin North Am 43 (6): 1385-401, 1996. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Forsyth AM, Camilon PR, Tracy L, et al.: Pediatric laryngeal tumors and demographics, management, and survival in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 140: 110507, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Siddiqui F, Sarin R, Agarwal JP, et al.: Squamous carcinoma of the larynx and hypopharynx in children: a distinct clinical entity? Med Pediatr Oncol 40 (5): 322-4, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

Information about these tumors may also be found in sources relevant to adults with cancer, such as Laryngeal Cancer Treatment.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Childhood Laryngeal Papillomatosis

Incidence

Respiratory papillomatosis is the most common benign laryngeal tumor in children and is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, most commonly HPV-6 and HPV-11.[1,2] The presence of HPV-11 appears to correlate with a more aggressive clinical course than the presence of HPV-6.[3] An Australian survey of pediatric otorhinolaryngologists documented a decline in the incidence of laryngeal papillomatosis after the introduction of HPV vaccinations for adolescent girls and young women aged 12 to 26 years.[4] In another study of laryngeal papillomatosis in patients younger than 18 years, the incidence decreased from 165 cases in children born between 2004 and 2005 to 36 cases in children born between 2012 and 2013. The HPV vaccine was released in 2006. The authors attributed the decline to the widespread use of the vaccine.[5]

Clinical Presentation

Laryngeal papillomatosis can cause hoarseness because of the formation of wart-like nodules on the vocal cords, which may rarely extend into the lung, producing significant morbidity.[6] Malignant degeneration may occur, with development of laryngeal carcinoma and squamous cell lung cancer, generally reported at rates of 2% to 10% in the pediatric population.[7]

Risk Factors

Exposure to HPV during a vaginal birth appears to be a risk factor for the development of juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. A multi-institutional registry study identified children with juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis from 23 states between 2015 and 2020.[8] Of those children, 88.8% were delivered vaginally. Among 190 mothers, the median age at the time of delivery was 22 years. Of 114 mothers (60.0%) who were age-eligible to receive the HPV vaccine, 16 (14.0%) were vaccinated, 1 (0.9%) of whom was vaccinated before delivery. Of 162 tested biopsy specimens from children undergoing papillomatosis surgery, 157 (96.9%) had detectable HPV. All 157 specimens had a vaccine-preventable HPV type.

Treatment of Childhood Laryngeal Papillomatosis

Primary treatment for papillomatosis is surgical ablation with laser vaporization.[9] Frequent recurrences are common. Lung involvement, although rare, can occur.[6]

Evidence (surgery):

  1. A single-institution retrospective analysis evaluated 121 children with respiratory papillomatosis. The age at initial operation was 4.3 years (±2.9 years), and 47.9% of patients (58 of 121) experienced a recurrence and underwent surgical treatment after the age of 14 years.[10]
    • At follow-up, 5% of the patients (6 of 121) had died, 41.3% of the patients (50 of 121) had been recurrence free for 5 years or longer (cured group), and 53.7% of the patients (65 of 121) experienced a recurrence in the previous 5 years (recurrent group).
    • There were no significant differences in sex, age at initial operation, or adjuvant therapy between the cured and recurrent groups of patients.
    • In the recurrent group, there was a higher incidence of overall operation frequency, aggressive disease, tracheal dissemination of the papilloma, and HPV infection.

If a patient requires more than four surgical procedures per year, other interventions may be necessary. The following therapies are under investigation:

  • Systemic bevacizumab produced good results with minimal toxicity in a report of two patients with aggressive recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.[11] In another report of seven children treated with bevacizumab, continued responses were noted and subsequent surgical debridements were avoided in most patients. Of the seven patients, five did not require surgical debridement after the initiation of bevacizumab. Four of these five patients had previously required between four and ten debridements per year. Follow-up for these patients was between 8 months and 3.5 years. No serious adverse events were reported.[12] In a study of 24 patients with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis, 15 had juvenile-onset disease. Patients were treated with systemic bevacizumab (7.5–10 mg/kg) every 3 to 4 weeks. All patients had a reduction in the number and size of lesions after three doses, excluding one patient who was lost to follow-up. Voice outcomes were improved in 87.5% of patients, as measured by Voice Handicap Index-30 (VHI) or pediatric VHI. No grade 3 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were reported. However, follow-up was limited to a maximum of 14 months after initiation of therapy and 10 months after discontinuation of bevacizumab.[13] In a study of 17 adult patients (12 with juvenile-onset recurrent or refractory respiratory papillomatosis) who received systemic bevacizumab, the number of recurrences and surgeries were significantly reduced compared with previous treatments.[14]
  • Interferon therapy.[15]
  • Immunotherapy with HspE7, a recombinant fusion protein that has shown activity in other HPV-related diseases. A pilot study suggested a marked increase in the amount of time between surgeries.[16]
  • Laser therapy combined with intralesional bevacizumab.[17]
  • Intralesional cidofovir has been studied. However, its effectiveness has not been conclusively demonstrated.[18]
  • Checkpoint inhibitors, such as PD-1 inhibitors, are currently being investigated.[19]
  • Reports with small numbers of patients have documented that in selected cases, the administration of a quadrivalent HPV vaccine was associated with complete remission and an increase in the intersurgical interval.[20,21] In contrast, other reports have not documented a therapeutic effect of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine.[22]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood Laryngeal Papillomatosis

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

References
  1. Fortes HR, von Ranke FM, Escuissato DL, et al.: Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis: A state-of-the-art review. Respir Med 126: 116-121, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Derkay CS, Wiatrak B: Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis: a review. Laryngoscope 118 (7): 1236-47, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Maloney EM, Unger ER, Tucker RA, et al.: Longitudinal measures of human papillomavirus 6 and 11 viral loads and antibody response in children with recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132 (7): 711-5, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Novakovic D, Cheng ATL, Zurynski Y, et al.: A Prospective Study of the Incidence of Juvenile-Onset Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis After Implementation of a National HPV Vaccination Program. J Infect Dis 217 (2): 208-212, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Meites E, Stone L, Amiling R, et al.: Significant Declines in Juvenile-onset Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis Following Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Introduction in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 73 (5): 885-890, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Gélinas JF, Manoukian J, Côté A: Lung involvement in juvenile onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 72 (4): 433-52, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Karatayli-Ozgursoy S, Bishop JA, Hillel A, et al.: Risk Factors for Dysplasia in Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis in an Adult and Pediatric Population. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 125 (3): 235-41, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Amiling R, Meites E, Querec TD, et al.: Juvenile-Onset Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis in the United States, Epidemiology and HPV Types-2015-2020. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 10 (7): 774-781, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Andrus JG, Shapshay SM: Contemporary management of laryngeal papilloma in adults and children. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 39 (1): 135-58, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Xiao Y, Zhang X, Ma L, et al.: Long-term outcomes of juvenile-onset recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Clin Otolaryngol 46 (1): 161-167, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Carnevale C, Ferrán-De la Cierva L, Til-Pérez G, et al.: Safe use of systemic bevacizumab for respiratory recurrent papillomatosis in two children. Laryngoscope 129 (4): 1001-1004, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Ruiz R, Balamuth N, Javia LR, et al.: Systemic Bevacizumab Treatment for Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis: Long-Term Follow-Up. Laryngoscope 132 (10): 2071-2075, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Zhao X, Wang J, Chen Q, et al.: Systemic bevacizumab for treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 281 (4): 1865-1875, 2024. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. So RJ, Rayle C, Joo HH, et al.: Systemic Bevacizumab for Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis: A Single Institution’s Experience. Laryngoscope 134 (7): 3253-3259, 2024. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Avidano MA, Singleton GT: Adjuvant drug strategies in the treatment of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 112 (2): 197-202, 1995. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Derkay CS, Smith RJ, McClay J, et al.: HspE7 treatment of pediatric recurrent respiratory papillomatosis: final results of an open-label trial. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 114 (9): 730-7, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Sidell DR, Nassar M, Cotton RT, et al.: High-dose sublesional bevacizumab (avastin) for pediatric recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 123 (3): 214-21, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Chadha NK, James A: Adjuvant antiviral therapy for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12: CD005053, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  19. Ivancic R, Iqbal H, deSilva B, et al.: Current and future management of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 3 (1): 22-34, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  20. Young DL, Moore MM, Halstead LA: The use of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (gardasil) as adjuvant therapy in the treatment of recurrent respiratory papilloma. J Voice 29 (2): 223-9, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  21. Mészner Z, Jankovics I, Nagy A, et al.: Recurrent laryngeal papillomatosis with oesophageal involvement in a 2 year old boy: successful treatment with the quadrivalent human papillomatosis vaccine. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 79 (2): 262-6, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  22. Katsuta T, Miyaji Y, Offit PA, et al.: Treatment With Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine for Juvenile-Onset Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis: Case Report and Review of the Literature. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc 6 (4): 380-385, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]

Latest Updates to This Summary (02/26/2025)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

This summary was reformatted.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood laryngeal cancer and papillomatosis. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Laryngeal Tumors Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Laryngeal Tumors Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/head-and-neck/hp/child/laryngeal-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 29337477]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood Salivary Gland Tumors Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Salivary Gland Tumors Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Salivary Gland Tumors

Incidence

Salivary gland tumors are rare and account for 0.5% of all malignancies in children and adolescents. After rhabdomyosarcoma, they are the most common tumor in the head and neck.[1,2] Salivary gland tumors may occur after radiation therapy and chemotherapy are given for the treatment of primary leukemia or solid tumors.[3,4]

Clinical Presentation

Most salivary gland neoplasms arise in the parotid gland.[510] About 15% of these tumors arise in the submandibular glands or in the minor salivary glands under the tongue and jaw.[8] These tumors are most frequently benign but may be malignant, especially in young children.[11] In a systematic review of pediatric salivary gland tumors, the median age of patients was 13.3 years, and most tumors occurred in the second decade of life. There is a slight female predominance.[12]

Histology and Molecular Features

The most common malignant salivary gland tumor in children is mucoepidermoid carcinoma, followed by acinic cell carcinoma and adenoid cystic carcinoma. Less common malignancies include rhabdomyosarcoma, adenocarcinoma, and undifferentiated carcinoma.[1,8,10,1315] Mucoepidermoid carcinoma is usually low or intermediate grade, although high-grade tumors do occur. Recurrent CRTC1::MAML2 fusion genes have been detected in pediatric mucoepidermoid carcinomas, reflecting the common chromosome translocation t(11;19)(q21;p13) that is also seen in adults with salivary gland tumors.[16] In one study, 12 of 12 tumors were positive for CRTC1::MAML2 fusion transcripts.[17]

Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma (MASC) of the salivary gland, also called salivary gland secretory carcinoma,[18] is a newly described pathological entity that has been seen in children.[19][Level of evidence C1] In one review, it was estimated that 12% of MASC cases occurred in the pediatric population.[20,21] MASC (salivary gland secretory carcinoma) is characterized by an ETV6::NTRK3 fusion gene.[22]

Metachronous mucoepidermoid carcinomas may occur in association with childhood leukemias and lymphomas.[23] One retrospective study compared 12 pediatric patients with metachronous mucoepidermoid carcinomas secondary to acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and 6 pediatric and young adult patients with primary mucoepidermoid carcinomas. KMT2A rearrangements were detected in pediatric metachronous mucoepidermoid carcinomas, and KMT2A rearrangements were detected in the leukemia that preceded the mucoepidermoid carcinoma in 7 of the 12 patients. The prognosis of patients with concomitant metachronous mucoepidermoid carcinomas and ALL was worse than the prognosis of patients with primary mucoepidermoid carcinomas.

Prognosis

The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate for pediatric patients with salivary gland tumors is approximately 95%.[24] A review of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database identified 284 patients younger than 20 years with tumors of the parotid gland.[25][Level of evidence C1] The OS rate was 96% at 5 years, 95% at 10 years, and 83% at 20 years. Adolescents had higher mortality rates (7.1%) than children younger than 15 years (1.6%; P = .23).

In an international systematic review of primary pediatric salivary gland tumors, there were 2,215 patients with malignant tumors between the ages of 0.3 and 19 years (mean age, 13.3 years). The 5-year OS rate was 93.1%, and the local recurrence rate was 18.1% in patients with malignant neoplasms.[12]

A retrospective multi-institutional survey identified 103 patients younger than 18 years with parotid gland cancer. Mucoepidermoid carcinoma was the most common histology (71 patients).[26][Level of evidence C1] The authors did not report if patients underwent previous therapies. However, they mentioned that 12 of 103 patients had a history of lymphoma. The 10-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate for the entire group was 91%. Presence of intraparotid lymph node metastasis (LNM) was associated with significantly worse event-free survival and OS, as was history of previous therapy for lymphoma. The 10-year RFS rate was 91% for patients without intraparotid LNM and 37% for patients with intraparotid LNM.

Mucoepidermoid carcinoma is the most common type of treatment-related salivary gland tumor. With standard therapy, the 5-year survival rate is about 95% for patients with this tumor.[15,27,28]

A retrospective review identified 57 pediatric patients (aged <18 years) (4.6%) and 1,192 adult patients (95.4%) with acinic cell carcinoma.[29] Clinical LNMs were rare in children (n < 10) and adults (n = 88; 7.4%). Occult LNMs were uncommon in pediatric patients (n < 5) and adult patients (n = 41; 4.6%). The 3-year OS rate was 97.8% for pediatric patients. Adult patients with LNMs had worse 3-year OS rates than those without LNMs (66.0% vs. 96.3%; P < .001).

A retrospective study used the National Cancer Database to identify 72 patients between the ages of 0 and 21 years with adenoid cystic carcinoma of parotid and submandibular glands. The median age was 18 years, and 72.2% of patients were between the ages of 16 and 21 years. All patients had primary surgery. Most of the patients underwent lymph node dissection, and 70.8% of patients received radiation therapy. The 5-year OS rate was 93.2%, and the 10-year OS rate was 85.0%.[30]

Treatment of Childhood Salivary Gland Tumors

The European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors within the PARTNER project (Paediatric Rare Tumours Network – European Registry) has published consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of childhood salivary gland tumors.[31]

Treatment options for childhood salivary gland tumors include the following:

Surgery

Radical surgical removal is the treatment of choice for salivary gland tumors whenever possible, with additional use of radiation therapy for high-grade tumors or tumors that have invasive characteristics such as LNM, positive surgical margins, extracapsular extension, or perineural extension.[24,32,33]; [9][Level of evidence C1] Parotid gland tumors are removed with the aid of neurological monitoring to prevent damage to the facial nerve.

Radiation therapy

In an international systematic review of 2,215 pediatric patients with malignant salivary tumors, 28.9% received surgery and radiation therapy, 1.8% received surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy, and 0.2% received radiation therapy alone.[12] One retrospective study compared proton therapy with conventional radiation therapy and found that proton therapy had a favorable acute toxicity and dosimetric profile.[34] Another retrospective study used brachytherapy with iodine I 125 seeds to treat 24 children with mucoepidermoid carcinoma who had high-risk factors. Seeds were implanted within 4 weeks of surgical resection. With a median follow-up of 7.2 years, the disease-free survival and OS rates were 100%. No severe radiation-associated complications were reported.[35][Level of evidence C2]

Targeted therapy

Objective responses have been observed in all reported patients with recurrent NTRK fusion–positive MASC who were treated with entrectinib or larotrectinib.[36,37] Ten of 11 adolescent or adult patients with TRK fusion–positive salivary gland tumors who were treated with larotrectinib experienced partial or complete responses.[37]

For more information, see Salivary Gland Cancer Treatment.

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood Salivary Gland Tumors

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

References
  1. Sultan I, Rodriguez-Galindo C, Al-Sharabati S, et al.: Salivary gland carcinomas in children and adolescents: a population-based study, with comparison to adult cases. Head Neck 33 (10): 1476-81, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Cesmebasi A, Gabriel A, Niku D, et al.: Pediatric head and neck tumors: an intra-demographic analysis using the SEER* database. Med Sci Monit 20: 2536-42, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Chowdhry AK, McHugh C, Fung C, et al.: Second primary head and neck cancer after Hodgkin lymphoma: a population-based study of 44,879 survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer 121 (9): 1436-45, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Boukheris H, Stovall M, Gilbert ES, et al.: Risk of salivary gland cancer after childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 85 (3): 776-83, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. da Cruz Perez DE, Pires FR, Alves FA, et al.: Salivary gland tumors in children and adolescents: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of fifty-three cases. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 68 (7): 895-902, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Muenscher A, Diegel T, Jaehne M, et al.: Benign and malignant salivary gland diseases in children A retrospective study of 549 cases from the Salivary Gland Registry, Hamburg. Auris Nasus Larynx 36 (3): 326-31, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Fu H, Wang J, Wang L, et al.: Pleomorphic adenoma of the salivary glands in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Surg 47 (4): 715-9, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Galer C, Santillan AA, Chelius D, et al.: Minor salivary gland malignancies in the pediatric population. Head Neck 34 (11): 1648-51, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Thariat J, Vedrine PO, Temam S, et al.: The role of radiation therapy in pediatric mucoepidermoid carcinomas of the salivary glands. J Pediatr 162 (4): 839-43, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Chiaravalli S, Guzzo M, Bisogno G, et al.: Salivary gland carcinomas in children and adolescents: the Italian TREP project experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer 61 (11): 1961-8, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Laikui L, Hongwei L, Hongbing J, et al.: Epithelial salivary gland tumors of children and adolescents in west China population: a clinicopathologic study of 79 cases. J Oral Pathol Med 37 (4): 201-5, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Louredo BVR, Santos-Silva AR, Vargas PA, et al.: Clinicopathological analysis and survival outcomes of primary salivary gland tumors in pediatric patients: A systematic review. J Oral Pathol Med 50 (5): 435-443, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Rahbar R, Grimmer JF, Vargas SO, et al.: Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the parotid gland in children: A 10-year experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132 (4): 375-80, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Kupferman ME, de la Garza GO, Santillan AA, et al.: Outcomes of pediatric patients with malignancies of the major salivary glands. Ann Surg Oncol 17 (12): 3301-7, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Aro K, Leivo I, Mäkitie A: Management of salivary gland malignancies in the pediatric population. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 22 (2): 116-20, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Locati LD, Collini P, Imbimbo M, et al.: Immunohistochemical and molecular profile of salivary gland cancer in children. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64 (9): , 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Techavichit P, Hicks MJ, López-Terrada DH, et al.: Mucoepidermoid Carcinoma in Children: A Single Institutional Experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer 63 (1): 27-31, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Baněčková M, Thompson LDR, Hyrcza MD, et al.: Salivary Gland Secretory Carcinoma: Clinicopathologic and Genetic Characteristics of 215 Cases and Proposal for a Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol 47 (6): 661-677, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  19. Simon CT, McHugh JB, Rabah R, et al.: Secretory Carcinoma in Children and Young Adults: A Case Series. Pediatr Dev Pathol 25 (2): 155-161, 2022 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  20. Ngouajio AL, Drejet SM, Phillips DR, et al.: A systematic review including an additional pediatric case report: Pediatric cases of mammary analogue secretory carcinoma. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 100: 187-193, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  21. Khalele BA: Systematic review of mammary analog secretory carcinoma of salivary glands at 7 years after description. Head Neck 39 (6): 1243-1248, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  22. Skálová A, Vanecek T, Sima R, et al.: Mammary analogue secretory carcinoma of salivary glands, containing the ETV6-NTRK3 fusion gene: a hitherto undescribed salivary gland tumor entity. Am J Surg Pathol 34 (5): 599-608, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  23. Othman BK, Steiner P, Leivo I, et al.: Rearrangement of KMT2A Characterizes a Subset of Pediatric Parotid Mucoepidermoid Carcinomas Arising Metachronous to Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Fetal Pediatr Pathol 42 (5): 796-807, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  24. Rutt AL, Hawkshaw MJ, Lurie D, et al.: Salivary gland cancer in patients younger than 30 years. Ear Nose Throat J 90 (4): 174-84, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  25. Allan BJ, Tashiro J, Diaz S, et al.: Malignant tumors of the parotid gland in children: incidence and outcomes. J Craniofac Surg 24 (5): 1660-4, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  26. Seng D, Fang Q, Liu F, et al.: Intraparotid Lymph Node Metastasis Decreases Survival in Pediatric Patients With Parotid Cancer. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 78 (5): 852.e1-852.e6, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  27. Verma J, Teh BS, Paulino AC: Characteristics and outcome of radiation and chemotherapy-related mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the salivary glands. Pediatr Blood Cancer 57 (7): 1137-41, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  28. Védrine PO, Coffinet L, Temam S, et al.: Mucoepidermoid carcinoma of salivary glands in the pediatric age group: 18 clinical cases, including 11 second malignant neoplasms. Head Neck 28 (9): 827-33, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  29. Dublin JC, Oliver JR, Tam MM, et al.: Nodal Metastases in Pediatric and Adult Acinic Cell Carcinoma of the Major Salivary Glands. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 167 (6): 941-951, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  30. Phillips AL, Li C, Liang J, et al.: Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the parotid and submandibular glands in children and young adults: A population-based study. Pediatr Blood Cancer 71 (5): e30928, 2024. [PUBMED Abstract]
  31. Surun A, Schneider DT, Ferrari A, et al.: Salivary gland carcinoma in children and adolescents: The EXPeRT/PARTNER diagnosis and treatment recommendations. Pediatr Blood Cancer 68 (Suppl 4): e29058, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  32. Ryan JT, El-Naggar AK, Huh W, et al.: Primacy of surgery in the management of mucoepidermoid carcinoma in children. Head Neck 33 (12): 1769-73, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  33. Morse E, Fujiwara RJT, Husain Z, et al.: Pediatric Salivary Cancer: Epidemiology, Treatment Trends, and Association of Treatment Modality with Survival. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 159 (3): 553-563, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  34. Grant SR, Grosshans DR, Bilton SD, et al.: Proton versus conventional radiotherapy for pediatric salivary gland tumors: Acute toxicity and dosimetric characteristics. Radiother Oncol 116 (2): 309-15, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  35. Mao MH, Zheng L, Wang XM, et al.: Surgery combined with postoperative (125) I seed brachytherapy for the treatment of mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the parotid gland in pediatric patients. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64 (1): 57-63, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  36. Drilon A, Siena S, Ou SI, et al.: Safety and Antitumor Activity of the Multitargeted Pan-TRK, ROS1, and ALK Inhibitor Entrectinib: Combined Results from Two Phase I Trials (ALKA-372-001 and STARTRK-1). Cancer Discov 7 (4): 400-409, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  37. Drilon A, Laetsch TW, Kummar S, et al.: Efficacy of Larotrectinib in TRK Fusion-Positive Cancers in Adults and Children. N Engl J Med 378 (8): 731-739, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]

Sialoblastoma

Sialoblastoma is usually a benign tumor presenting in the neonatal period, but it has been reported to present as late as age 15 years. Sialoblastoma rarely metastasizes to the lungs, lymph nodes, or bones.[1]

The main treatment for patients with sialoblastoma is surgical resection. However, it has been suggested that neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be indicated as an alternative to mutilating surgery. Chemotherapy regimens with carboplatin, epirubicin, vincristine, etoposide, dactinomycin, doxorubicin, and ifosfamide have produced responses in two children with sialoblastoma.[2]; [3][Level of evidence C3]

References
  1. Irace AL, Adil EA, Archer NM, et al.: Pediatric sialoblastoma: Evaluation and management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 87: 44-9, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Prigent M, Teissier N, Peuchmaur M, et al.: Sialoblastoma of salivary glands in children: chemotherapy should be discussed as an alternative to mutilating surgery. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 74 (8): 942-5, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Scott JX, Krishnan S, Bourne AJ, et al.: Treatment of metastatic sialoblastoma with chemotherapy and surgery. Pediatr Blood Cancer 50 (1): 134-7, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

Information about these tumors may also be found in sources relevant to adults with cancer, such as Salivary Gland Cancer Treatment.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Latest Updates to This Summary (08/23/2024)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

This summary was comprehensively reviewed.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood salivary gland tumors. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Salivary Gland Tumors Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Alberto S. Pappo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • D. Williams Parsons, MD, PhD (Texas Children’s Hospital)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Salivary Gland Tumors Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/head-and-neck/hp/child/salivary-gland-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 29337478]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood Oral Cavity Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Oral Cavity Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Incidence

More than 90% of tumors and tumor-like lesions in the oral cavity are benign.[14] Oral cavity cancer is extremely rare in children and adolescents.[5,6] According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Stat Fact Sheets, only 0.4% of all cases are diagnosed in patients younger than 20 years. From 2017 to 2021, the age-adjusted incidence rate for this population was 0.2 cases per 100,000.[7]

The incidence of oral cavity and pharynx cancers has increased in adolescent and young adult females. This pattern is consistent with the national increase in orogenital sexual intercourse in younger females and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection.[8] It is currently estimated that the prevalence of oral HPV infection in the United States is 6.9% in people aged 14 to 69 years and that HPV causes about 30,000 oropharyngeal cancers. Furthermore, from 1999 to 2008, the incidence rates for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer increased by 4.4% per year in White men and 1.9% in White women.[911] Current practices to increase HPV immunization rates in both boys and girls may reduce the burden of HPV-related cancers.[12,13] For more information about HPV vaccines and oral cavity cancer prevention, see Oral Cavity, Oropharyngeal, Hypopharyngeal, and Laryngeal Cancers Prevention.

References
  1. Das S, Das AK: A review of pediatric oral biopsies from a surgical pathology service in a dental school. Pediatr Dent 15 (3): 208-11, 1993 May-Jun. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Ulmansky M, Lustmann J, Balkin N: Tumors and tumor-like lesions of the oral cavity and related structures in Israeli children. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28 (4): 291-4, 1999. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Tröbs RB, Mader E, Friedrich T, et al.: Oral tumors and tumor-like lesions in infants and children. Pediatr Surg Int 19 (9-10): 639-45, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Tanaka N, Murata A, Yamaguchi A, et al.: Clinical features and management of oral and maxillofacial tumors in children. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 88 (1): 11-5, 1999. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Young JL, Miller RW: Incidence of malignant tumors in U. S. children. J Pediatr 86 (2): 254-8, 1975. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Berstein L, Gurney JG: Carcinomas and other malignant epithelial neoplasms. In: Ries LA, Smith MA, Gurney JG, et al., eds.: Cancer incidence and survival among children and adolescents: United States SEER Program 1975-1995. National Cancer Institute, SEER Program, 1999. NIH Pub.No. 99-4649, Chapter 11, pp 139-148. Also available online. Last accessed August 23, 2022.
  7. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  8. Bleyer A: Cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx in young females: increasing incidence, role of human papilloma virus, and lack of survival improvement. Semin Oncol 36 (5): 451-9, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. D’Souza G, Dempsey A: The role of HPV in head and neck cancer and review of the HPV vaccine. Prev Med 53 (Suppl 1): S5-S11, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Gillison ML, Broutian T, Pickard RK, et al.: Prevalence of oral HPV infection in the United States, 2009-2010. JAMA 307 (7): 693-703, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Simard EP, Ward EM, Siegel R, et al.: Cancers with increasing incidence trends in the United States: 1999 through 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 62 (2): 118-28, 2012 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Gillison ML, Chaturvedi AK, Lowy DR: HPV prophylactic vaccines and the potential prevention of noncervical cancers in both men and women. Cancer 113 (10 Suppl): 3036-46, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Guo T, Eisele DW, Fakhry C: The potential impact of prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccination on oropharyngeal cancer. Cancer 122 (15): 2313-23, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]

Risk Factors

Acquired conditions and genetic syndromes associated with the development of oral cavity and/or head and neck squamous cell carcinoma include the following:[18]

  • Fanconi anemia.
  • Dyskeratosis congenita.
  • Connexin variants.
  • Chronic graft-versus-host disease.
  • Epidermolysis bullosa.
  • Xeroderma pigmentosum.
  • Human papillomavirus infection.
References
  1. Oksüzoğlu B, Yalçin S: Squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue in a patient with Fanconi’s anemia: a case report and review of the literature. Ann Hematol 81 (5): 294-8, 2002. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Reinhard H, Peters I, Gottschling S, et al.: Squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue in a 13-year-old girl with Fanconi anemia. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 29 (7): 488-91, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Ragin CC, Modugno F, Gollin SM: The epidemiology and risk factors of head and neck cancer: a focus on human papillomavirus. J Dent Res 86 (2): 104-14, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Fine JD, Johnson LB, Weiner M, et al.: Epidermolysis bullosa and the risk of life-threatening cancers: the National EB Registry experience, 1986-2006. J Am Acad Dermatol 60 (2): 203-11, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Kraemer KH, Lee MM, Scotto J: Xeroderma pigmentosum. Cutaneous, ocular, and neurologic abnormalities in 830 published cases. Arch Dermatol 123 (2): 241-50, 1987. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Alter BP: Cancer in Fanconi anemia, 1927-2001. Cancer 97 (2): 425-40, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Mazereeuw-Hautier J, Bitoun E, Chevrant-Breton J, et al.: Keratitis-ichthyosis-deafness syndrome: disease expression and spectrum of connexin 26 (GJB2) mutations in 14 patients. Br J Dermatol 156 (5): 1015-9, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Alter BP, Giri N, Savage SA, et al.: Cancer in dyskeratosis congenita. Blood 113 (26): 6549-57, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]

Histology

Benign odontogenic neoplasms of the oral cavity include odontoma and ameloblastoma. The most common nonodontogenic neoplasms of the oral cavity are fibromas, hemangiomas, vascular malformations, and papillomas. Tumor-like lesions of the oral cavity include granulomas and Langerhans cell histiocytosis.[14] For more information about Langerhans cell histiocytosis of the oral cavity, see the Oral cavity section in Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis Treatment.

Malignant lesions of the oral cavity were found in 0.1% to 2% of a series of oral biopsies performed in children and 3% to 13% of oral tumor biopsies.[37] Malignant tumor types include lymphomas (especially Burkitt), sarcomas (including rhabdomyosarcoma and fibrosarcoma), and oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Mucoepidermoid carcinomas of the oral cavity have also been reported in the pediatric and adolescent age groups.[58]

References
  1. Das S, Das AK: A review of pediatric oral biopsies from a surgical pathology service in a dental school. Pediatr Dent 15 (3): 208-11, 1993 May-Jun. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Ulmansky M, Lustmann J, Balkin N: Tumors and tumor-like lesions of the oral cavity and related structures in Israeli children. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 28 (4): 291-4, 1999. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Tröbs RB, Mader E, Friedrich T, et al.: Oral tumors and tumor-like lesions in infants and children. Pediatr Surg Int 19 (9-10): 639-45, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Tanaka N, Murata A, Yamaguchi A, et al.: Clinical features and management of oral and maxillofacial tumors in children. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 88 (1): 11-5, 1999. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. da Silva Barros CC, da Silva LP, Gonzaga AKG, et al.: Neoplasms and non-neoplastic pathologies in the oral and maxillofacial regions in children and adolescents of a Brazilian population. Clin Oral Investig 23 (4): 1587-1593, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Zhang JL, Liu Y, Shan XF, et al.: Clinical Characterization of Oral and Maxillofacial Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions in Children and Adolescents. J Craniofac Surg 34 (5): 1496-1502, 2023 Jul-Aug 01. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Park SH, Kim H, Song JS, et al.: A 20-year retrospective study of pediatric oral lesion biopsy. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent 48(4): 425-6, 2021. Also available online. Last accessed July 11, 2024.
  8. Perez DE, Pires FR, Alves Fde A, et al.: Juvenile intraoral mucoepidermoid carcinoma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66 (2): 308-11, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]

Prognosis

The prognosis for patients with oral cavity tumors varies based on histology and disease staging.

Review of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database identified 54 patients younger than 20 years with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) between 1973 and 2006. Pediatric patients with oral cavity SCC were more often female and had better survival than adult patients. When differences in patient, tumor, and treatment-related characteristics were adjusted for, the pediatric and adult groups experienced equivalent survival rates.[1][Level of evidence C1] Most tumors have a low or intermediate grade and are often cured with surgery alone.[1]; [2][Level of evidence C1] A retrospective study of the National Cancer Database identified 159 patients younger than 20 years with SCC of the head and neck. Of these tumors, 55% originated in the oral cavity, and patients with laryngeal tumors had a better survival rate than did those who presented with oral cavity primary tumors.[3]

A review of 102 intraoral mucoepidermoid carcinomas identified nine patients younger than 18 years. All patients were treated with surgical resection, and eight patients were disease free after a mean follow-up of 98.4 months. One patient died after developing recurrent disease 15 years after their initial treatment.[2]

References
  1. Morris LG, Ganly I: Outcomes of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma in pediatric patients. Oral Oncol 46 (4): 292-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Perez DE, Pires FR, Alves Fde A, et al.: Juvenile intraoral mucoepidermoid carcinoma. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 66 (2): 308-11, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Modh A, Gayar OH, Elshaikh MA, et al.: Pediatric head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Patient demographics, treatment trends and outcomes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 106: 21-25, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

Information about these tumors may also be found in sources relevant to adults with cancer, such as Lip and Oral Cavity Cancer Treatment.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment of Childhood Oral Cavity Cancer

Treatment options for childhood oral cavity cancer include the following:

  1. Surgery.
  2. Chemotherapy.
  3. Radiation therapy.

The management of malignant tumors of the oral cavity depends on histology.[1] Most patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma and intraoral mucoepidermoid carcinoma who were managed with surgery alone have a good prognosis and do not experience recurrences.[24] For more information, see Lip and Oral Cavity Cancer Treatment.

Langerhans cell histiocytosis of the oral cavity may require treatment in addition to surgery. For more information, see Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis Treatment.

Surgery is the primary treatment modality for benign oral cavity tumors.

References
  1. Sturgis EM, Moore BA, Glisson BS, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the oral tongue in young adults: a case series. Head Neck 27 (9): 748-56, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Woo VL, Kelsch RD, Su L, et al.: Gingival squamous cell carcinoma in adolescence. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 107 (1): 92-9, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Morris LG, Ganly I: Outcomes of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma in pediatric patients. Oral Oncol 46 (4): 292-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Ryan JT, El-Naggar AK, Huh W, et al.: Primacy of surgery in the management of mucoepidermoid carcinoma in children. Head Neck 33 (12): 1769-73, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood Oral Cavity Cancer

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Latest Updates to This Summary (09/16/2024)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

This summary was comprehensively reviewed.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood oral cavity cancer. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Oral Cavity Cancer Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Alberto S. Pappo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Oral Cavity Cancer Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/head-and-neck/hp/child/oral-cavity-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 26389315]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood Esthesioneuroblastoma Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Esthesioneuroblastoma Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Incidence

Esthesioneuroblastoma (also called olfactory neuroblastoma) is a very rare small round cell tumor arising from the nasal neuroepithelium. Less than 10% of cases occur in children and adolescents.[1,2] The estimated incidence of esthesioneuroblastoma is 0.1 cases per 100,000 people per year in children younger than 15 years.[3] In the pediatric population, the median age is 10 years, and there are no gender or racial predilections.[2]

Despite its rarity, esthesioneuroblastoma is the most common cancer of the nasal cavity in pediatric patients, accounting for 28% of cases in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program study.[1]

References
  1. Benoit MM, Bhattacharyya N, Faquin W, et al.: Cancer of the nasal cavity in the pediatric population. Pediatrics 121 (1): e141-5, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Berger MH, Lehrich BM, Yasaka TM, et al.: Characteristics and overall survival in pediatric versus adult esthesioneuroblastoma: A population-based study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 144: 110696, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Bisogno G, Soloni P, Conte M, et al.: Esthesioneuroblastoma in pediatric and adolescent age. A report from the TREP project in cooperation with the Italian Neuroblastoma and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committees. BMC Cancer 12: 117, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]

Anatomy

Figure 1 depicts the areas of the body where esthesioneuroblastoma tumors may form, including the olfactory nerve endings, olfactory bulb, nasal cavity, nasal sinuses, and brain.

EnlargeDrawing shows areas of the body where esthesioneuroblastoma tumors may form, including the olfactory nerve endings, olfactory bulb, nasal cavity, nasal sinuses, and brain.
Figure 1. Esthesioneuroblastomas form in the olfactory nerve endings in the upper part of the nasal cavity. The olfactory nerves (sense of smell) pass through the many tiny holes in the bone at the base of the brain to the olfactory bulb. Esthesioneuroblastomas may spread from the nasal cavity to the nasal sinuses or to nearby tissue. They may also spread to the brain or to other parts of the body (not shown).

Clinical Presentation

Most children present with symptoms that may include the following:[1]

  • Nasal obstruction.
  • Epistaxis.
  • Hyposmia.
  • Exophthalmos.
  • Headaches.
  • Nasopharyngeal mass, which may have local extension into the orbits, sinuses, or frontal lobe.
References
  1. Venkatramani R, Pan H, Furman WL, et al.: Multimodality Treatment of Pediatric Esthesioneuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 63 (3): 465-70, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]

Histology and Molecular Features

Esthesioneuroblastoma can be histologically confused with other small round cell tumors of the nasal cavity, including sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, melanoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma. Esthesioneuroblastoma typically shows diffuse staining with neuron-specific enolase, synaptophysin, and chromogranins, with variable cytokeratin expression.[1]

Nine medical centers obtained 66 samples of olfactory neuroblastoma and tumor samples from other cancers, including alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma and sinonasal adenocarcinoma. The tumor samples were analyzed by genome-wide DNA methylation profiling, copy number analysis, immunohistochemistry, and next-generation panel sequencing. Unsupervised hierarchal clustering analysis of DNA methylation data identified the following four distinct clusters:[2]

  • The largest cluster, which comprised 64% of the samples, had classical histological features of olfactory neuroblastoma. Ten percent of the cases had recurrent DNMT3A and TP53 variants.
  • A second cluster consisted of seven cases with a hypermethylator phenotype and IDH2 variants that clustered with the group of IDH2 sinonasal carcinomas.
  • A small third cluster was characterized by hypermethylation without IDH2 variants. This result suggests that this cluster may represent a subgroup of olfactory neuroblastomas or an undefined sinonasal tumor entity.
  • The fourth cluster represented a heterogenous group of 13 tumors that grouped with other entities such as sinonasal adenocarcinoma, sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma, sinonasal neuroendocrine carcinoma, and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma.

Using this information, the authors developed an algorithm that incorporates methylation analysis to improve the diagnostic accuracy of this entity.[2]

References
  1. Su SY, Bell D, Hanna EY: Esthesioneuroblastoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: differentiation in diagnosis and treatment. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 18 (Suppl 2): S149-56, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Capper D, Engel NW, Stichel D, et al.: DNA methylation-based reclassification of olfactory neuroblastoma. Acta Neuropathol 136 (2): 255-271, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]

Prognostic Factors

Review of multiple case series of mainly adult patients indicates that the following may correlate with adverse prognosis:[13]

  • Higher histopathological grade.
  • Positive surgical margin status.
  • Metastases to the cervical lymph nodes.
References
  1. Dulguerov P, Allal AS, Calcaterra TC: Esthesioneuroblastoma: a meta-analysis and review. Lancet Oncol 2 (11): 683-90, 2001. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Patel SG, Singh B, Stambuk HE, et al.: Craniofacial surgery for esthesioneuroblastoma: report of an international collaborative study. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 73 (3): 208-20, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Herr MW, Sethi RK, Meier JC, et al.: Esthesioneuroblastoma: an update on the massachusetts eye and ear infirmary and massachusetts general hospital experience with craniofacial resection, proton beam radiation, and chemotherapy. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 75 (1): 58-64, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]

Stage Information for Childhood Esthesioneuroblastoma

Tumors are staged according to the Kadish system (see Table 1). Correlated with Kadish stage, survival rates range from 90% (stage A) to less than 40% (stage D). Most patients present with locally advanced–stage disease (Kadish stages B and C). Reports of metastatic disease (Kadish stage D) vary among studies and is described at rates of 20% to 30%.[16]

Reports suggest that positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET-CT) may aid in staging the disease.[7]

Table 1. Kadish Staging System
Stage Description
A Tumor confined to the nasal cavity.
B Tumor extending to the nasal sinuses.
C Tumor extending to the nasal sinuses and beyond.
D Tumor metastases present.
References
  1. Bisogno G, Soloni P, Conte M, et al.: Esthesioneuroblastoma in pediatric and adolescent age. A report from the TREP project in cooperation with the Italian Neuroblastoma and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committees. BMC Cancer 12: 117, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Benoit MM, Bhattacharyya N, Faquin W, et al.: Cancer of the nasal cavity in the pediatric population. Pediatrics 121 (1): e141-5, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Venkatramani R, Pan H, Furman WL, et al.: Multimodality Treatment of Pediatric Esthesioneuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 63 (3): 465-70, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Berger MH, Lehrich BM, Yasaka TM, et al.: Characteristics and overall survival in pediatric versus adult esthesioneuroblastoma: A population-based study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 144: 110696, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Dumont B, Fresneau B, Claude L, et al.: Pattern of loco-regional relapses and treatment in pediatric esthesioneuroblastoma: The French very rare tumors group (Fracture) contribution. Pediatr Blood Cancer 67 (4): e28154, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Safi C, Spielman D, Otten M, et al.: Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Pediatric Esthesioneuroblastoma: A Systematic Review. Front Oncol 10: 1247, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Broski SM, Hunt CH, Johnson GB, et al.: The added value of 18F-FDG PET/CT for evaluation of patients with esthesioneuroblastoma. J Nucl Med 53 (8): 1200-6, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment of Childhood Esthesioneuroblastoma

The use of multimodal therapy optimizes the chances for survival, with more than 70% of children expected to survive 5 or more years after initial diagnosis.[15] Neuromeningeal progression is the most common type of treatment failure.[5,6][Level of evidence C1]

Treatment options according to Kadish stage include the following:[7]

  1. Kadish stage A: Surgery alone with clear margins. Adjuvant radiation therapy is indicated in patients with close and positive margins or with residual disease.
  2. Kadish stage B: Surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy is controversial.
  3. Kadish stage C: Neoadjuvant approach with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or concurrent chemoradiation therapy followed by surgery.
  4. Kadish stage D: Systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy to local and metastatic sites.

The mainstay of treatment is surgery and radiation therapy. However, esthesioneuroblastoma is a chemosensitive neoplasm, and the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy can facilitate resection.[5,79] Endoscopic sinus surgery offers short-term outcomes similar to open craniofacial resection.[10]; [11][Level of evidence C2] Other techniques such as stereotactic radiosurgery and proton-beam therapy (charged-particle radiation therapy) may also play a role in the management of this tumor.[3,12,13]

Routine neck dissection and nodal exploration are not indicated in the absence of clinical or radiological evidence of disease.[14] Management of cervical lymph node metastases has been addressed in a review article.[14]

Reports have indicated promising results with the increased use of resection and neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with advanced-stage disease.[2,5,1517]; [18][Level of evidence C1] Chemotherapy regimens that have been used with efficacy include the following:

  • Cisplatin and etoposide with or without ifosfamide.[19,20]
  • Vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide with or without doxorubicin.
  • Ifosfamide and etoposide.
  • Cisplatin plus etoposide or doxorubicin.[2]
  • Vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide.[21]
  • Irinotecan plus docetaxel.[22][Level of evidence C1]
References
  1. Bisogno G, Soloni P, Conte M, et al.: Esthesioneuroblastoma in pediatric and adolescent age. A report from the TREP project in cooperation with the Italian Neuroblastoma and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committees. BMC Cancer 12: 117, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Eich HT, Müller RP, Micke O, et al.: Esthesioneuroblastoma in childhood and adolescence. Better prognosis with multimodal treatment? Strahlenther Onkol 181 (6): 378-84, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Lucas JT, Ladra MM, MacDonald SM, et al.: Proton therapy for pediatric and adolescent esthesioneuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 62 (9): 1523-8, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Berger MH, Lehrich BM, Yasaka TM, et al.: Characteristics and overall survival in pediatric versus adult esthesioneuroblastoma: A population-based study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 144: 110696, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Venkatramani R, Pan H, Furman WL, et al.: Multimodality Treatment of Pediatric Esthesioneuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 63 (3): 465-70, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Dumont B, Fresneau B, Claude L, et al.: Pattern of loco-regional relapses and treatment in pediatric esthesioneuroblastoma: The French very rare tumors group (Fracture) contribution. Pediatr Blood Cancer 67 (4): e28154, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Safi C, Spielman D, Otten M, et al.: Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Pediatric Esthesioneuroblastoma: A Systematic Review. Front Oncol 10: 1247, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Ozsahin M, Gruber G, Olszyk O, et al.: Outcome and prognostic factors in olfactory neuroblastoma: a rare cancer network study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78 (4): 992-7, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Di Carlo D, Fichera G, Dumont B, et al.: Olfactory neuroblastoma in children and adolescents: The EXPeRT recommendations for diagnosis and management. EJC Paediatr Oncol 3: 100136, 2024. Also available online. Last accessed July 11, 2024.
  10. Soler ZM, Smith TL: Endoscopic versus open craniofacial resection of esthesioneuroblastoma: what is the evidence? Laryngoscope 122 (2): 244-5, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Gallia GL, Reh DD, Lane AP, et al.: Endoscopic resection of esthesioneuroblastoma. J Clin Neurosci 19 (11): 1478-82, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Unger F, Haselsberger K, Walch C, et al.: Combined endoscopic surgery and radiosurgery as treatment modality for olfactory neuroblastoma (esthesioneuroblastoma). Acta Neurochir (Wien) 147 (6): 595-601; discussion 601-2, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Drescher NR, Indelicato DJ, Dagan R, et al.: Outcomes following proton therapy for pediatric esthesioneuroblastoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 71 (2): e30793, 2024. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Zanation AM, Ferlito A, Rinaldo A, et al.: When, how and why to treat the neck in patients with esthesioneuroblastoma: a review. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 267 (11): 1667-71, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Kumar M, Fallon RJ, Hill JS, et al.: Esthesioneuroblastoma in children. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 24 (6): 482-7, 2002 Aug-Sep. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Loy AH, Reibel JF, Read PW, et al.: Esthesioneuroblastoma: continued follow-up of a single institution’s experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132 (2): 134-8, 2006. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Porter AB, Bernold DM, Giannini C, et al.: Retrospective review of adjuvant chemotherapy for esthesioneuroblastoma. J Neurooncol 90 (2): 201-4, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Benfari G, Fusconi M, Ciofalo A, et al.: Radiotherapy alone for local tumour control in esthesioneuroblastoma. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 28 (6): 292-7, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]
  19. Kim DW, Jo YH, Kim JH, et al.: Neoadjuvant etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin for the treatment of olfactory neuroblastoma. Cancer 101 (10): 2257-60, 2004. [PUBMED Abstract]
  20. Kumar R: Esthesioneuroblastoma: Multimodal management and review of literature. World J Clin Cases 3 (9): 774-8, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  21. El Kababri M, Habrand JL, Valteau-Couanet D, et al.: Esthesioneuroblastoma in children and adolescent: experience on 11 cases with literature review. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 36 (2): 91-5, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  22. Kiyota N, Tahara M, Fujii S, et al.: Nonplatinum-based chemotherapy with irinotecan plus docetaxel for advanced or metastatic olfactory neuroblastoma: a retrospective analysis of 12 cases. Cancer 112 (4): 885-91, 2008. [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation for Childhood Esthesioneuroblastoma

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Latest Updates to This Summary (08/07/2024)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

This summary was comprehensively reviewed.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood esthesioneuroblastoma. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Esthesioneuroblastoma Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Alberto S. Pappo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • D. Williams Parsons, MD, PhD (Texas Children’s Hospital)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)
  • Stephen J. Shochat, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Esthesioneuroblastoma Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/head-and-neck/hp/child/esthesioneuroblastoma-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 29337483]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.

Childhood Thyroid Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

Childhood Thyroid Cancer Treatment (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

General Information About Childhood Thyroid Cancer

Incidence

In the United States, the annual incidence of thyroid cancers is 10.7 cases per 1 million in people aged 0 to 19 years. The incidence is higher in females than in males (17.6 vs. 4.1 cases per 1 million people, respectively) and lower in Black people than in White people (3.9 vs. 11.8 cases per 1 million people, respectively). It accounts for approximately 6% of all cancers in this age group.[1] Thyroid cancer incidence is higher in children aged 15 to 19 years (34.4 cases per 1 million people), and it accounts for approximately 14% of all cancers arising in this older age group.[1] The trend toward larger tumors suggests that diagnostic scrutiny is not the only explanation for the observed results.[2]

Two time-trend studies using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database have shown a 2% and 3.8% annual increase in the incidence of differentiated thyroid carcinoma in the United States among children, adolescents, and young adults in the 1973 to 2011 and 1984 to 2010 periods, respectively.[2,3] Newer data from the National Childhood Cancer Registry show an average annual increase in incidence rates of 1.2% between 2012 and 2021, without changes in survival.[1] A similar trend has been documented in other countries.[4,5]

The papillary subtype is the most common subtype of childhood thyroid cancer, accounting for approximately 60% of cases, followed by the papillary follicular variant subtype (20%–25%), the follicular subtype (10%), and the medullary subtype (<10%). The anaplastic subtype occurs in less than 1% of pediatric thyroid carcinomas. The incidence of the papillary subtype and its follicular variant peaks between the ages of 15 and 19 years. The incidence of medullary thyroid cancer is the highest in children aged 0 to 4 years and declines at older ages (see Figure 1).[6]

EnlargeChart showing the incidence of pediatric thyroid carcinoma based on most frequent subtype per 100,000 as a percent of total cohort.
Figure 1. Incidence of pediatric thyroid carcinoma based on most frequent subtype per 100,000 as a percent of total cohort. Reprinted from International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, Volume 89, Sarah Dermody, Andrew Walls, Earl H. Harley Jr., Pediatric thyroid cancer: An update from the SEER database 2007–2012, Pages 121–126, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier.

Diagnostic Evaluation

The prevalence of benign thyroid nodules in childhood has been estimated at about 0.5% to 2%.[7] However, thyroid nodules in children have a higher risk of malignancy (22%–26%) than thyroid nodules in adults (5%–15%).[8] Initial evaluation of a child or adolescent with a thyroid nodule includes the following:

  • Ultrasonography of the thyroid and neck. Common ultrasonographic features of malignancy include hypoechogenicity, invasive margins, increased intranodular blood flow, microcalcifications, and abnormal cervical lymph nodes. Based on ultrasonographic characteristics, scoring systems have been developed to facilitate selection of nodules that require fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in adults. The most popular of these scoring systems is the Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System. However, the higher incidence of differentiated thyroid carcinoma in pediatric thyroid nodules and the lack of validation in the pediatric population limits the extrapolation of these criteria to children.[7,8]
  • Serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) level. Thyroid function is usually normal. Hyperfunctioning nodules have a very low risk of malignancy (2%–6%).[8]
  • Serum thyroglobulin level, which is usually elevated in differentiated thyroid carcinoma.
  • FNA. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNA in children are similar to those in adults, but there is a greater risk of false-negative findings in nodules larger than 4 cm.[8]

    FNA results are categorized according to the six tiers of The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology (see Table 1).[8]

    Table 1. Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathologya
    Bethesda Category Cytopathological Category Malignancy Rate Suggested Treatment
    FNA = fine-needle aspiration; US = ultrasonography.
    aReprinted from Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Volume 55, Issue 11, Emily R. Christison-Lagay, Reto M. Baertschiger, Catherine Dinauer, Gary L. Francis, Marcus M. Malek, Timothy B Lautz, Jennifer H. Aldrink, Christa Grant, Daniel S. Rhee, Peter Ehrlich, Roshni Dasgupta, Shahab Abdessalam, Pediatric differentiated thyroid carcinoma: An update from the APSA Cancer Committee, Pages 2273–2283, Copyright (2020), with permission from Elsevier.[8]
    I Nondiagnostic/inadequate 1%–5% Repeat FNA (other options: continued US surveillance, lobectomy)
    II Benign 0%–10% Serial US if small, lobectomy if >4 cm
    III Atypia/follicular lesion of undetermined significance 0%–44% Molecular genetics, lobectomy if no concerning mutation, thyroidectomy if BRAF or fusion mutation
    IV Follicular neoplasm 60%–71% Molecular genetics, lobectomy if no concerning mutation, thyroidectomy if BRAF or fusion mutation
    V Suspicious for malignancy 70%–86% Total thyroidectomy +/− central neck dissection
    VI Malignant 97%–100% Total thyroidectomy +/− central neck dissection

    While molecular testing of thyroid nodules could be helpful in the diagnosis of papillary thyroid carcinoma, there is no evidence to support its use.[7]

  • Lymph node evaluation. Examination of the cervical lymph nodes is critically important in stratifying risk and determining operative strategies. Architecturally concerning features found on ultrasound in adults include round shape, irregular margins, calcifications, cystic change, peripheral vascularity, loss of fatty hilum, and heterogeneous echotexture. FNA should be performed on any suspicious lymph nodes in the lateral neck as confirmation of metastatic involvement before lateral neck dissection.[8]
EnlargeFlowchart showing the initial evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of pediatric thyroid nodules.
Figure 2. Flowchart showing the initial evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of pediatric thyroid nodules. #The expert panel suggests considering the measurement of serum calcitonin in children suspect of medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) based on individual conditions and the preference of the physician (Recommendation 5A). The expert panel suggests that, in selected cases (conditions that suggest MEN2, a positive family history of MEN2, or in case of bulky thyroid disease), the measurement of calcitonin may be of additional value for early diagnosis of MTC (Recommendation 5B). *Malignancy risk (suspicious vs. no suspicion) is based on neck ultrasound characteristics (described in section B2. Risk of malignancy in a thyroid nodule during childhood), history of radiation, and signs of a pre-disposition syndrome. If there is a significant increase in nodule size or the ultrasound characteristics change over time, repeated fine-needle biopsy (FNB) should be performed. **Analysis of the presence of other oncogenic drivers and gene fusions (e.g., RET/PTC and NTRK fusions) may be considered in Bethesda 3, 4, or 5 due to increasing awareness that these are also associated with the presence of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). In case a BRAF V600E mutation is found, the risk of the thyroid nodule being malignant is high but needs to be confirmed, for example, by frozen section during thyroid surgery. ^Total thyroidectomy after proven presence of MTC. ^^Alternatively, FNB can be performed; in case of differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), a total thyroidectomy should be performed. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Credit: Lebbink, C. A., Links, T. P., Czarniecka, A., Dias, R. P., Elisei, R., Izatt, L., Krude, H., Lorenz, K., Luster, M., Newbold, K., Piccardo, A., Sobrinho-Simões, M., Takano, T., Paul van Trotsenburg, A. S., Verburg, F. A., & van Santen, H. M. (2022). 2022 European Thyroid Association Guidelines for the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma. European Thyroid Journal, 11(6), e220146. Retrieved Aug 2, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1530/ETJ-22-0146.
References
  1. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  2. Vergamini LB, Frazier AL, Abrantes FL, et al.: Increase in the incidence of differentiated thyroid carcinoma in children, adolescents, and young adults: a population-based study. J Pediatr 164 (6): 1481-5, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Golpanian S, Perez EA, Tashiro J, et al.: Pediatric papillary thyroid carcinoma: outcomes and survival predictors in 2504 surgical patients. Pediatr Surg Int 32 (3): 201-8, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Pole JD, Zuk AM, Wasserman JD: Diagnostic and Treatment Patterns Among Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults with Thyroid Cancer in Ontario: 1992-2010. Thyroid 27 (8): 1025-1033, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Schmidt Jensen J, Grønhøj C, Mirian C, et al.: Incidence and Survival of Thyroid Cancer in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults in Denmark: A Nationwide Study from 1980 to 2014. Thyroid 28 (9): 1128-1133, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Dermody S, Walls A, Harley EH: Pediatric thyroid cancer: An update from the SEER database 2007-2012. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 89: 121-6, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Lebbink CA, Links TP, Czarniecka A, et al.: 2022 European Thyroid Association Guidelines for the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Eur Thyroid J 11 (6): , 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Christison-Lagay ER, Baertschiger RM, Dinauer C, et al.: Pediatric differentiated thyroid carcinoma: An update from the APSA Cancer Committee. J Pediatr Surg 55 (11): 2273-2283, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]

Differentiated Thyroid Cancer (Papillary/Follicular)

Risk Factors

Risk factors for pediatric differentiated thyroid cancer include the following:

  • Radiation exposure. There is an excessive frequency of papillary thyroid adenoma and carcinoma after radiation exposure, as a result of either environmental contamination or use of ionizing radiation for diagnosis or treatment.[14] The risk increases after exposure to a mean dose of more than 0.05 Gy to 0.1 Gy (50–100 mGy), follows a linear dose-response pattern up to 30 Gy, and then declines. The risk of thyroid cancer after radiation exposure is greater at a younger age of exposure and persists more than 45 years after exposure.[4,5] Childhood cancer survivors with subsequent differentiated thyroid carcinomas tend to have, on average, smaller tumors and, more often, bilateral disease. However, no differences between survivors and controls have been documented in the occurrence of surgical complications, recurrence rate, or disease-related death.[6] For more information, see the Subsequent Neoplasms section in Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

    Papillary thyroid carcinoma is the most frequent form of thyroid carcinoma diagnosed after radiation exposure.[5] Molecular alterations, including intrachromosomal rearrangements, are frequently found; among them, RET rearrangements are the most common.[5]

  • Thyroid nodule and autoimmune thyroiditis. In a study of 485 nodules in 385 children who underwent fine-needle aspiration, thyroid cancer was present in 108 nodules (24%). Autoimmune thyroiditis, present in 95 patients (25%), was independently associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer (odds ratio [OR], 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32–3.62). Papillary thyroid carcinoma was more common than follicular thyroid carcinoma. Among the papillary thyroid carcinomas, autoimmune thyroiditis was strongly associated with the diffuse sclerosing variant (OR, 4.74; 95% CI, 1.33–16.9).[7]
  • Genetic factors. Genetic factors play a role in a subset of thyroid carcinomas. For thyroid carcinomas of follicular cells, only 5% to 10% are familial cancers. Of those, most familial cases are nonsyndromic, while a minority occur in the setting of well-defined cancer syndromes with known germline alterations, including the following:[8,9]
    • APC-associated polyposis.
    • Carney complex.
    • PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome.
    • Werner syndrome.
    • DICER1 syndrome.

Clinical Presentation and Prognostic Factors

Patients with thyroid cancer usually present with a thyroid mass with or without painless cervical adenopathy.[10] Based on medical and family history and clinical findings, the thyroid cancer may be part of a tumor predisposition syndrome such as APC-associated polyposis, PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome, Carney complex, Werner syndrome, or DICER1 syndrome.[8,9]

In well-differentiated thyroid cancer, male sex, larger tumor size, and distant metastases have been found to have prognostic significance for early mortality. However, even patients in the highest risk group who had distant metastases had a 90% survival rate.[11]

In addition, the following observations have been reported:

  • In a cross-sectional study involving 20% of community hospitals in the United States, the clinical presentation of 644 pediatric cases was compared with that of more than 43,000 adult cases. Compared with adults, children had a higher proportion of nodal involvement (31.5% in children vs. 14.7% in adults) and lung metastases (5.7% in children vs. 2.2% in adults).[10]
  • Younger age is associated with a more aggressive clinical presentation in differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Higher recurrence rates have been associated with younger age at presentation.[12]
  • Larger tumor size (>1 cm), extrathyroidal extension, and multifocal disease were associated with increased risk of nodal metastases.[13]
  • Compared with pubertal adolescents, prepubertal children have a more aggressive presentation with a greater degree of extrathyroid extension, lymph node involvement, and lung metastases. However, outcomes are similar in the prepubertal and adolescent groups.[1416]
  • A French registry analysis found similar outcomes in children and young adults who developed papillary thyroid carcinoma after previous radiation therapy, compared with children and young adults who developed spontaneous papillary thyroid carcinoma. However, patients with previous thyroid irradiation for benign disease presented with more invasive tumors and lymph node involvement.[17]
  • Tumor gene fusions in RET, ALK, and NTRK have been associated with high-risk clinical features in retrospective studies.
    • In one study of 106 pediatric patients, 80 had identifiable genomic alterations, including 31 with fusion oncogenes (21 with RET, 6 with ALK, and 4 with NTRK). Patients with fusion-positive tumors were younger (aged <10 years, 93%); had a higher proportion of large tumors (>2 cm), extrathyroid extension, and lymph node and lung metastases; and had a higher incidence of recurrent or persistent disease than patients with BRAF-altered tumors. Expression of SLC5A5 (which encodes the sodium-iodide symporter protein, an important determinant of iodine I 131 [131I] avidity) was decreased in children with fusion-positive papillary thyroid carcinomas and in two patients with 131I-refractory disease who harbored an NTRK and RET fusion gene, respectively. The administration of larotrectinib and selpercatinib produced tumor responses and restored radioactive iodine uptake, underscoring the importance of molecular testing in pediatric patients with papillary thyroid cancer.[18]
    • In a second study, 131 pediatric patients were categorized into three groups: RAS-altered (HRAS, KRAS, or NRAS), BRAF-altered (BRAF V600E), and RET or NTRK gene fusions (RET, NTRK1, or NTRK3 fusions).[19] Patients with RET or NTRK gene fusions were significantly more likely to have advanced lymph node disease and distant metastasis and less likely to achieve remission at 1 year, compared with patients in the RAS-altered and BRAF-altered groups.
  • A study reported the outcomes of 65 Chinese patients (aged <20 years) with papillary thyroid carcinoma who presented with pulmonary metastases.[20] Twenty patients had persistent pulmonary metastases after treatment with radioiodine, designated as radioactive iodine–refractory (RAIR) disease. No significant difference in pathological characteristics was observed between patients younger than 15 years and patients aged 15 to 20 years, but younger patients were more likely to have RAIR disease (hazard ratio [HR], 3.500; 95% CI, 1.134–10.803; P = .023). RAIR disease was identified as an independent predictor of progressive disease (HR, 10.008; 95% CI, 2.427–41.268; P = .001). The Kaplan-Meier curve revealed lower progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival rates in the RAIR group than in the radioactive iodine–avid group (P < .001 and P = .039). Likewise, RAIR disease was a risk factor for unfavorable PFS in patients younger than 15 years (P < .001).

A review of the National Cancer Database found that patients aged 21 years and younger from lower-income families and those lacking insurance experienced a longer period from diagnosis to treatment of their well-differentiated thyroid cancer and presented with higher-stage disease.[21]

A single-institution retrospective review analyzed the impact of multifocal disease at presentation for patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma.[22] The study compared 283 children and adolescents with 5,564 adults. Multifocal disease was less common in children and adolescents with papillary thyroid carcinoma (45%; 127 of 283 patients) than in adults (54%; 3,023 of 5,564 adults; P = .002). There was no significant difference in 5-year recurrence-free probability, and the overall survival (OS) rate was 100% in both groups. There was no significant difference in the 5-year contralateral lobe papillary thyroid carcinoma–free probability between patients with unifocal disease and multifocal disease treated with lobectomy. The authors concluded that multifocal disease does not appear to warrant complete thyroidectomy in children and adolescents selected for lobectomy.

A single-institution study compared diagnostic whole-body 131I scans with stimulated thyroglobulin (sTg) levels as predictors of distant metastasis in children with papillary thyroid carcinoma.[23] A total of 142 patients (median age, 14.6 years; range, 4–18 years) were followed for 9.5 (±7.2) years and classified according to the American Thyroid Association risk of recurrence as low (28%), intermediate (16%), or high risk (56%). Of these patients, 127 had sTg evaluated. An sTg value of 21.7 ng/dL yielded a sensitivity of 88%, compared with 30% for diagnostic whole-body 131I scans, in predicting distant metastasis. Specificity was 60% for sTg levels and 100% for diagnostic whole-body 131I scans. Forty-two percent of patients obtained discordant results between diagnostic whole-body 131I scans and radioiodine therapy posttreatment whole-body 131I scans. In high-risk patients, sTg levels were particularly able to identify those who would have distant metastasis, with better diagnostic accuracy than whole-body 131I scans.

Histology and Molecular Features of Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

Tumors of the thyroid are classified as adenomas or carcinomas.[9,24] Adenomas are benign, well circumscribed, and encapsulated nodules that may cause notable enlargement of all or part of the gland, which extends to both sides of the neck. Some tumors may secrete hormones. Transformation to a malignant carcinoma may occur in some cells, which may grow and spread to lymph nodes in the neck or to the lungs. Approximately 20% of thyroid nodules in children are malignant.[9]

Histology

Papillary and follicular carcinomas are often referred to as differentiated thyroid carcinoma. The pathological classification of differentiated thyroid carcinomas is based on standard definitions set by the World Health Organization, and the criteria are the same for children and adults. Long-term outcomes for children and adolescents with differentiated thyroid carcinoma are excellent, with 10-year survival rates exceeding 95%.[9,25,26]

  • Papillary thyroid carcinoma accounts for 90% or more of all cases of differentiated thyroid carcinoma occurring during childhood and adolescence. Pediatric papillary thyroid carcinoma may present with a variety of histological variants: classic, solid, follicular, and diffuse sclerosing.[27] Papillary thyroid carcinoma is frequently multifocal and bilateral, and it metastasizes to regional lymph nodes in most children. Hematogenous metastases to the lungs occur in up to 25% of cases.[9,28]
  • Follicular thyroid carcinoma is uncommon. It is typically a unifocal tumor and more prone to initial hematogenous metastases to lungs and bones. Metastases to regional lymph nodes are uncommon. Histological variants of follicular thyroid cancer include Hürthle cell (oncocytic), clear cell, and insular (poorly differentiated) carcinoma.[9]

Molecular features

Thyroid tumorigenesis and progression of thyroid carcinomas of follicular cells (differentiated thyroid carcinoma, poorly differentiated papillary thyroid carcinoma, and anaplastic thyroid carcinoma) are defined by a multistep process that results in aberrant activation of the MAPK and/or PI3K/PTEN/AKT signaling pathways. Comprehensive genomic studies performed over the last decade have defined the landscape of these tumors, as well as their genotype-phenotype correlations. Using advanced sequencing technologies, oncogenic alterations are found in more than 90% of tumors.[29]

Variants in BRAF and RAS genes are the most common drivers, followed by gene fusions involving RET or NTRK:[8,30,31]

  • BRAF: Single nucleotide variants of the BRAF gene are the most common alterations found in thyroid carcinoma. The most common variant is V600E (95% of BRAF-altered cases). BRAF variants are found in 40% to 80% of papillary thyroid carcinomas and in a lower proportion of poorly differentiated papillary thyroid carcinoma (5%–35%) and anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (10%–50%).[8,31]

    The presence of BRAF V600E has been associated with extrathyroidal tumor extension and an increased risk of recurrence. However, its prognostic significance is controversial. BRAF V600E tumors appear to show a broadly immunosuppressive profile with high expression of anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1).[8,31]

    A retrospective analysis of 80 Brazilian patients younger than 18 years with papillary thyroid carcinoma identified AGK::BRAF fusions and BRAF V600E single nucleotide variants.[32] AGK::BRAF fusions, found in 19% of pediatric patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma, were associated with distant metastasis and younger age. BRAF V600E variants, found in 15% of patients with pediatric papillary thyroid carcinoma, were correlated with older age and larger tumor size.

  • RAS: Oncogenic RAS activation can occur in any of the RAS family of genes (NRAS, HRAS, and KRAS), although the most frequent alterations are NRAS single nucleotide variants. RAS variants are markers of follicular-patterned thyroid lesions. They are present in 30% to 50% of follicular thyroid carcinomas, 25% to 45% of follicular variants of papillary thyroid carcinoma, and less than 10% of papillary thyroid carcinomas. They are also frequently found in poorly differentiated papillary thyroid carcinoma (20%–50%) and anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (10%–50%) and are believed to promote tumor progression. They have a higher prevalence in areas of iodine deficiency.[8,31]
  • RET rearrangements: Multiple RET rearrangements have been identified in approximately 5% to 25% of papillary thyroid carcinomas and in less than 10% of its follicular variant. They are strongly associated with environmental or therapeutic radiation exposure. They are also common among young patients, many of whom present with nodal metastases and aggressive clinicopathological features.[8,31] RET variants have been reported to be more common in the diffuse sclerosing variant of papillary carcinoma than in standard nonsclerosing papillary carcinoma (83% vs. 15.4%; P = .0095).[27]

    A retrospective review identified 113 RET fusion–positive tumors among 993 patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma.[33] RET fusion–positive tumors were three times more frequent in pediatric and adolescent patients (29.8%) than in adult patients (8.7%). A total of 20 types of RET fusions were identified. RET fusion–positive carcinomas were associated with aggressive tumor behavior, including high rates of lymph node metastases (75.2%) and distant metastases (18.6%). These rates were significantly higher than in carcinomas with NTRK fusions, BRAF V600E variants, and RAS variants. Local and distant metastases were also frequently found in patients with microcarcinomas positive for RET fusions. True recurrences occurred rarely (2.4%) and only in adult patients. The disease-specific survival rates were 99% at 2 years, 96% at 5 years, and 95% at 10 years.

  • NTRK rearrangements: Rearrangements of NTRK1 and NTRK3 have been described in approximately 5% of papillary thyroid carcinomas. However, ETV6::NTRK3 fusion genes have been reported in 15% of radiation-induced papillary thyroid carcinomas. In young patients and children, NTRK-rearranged papillary thyroid carcinomas may present with lymph node metastases and aggressive clinicopathological features, similar to the presentation of RET-rearranged tumors.[8,31]
  • DICER1 variants: Pathogenic variants of DICER1 have been identified in approximately 10% of papillary thyroid carcinomas.[34] DICER1 variants have also been described in a small cohort of patients with poorly differentiated thyroid carcinomas.[35]

    A study correlated the status of hotspot DICER1 variants with clinical, histological, and outcome features in a series of 56 pediatric patients with papillary thyroid carcinomas. These patients had no clinical or family history of DICER1-related syndromic manifestations.[36] Fifteen papillary thyroid carcinomas (27%) harbored BRAF p.V600E. Eight cases of papillary thyroid carcinomas (14%) harbored DICER1 variants, with no associated BRAF p.V600E. DICER1 variants were identified in exons 26 and 27. A novel D1810del (c.5428_5430delGAT) variant was also detected. The study confirmed the absence of hotspot DICER1 variants in the matched nontumor tissue DNA in all eight DICER1-related papillary thyroid carcinomas. The study concluded that the increased incidence in female patients and enrichment in low-risk follicular-patterned papillary thyroid carcinomas are characteristics of DICER1-related papillary thyroid carcinomas.

    A study profiled miRNA in 20 non-neoplastic thyroid tissue specimens, 8 adenomatous specimens, and 60 pediatric thyroid cancer specimens, 8 of which had DICER1 RNase IIIb variants. All differentiated thyroid cancers with DICER1 variants were follicular. Six were follicular variant papillary thyroid cancers, and two were follicular thyroid cancers.[37]

Other alterations include the following:[8,31]

  • ALK rearrangements have been described in less than 10% of papillary thyroid carcinomas and are commonly associated with dedifferentiation.
  • Activating variants of AKT1 have been described in 19% of recurrent or metastatic poorly differentiated papillary thyroid carcinomas.
  • PPARG rearrangements are present in 20% to 50% of follicular thyroid carcinomas and in a lower proportion of follicular variants of papillary thyroid carcinoma.
  • TERT-activating variants are commonly seen in poorly differentiated papillary thyroid carcinomas (20%–50%) and anaplastic thyroid carcinomas (30%–75%). These variants have also been reported in 10% to 35% of follicular thyroid carcinomas and 5% to 15% of papillary thyroid carcinomas. TERT variants are believed to promote tumor progression to poorly differentiated papillary thyroid carcinoma and anaplastic thyroid carcinoma and represent a negative prognostic marker.
  • TP53 is altered in 40% to 80% of anaplastic thyroid carcinomas and 10% to 35% of poorly differentiated papillary thyroid carcinomas. It is considered a final step of tumor progression and a marker for poor prognosis.

The spectrum of somatic genetic alterations seems to differ between pediatric and adult patients when analyzing tumors with similar histologies, as follows:[29,30,38,39]

  • Gene fusions involving RET or, less frequently, NTRK account for approximately 50% of the molecular alterations in pediatric differentiated thyroid carcinoma, compared with approximately 15% in adults.
  • Gene alterations involving BRAF or RAS, which are present in approximately 70% of thyroid carcinomas diagnosed in adults, are noted in 20% to 40% of pediatric tumors. BRAF variants have been described in approximately 20% to 30% of cases, while RAS variants are much less frequently found in pediatrics (5%–10%).
  • When combining evaluation of DNA and RNA, targetable alterations can be identified in approximately 98% of childhood thyroid carcinomas.

Treatment of Papillary and Follicular Thyroid Carcinoma

Treatment options for papillary and follicular (differentiated) thyroid carcinoma include the following:

Because differentiated thyroid cancer is rare in children, centralization of care to expert centers is highly encouraged.[6,9,24]

In 2015, the American Thyroid Association (ATA) Task Force on Pediatric Thyroid Cancer published guidelines for the management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer in children and adolescents. These guidelines are based on scientific evidence and expert panel opinion, with a careful assessment of the level of evidence.[9] In 2020 and 2022, the Cancer Committee of the American Pediatric Surgery Association and the European Thyroid Association (ETA) reviewed and expanded the ATA guidelines by incorporating more recent evidence.[24] The following sections of this summary provide an overview of the ATA guidelines and the proposed revisions, which are presented here without a specific endorsement by the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

Preoperative evaluation

Preoperative evaluation factors to consider include the following:

  • Neck palpation and a comprehensive ultrasonography of all regions of the neck using a high-resolution probe and Doppler technique should be obtained by an experienced ultrasonographer. A complete ultrasonography examination should be performed before surgery.[6,9]
  • The addition of cross-sectional imaging (contrast-enhanced computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging) should be considered when there is concern about invasion of the aerodigestive tract. Importantly, if iodinated contrast agents are used, further evaluation and treatment with radioactive iodine may need to be delayed for 2 to 3 months until total body iodine burden decreases.[9]
  • Chest imaging (x-ray or CT) may be considered for patients with substantial cervical lymph node disease.[9]
  • Thyroid nuclear scintigraphy should be pursued only if the patient presents with suppressed thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH).[9]
  • The routine use of bone scan or fluorine F 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) is not recommended.[9]
  • Further genetic or imaging diagnostics should be considered in cases of suspected familiar or extensive disease.[6]

Surgery

Total thyroidectomy is the cornerstone of the management of differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Pediatric thyroid surgery is ideally completed by a surgeon who has experience performing endocrine procedures in children and in a hospital with the full spectrum of pediatric specialty care. The ATA recommends that the thyroidectomy be performed by an experienced thyroid surgeon (>30 cases/year) or as a multidisciplinary approach between a pediatric surgeon and an adult endocrine or head and neck surgeon.[6,9]

Thyroidectomy

For patients with papillary or follicular carcinoma, total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment. The ATA expert panel recommendation is based on data showing an increased incidence of bilateral (30%) and multifocal (65%) disease.[6,9]

In patients with a small unilateral tumor confined to the gland, a near-total thyroidectomy—in which a small amount of thyroid tissue (<1%–2%) is left in place at the entry point of the recurrent laryngeal nerve or superior parathyroid glands—might be considered to decrease permanent damage to those structures.[40]

A retrospective analysis identified factors associated with bilateral thyroid involvement in 115 pediatric patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer.[41] Bilateral disease was present in 47 of 115 participants (41%). In multivariable analysis, only multifocality in the primary lobe was independently associated with bilateral disease (OR, 7.61; 95% CI, 2.44–23.8; P < .001). Among clinically node-negative patients with papillary carcinoma who did not have tumor multifocality in the primary lobe, bilateral disease was present in 5 of 32 patients (16%). The authors concluded that in children with differentiated thyroid cancer, tumor multifocality in the primary lobe is associated with bilateral disease, and they recommended prompt consideration of complete thyroidectomy after initial lobectomy.

Another multicenter retrospective analysis evaluated the prevalence of and risk factors for multifocal disease in 212 pediatric patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma.[42] The mean age at diagnosis was 14.1 years, and 23 patients were aged 10 years or younger. A total of 173 patients (82%) were female. Any amount of multifocal disease was present in 98 cases (46%), with bilateral multifocal disease present in 73 cases (34%). Predictors for multifocal and bilateral multifocal disease included age 10 years or younger, T3 tumor stage, and N1b nodal stage. The authors concluded that these risk factors and the high prevalence of multifocal disease should be considered when assessing the risks and benefits of surgical management options in pediatric patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Thyroid resections that are less than a total thyroidectomy are associated with up to tenfold greater recurrence rates. Total thyroidectomy also optimizes the use of radioactive iodine for imaging and treatment.

Central neck dissection

A therapeutic central neck lymph node dissection (level VI nodes) should be done in the presence of clinical evidence of central or lateral neck metastases.[13]

For patients without clinical evidence of gross extrathyroidal invasion or locoregional metastasis, a prophylactic central neck dissection may be considered based on tumor focality and primary tumor size. However, because of the increased morbidity associated with central lymph node dissection, it is important to consider the risks and benefits of the extent of dissection on a case-by-case basis.[43]

Lateral neck dissection

Modified radical neck dissection is reserved for biopsy-proven metastatic disease in the lateral compartment (levels II, III, IV, and V). Cytological confirmation of metastatic disease to lymph nodes in the lateral neck is recommended before surgery.

Routine prophylactic lateral neck dissection is not recommended.

EnlargeFlowchart showing the surgical approach for differentiated thyroid carcinoma in children.
Figure 3. Flowchart showing the surgical approach for differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) in children. BCLND, bilateral central lymph node dissection; CLND, central lymph node dissection; FNB, fine needle biopsy; ICLND, ipsilateral central lymph node dissection. ‘Active surveillance’ in low-risk DTC implies ultrasound of the leftover thyroid tissue, including the evaluation of the cervical lymph nodes every 6–12 months by neck palpation and ultrasound. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Credit: Lebbink, C. A., Links, T. P., Czarniecka, A., Dias, R. P., Elisei, R., Izatt, L., Krude, H., Lorenz, K., Luster, M., Newbold, K., Piccardo, A., Sobrinho-Simões, M., Takano, T., Paul van Trotsenburg, A. S., Verburg, F. A., & van Santen, H. M. (2022). 2022 European Thyroid Association Guidelines for the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma. European Thyroid Journal, 11(6), e220146. Retrieved Aug 2, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1530/ETJ-22-0146.

Classification and risk assignment

Despite the limited data in pediatrics, the ATA Task Force recommends the use of the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification system to categorize patients into one of three risk groups.[9] This categorization strategy is meant to define the risk of persistent cervical disease and help determine which patients should undergo postoperative staging for the presence of distant metastasis.

  • ATA pediatric low risk: Disease confined to the thyroid with N0 or NX disease or patients with incidental N1a (microscopic metastasis to a small number of central neck nodes). These patients are at lowest risk of distant disease but may still be at risk of residual cervical disease, especially if the initial surgery did not include central neck dissection.
  • ATA pediatric intermediate risk: Extensive N1a or minimal N1b disease. These patients are at low risk of distant metastasis but are at an increased risk of incomplete lymph node resection and persistent cervical disease.
  • ATA pediatric high risk: Regionally extensive disease (N1b) or locally invasive disease (T4), with or without distant metastasis. Patients in this group are at the highest risk of incomplete resection, persistent disease, and distant metastasis.

For more information about the TNM system, see the Stage Information for Thyroid Cancer section in Thyroid Cancer Treatment.

Postoperative staging and long-term surveillance

After surgical resection, disease is staged based on the operative findings to identify patients with persistent disease and those at intermediate or high risk of recurrence. Initial staging should be performed within 12 weeks after surgery to assess for evidence of persistent locoregional disease and to identify patients who are likely to benefit from additional therapy with 131I. The ATA pediatric risk level helps determine the extent of postoperative testing.[9] The standard imaging study for the follow-up of patients who have been treated for differentiated thyroid carcinoma is neck ultrasonography. It should be performed by a professional with experience using this procedure in children. The sensitivity and specificity of neck ultrasonography for recurrent differentiated thyroid carcinoma in follow-up for children who have been treated with total thyroidectomy are 85.7% and 89.4%, respectively.[6]

ATA pediatric low risk
  • Initial postoperative staging includes a TSH-suppressed thyroglobulin. A diagnostic iodine I 123 (123I) scan is not required.
  • TSH suppression should be targeted to serum levels of 0.5 to 1.0 mIU/L.
  • In patients with no evidence of disease, surveillance should include ultrasonography at 6 months postoperatively and then annually for 5 years, as well as TSH-suppressed thyroglobulin levels every 3 to 6 months for 2 years and then annually.
  • In children with positive thyroglobulin antibodies (common in patients with Hashimoto thyroiditis), trending thyroglobulin is less reliable, and a diagnostic 123I scan may be required.
ATA pediatric intermediate risk
  • Initial postoperative staging includes a TSH-stimulated thyroglobulin and diagnostic 123I whole-body scan for further stratification and determination with 131I.
  • TSH suppression should be targeted to serum levels of 0.1 to 0.5 mIU/L.
  • In patients with no evidence of disease, surveillance should include ultrasonography at 6 months postoperatively and then every 6 to 12 months for 5 years (and then less frequently), as well as thyroglobulin levels (on hormone replacement therapy) every 3 to 6 months for 3 years and then annually.
  • TSH-stimulated thyroglobulin and diagnostic 123I scan should be considered in 1 to 2 years for patients treated with 131I.
ATA pediatric high risk
  • Initial postoperative staging includes a TSH-stimulated thyroglobulin and diagnostic 123I whole-body scan for further stratification and determination with 131I.
  • TSH suppression should be targeted to serum levels of less than 0.1 mIU/L.
  • In patients with no evidence of disease, surveillance should include ultrasonography at 6 months postoperatively and then every 6 to 12 months for 5 years (and then less frequently), as well as thyroglobulin levels (on hormone replacement therapy) every 3 to 6 months for 3 years and then annually.
  • TSH-stimulated thyroglobulin and, possibly, a diagnostic 123I scan in 1 to 2 years in patients treated with 131I.

For patients with antithyroglobulin antibodies, deferred postoperative staging to allow time for antibody clearance, except in patients with T4 or M1 disease.

Radioactive iodine ablation (RAI)

The goal of 131I therapy is to decrease recurrence and mortality by eliminating iodine-avid disease.[6,9]

  • The ATA Task Force recommends the use of 131I for the treatment of iodine-avid, persistent locoregional, or nodal disease that cannot be resected, and for known or presumed iodine-avid distant metastases. For patients with persistent disease after administration of 131I, the decision to pursue additional 131I therapy should be individualized based on clinical data and previous response. For patients without lymph node or distant metastases, there is no evidence that 131I can improve survival or reduce recurrence rates.[6]
  • To facilitate 131I uptake by residual iodine-avid disease, the TSH level should be above 30 mIU/L. This level can be achieved by withdrawing levothyroxine for at least 14 days. A low-iodine diet should also be followed for 2 weeks before therapy. RAI should be deferred for 2 to 3 months after exposure to iodinated CT contrast, and urine iodine excretion should be confirmed to be less than 75 µ/L. In patients who cannot mount an adequate TSH response or cannot tolerate profound hypothyroidism, recombinant human TSH may be used.
  • Therapeutic 131I administration is commonly based on either empiric dosing or whole-body dosimetry. Based on the lack of data comparing empiric treatment and treatment informed by dosimetry, the ATA Task Force was unable to recommend one specific approach. However, because of the differences in body size and iodine clearance in children compared with adults, all activities of 131I should be calculated by experts with experience in dosing children.
  • A posttreatment whole-body scan is recommended for all children 4 to 7 days after 131I therapy. The addition of single-photon emission CT with integrated conventional CT (SPECT/CT) may help to distinguish the anatomic location of focal uptake.

    While rare, late effects of 131I treatment include salivary gland dysfunction, bone marrow suppression, pulmonary fibrosis, and second malignancies.[44]

  • Because response to 131I may be observed up to 15 to 18 months after therapy, long intervals of at least 12 months are suggested before re-treatment.[6]

Evidence (RAI):

  1. In a multicenter study of children and adolescents with differentiated thyroid carcinoma, 285 consecutive patients were treated with total thyroidectomy and RAI according to the ATA guidelines.[45]
    • 87% of the patients had no evidence of active disease at a median follow-up of 133 months.
  2. In a single-center study of ATA pediatric low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2020, 95 patients underwent total thyroidectomy followed by 131I therapy in 53% of patients.[46]
    • There was no statistical difference in remission rates between patients treated with or without 131I therapy at 1 year (70% vs. 68.9%, respectively; P = .089) or last clinical evaluation (82% vs. 75.6%; P = .534).
    • Over the study period, use of 131I in the patient population declined steadily, as the 2015 ATA Pediatric Differentiated Thyroid Cancer Guidelines recommended withholding 131I therapy in patients with low-risk disease. Accordingly, patients who received 131I therapy had longer follow-up (median, 5.8 years) than those who did not receive 131I therapy (median, 3.6 years).

The ETA has proposed a simplified follow-up plan based on thyroglobulin levels and neck ultrasonography (see Figure 4).[6]

EnlargeFlowchart showing the follow-up of children with differentiated thyroid carcinoma who achieved complete remission after initial treatment with total thyroidectomy and I-131.
Figure 4. Flowchart showing the follow-up of children with differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) who achieved complete remission after initial treatment with total thyroidectomy and I-131. This flowchart was developed for children with DTC who achieved complete remission defined as: undetectable levels of serum thyroglobulin (Tg) on levothyroxine (LT4), undetectable levels of Tg antibodies, negative neck ultrasound, and if performed, negative whole-body scan 1 year after last treatment. ^In the first year until clinical remission, TSH levels should be suppressed, while a normal low value of TSH (between 0.5 and 1.0 mIU/L) will be advisable thereafter. ^^The definition of consistently rising Tg on LT4 is debatable; the levels of Tg as well as the doubling time should be taken into account and weighted in the individual patient. *The expert panel suggests that, in children with detectable (but not rising) Tg and no focus on neck ultrasound, I-123 scanning may be considered in individual cases. When both ultrasound and radioiodine imaging did not yield a focus, FDG PET/CT may be considered. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Credit: Lebbink, C. A., Links, T. P., Czarniecka, A., Dias, R. P., Elisei, R., Izatt, L., Krude, H., Lorenz, K., Luster, M., Newbold, K., Piccardo, A., Sobrinho-Simões, M., Takano, T., Paul van Trotsenburg, A. S., Verburg, F. A., & van Santen, H. M. (2022). 2022 European Thyroid Association Guidelines for the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma. European Thyroid Journal, 11(6), e220146. Retrieved Aug 2, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1530/ETJ-22-0146.

Treatment of Recurrent Papillary and Follicular Thyroid Carcinoma

Despite having more advanced disease at presentation than adults, children with differentiated thyroid cancer generally have an excellent survival with relatively few side effects.[25,47,48] For this reason, treatment of persistent or recurrent disease should be individualized, and the potential risks and benefits of therapy should be carefully considered. For children with persistent but not rising thyroglobulin levels on TSH suppression, primary neck ultrasonography is recommended; if negative, 123I scanning may be considered under TSH stimulation. If no residual or recurrent disease is found, serum thyroglobulin and serum thyroglobulin antibodies must be measured every 3 to 6 months. Patients with small cervical foci (i.e., <1 cm) or patients with cervical disease that cannot be visualized with cross-sectional imaging may be considered for (repeat) therapeutic 131I. However, these patients may also be safely observed while maintaining TSH suppression. Macroscopic cervical disease should be removed surgically if it can be safely accomplished. Children with pulmonary metastases may continue to experience posttherapy targeted 131I effects for years, and an undetectable thyroglobulin level should not be the focus of treatment efforts. As many as one-third of patients exhibit persistent but stable disease following RAI. Therapy should be considered only in patients who show signs of progression.[9,24]

Treatment options for recurrent papillary and follicular thyroid carcinoma include the following:

RAI with 131I

RAI with 131I is usually effective after recurrence.[49]

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)

For patients with 131I-refractory disease, molecularly targeted therapies using TKIs may provide alternative therapies.

TKIs with documented efficacy for the treatment of adults include the following:

  • Sorafenib. Sorafenib is a VEGFR, PDGFR, and RAS kinase inhibitor. In a randomized phase III trial, sorafenib improved PFS when compared with placebo (10.8 months vs. 5.8 months) in adult patients with radioactive iodine–refractory locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer.[50] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved sorafenib in 2013 for the treatment of adults with late-stage, metastatic differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

    Pediatric-specific data are limited. However, in one case report, sorafenib produced a radiographic response in a patient aged 8 years with metastatic papillary thyroid carcinoma.[51]

  • Lenvatinib. Lenvatinib is an oral VEGFR, FGFR, PDGFR, RET, and KIT inhibitor. In a phase III randomized study of adults with 131I-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer, lenvatinib was associated with a significant improvement in PFS and response rate when compared with a placebo.[52] The FDA approved lenvatinib in 2015 for the treatment of adults with progressive, radioactive iodine–refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

    Three children with papillary thyroid carcinoma who were refractory to radioactive iodine had a clinical response to lenvatinib.[53]

  • Vemurafenib and dabrafenib (BRAF inhibitors). An open-label, nonrandomized, phase II study of vemurafenib was conducted in adult patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma that was 131I-refractory, metastatic or unresectable, and BRAF V600E variant positive. No participant had been previously treated with a TKI. A response rate of 38.5% was documented.[54] For patients with metastatic or advanced BRAF V600E–altered anaplastic thyroid carcinoma, the combination of dabrafenib with the MEK inhibitor trametinib showed a response rate of 69%.[55]
  • Larotrectinib and entrectinib (NTRK inhibitors). Larotrectinib has been used to treat patients with TRK fusion–positive thyroid carcinoma. In one study, all five patients with TRK fusion–positive thyroid carcinomas who received larotrectinib therapy achieved partial or complete responses.[56] Responses to entrectinib have also been reported.[57] The FDA approved larotrectinib and entrectinib for the treatment of adults and children (restricted to patients older than 12 years for entrectinib) with solid tumors that include all of the following characteristics:[58]
    • Have an NTRK gene fusion without a known acquired resistance variant.
    • Are metastatic or for which surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity.
    • Have no satisfactory alternative treatments or that have progressed following treatment.
  • Selpercatinib (a RET inhibitor). In a phase I/II trial of selpercatinib therapy for patients (age range, 25–88 years) with RET-altered cancers, 19 patients with RET fusion–positive, previously treated thyroid cancers were enrolled.[59]
    • Fifteen of 19 patients (79%) achieved objective responses (1 complete response and 14 partial responses), and the median duration of response was 18.4 months.
    • The most common grades 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (12%), increased alanine aminotransferase (10%) and aspartate aminotransferase (7%), diarrhea (3%), and prolonged QT interval (2%).
    • In 2024, the FDA granted full approval to selpercatinib for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients aged 2 years and older with advanced or metastatic RET fusion–positive thyroid cancer who require systemic therapy and who are radioactive iodine–refractory (if radioactive iodine is appropriate).[60]
  • Cabozantinib (a VEGFR and RET inhibitor). Cabozantinib and placebo were compared in a double-blind, phase III, randomized trial (COSMIC-311 [NCT03690388]) in adult patients (age range, 55–72 years). These patients had received at least one VEGFR-targeted TKI for differentiated thyroid carcinoma, and their disease was deemed progressive and radioactive iodine–refractory. An effective response was noted in 10 of 67 patients who received cabozantinib, compared with zero responses in the placebo group. The PFS was 11 months (95% CI, 7.4–13.8) in the cabozantinib arm, compared with 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.9–3.7) in the placebo arm, with an HR of 0.22 (95% CI, 0.14–0.31).[61] Based on these data, the FDA approved cabozantinib in this population.[62]

For more information, see Thyroid Cancer Treatment.

Treatment options under clinical evaluation for recurrent papillary and follicular thyroid carcinoma

Information about NCI-supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

References
  1. Cahoon EK, Nadyrov EA, Polyanskaya ON, et al.: Risk of Thyroid Nodules in Residents of Belarus Exposed to Chernobyl Fallout as Children and Adolescents. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 102 (7): 2207-2217, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Rose J, Wertheim BC, Guerrero MA: Radiation treatment of patients with primary pediatric malignancies: risk of developing thyroid cancer as a secondary malignancy. Am J Surg 204 (6): 881-6; discussion 886-7, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Lal G, Groff M, Howe JR, et al.: Risk of subsequent primary thyroid cancer after another malignancy: latency trends in a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 19 (6): 1887-96, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Lubin JH, Adams MJ, Shore R, et al.: Thyroid Cancer Following Childhood Low-Dose Radiation Exposure: A Pooled Analysis of Nine Cohorts. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 102 (7): 2575-2583, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Iglesias ML, Schmidt A, Ghuzlan AA, et al.: Radiation exposure and thyroid cancer: a review. Arch Endocrinol Metab 61 (2): 180-187, 2017 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Lebbink CA, Links TP, Czarniecka A, et al.: 2022 European Thyroid Association Guidelines for the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Eur Thyroid J 11 (6): , 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Keefe G, Culbreath K, Cherella CE, et al.: Autoimmune Thyroiditis and Risk of Malignancy in Children with Thyroid Nodules. Thyroid 32 (9): 1109-1117, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Acquaviva G, Visani M, Repaci A, et al.: Molecular pathology of thyroid tumours of follicular cells: a review of genetic alterations and their clinicopathological relevance. Histopathology 72 (1): 6-31, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Francis GL, Waguespack SG, Bauer AJ, et al.: Management Guidelines for Children with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid 25 (7): 716-59, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Al-Qurayshi Z, Hauch A, Srivastav S, et al.: A National Perspective of the Risk, Presentation, and Outcomes of Pediatric Thyroid Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142 (5): 472-8, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Shayota BJ, Pawar SC, Chamberlain RS: MeSS: A novel prognostic scale specific for pediatric well-differentiated thyroid cancer: a population-based, SEER outcomes study. Surgery 154 (3): 429-35, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Ye B, Shi J, Shen C, et al.: Comparison of differentiated thyroid carcinoma recurrence and its clinical features in children of different ages. Oncotarget 8 (29): 48051-48059, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Kim J, Sun Z, Adam MA, et al.: Predictors of nodal metastasis in pediatric differentiated thyroid cancer. J Pediatr Surg 52 (1): 120-123, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Lazar L, Lebenthal Y, Steinmetz A, et al.: Differentiated thyroid carcinoma in pediatric patients: comparison of presentation and course between pre-pubertal children and adolescents. J Pediatr 154 (5): 708-14, 2009. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Redlich A, Luster M, Lorenz K, et al.: Age, American Thyroid Association Risk Group, and Response to Therapy Are Prognostic Factors in Children With Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 107 (1): e165-e177, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Chesover AD, Vali R, Hemmati SH, et al.: Lung Metastasis in Children with Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Factors Associated with Diagnosis and Outcomes of Therapy. Thyroid 31 (1): 50-60, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Sassolas G, Hafdi-Nejjari Z, Casagranda L, et al.: Thyroid cancers in children, adolescents, and young adults with and without a history of childhood exposure to therapeutic radiation for other cancers. Thyroid 23 (7): 805-10, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Lee YA, Lee H, Im SW, et al.: NTRK and RET fusion-directed therapy in pediatric thyroid cancer yields a tumor response and radioiodine uptake. J Clin Invest 131 (18): , 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  19. Franco AT, Ricarte-Filho JC, Isaza A, et al.: Fusion Oncogenes Are Associated With Increased Metastatic Capacity and Persistent Disease in Pediatric Thyroid Cancers. J Clin Oncol 40 (10): 1081-1090, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  20. Tian T, Huang S, Dai H, et al.: Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Pulmonary Metastases of Papillary Thyroid Cancer in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 108 (2): 306-314, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  21. Garner EF, Maizlin II, Dellinger MB, et al.: Effects of socioeconomic status on children with well-differentiated thyroid cancer. Surgery 162 (3): 662-669, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  22. Scholfield DW, Lopez J, Eagan A, et al.: Is Multifocality a Predictor of Poor Outcome in Childhood and Adolescent Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 108 (12): 3135-3144, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  23. Garcia Alves-Junior PA, de Andrade Barreto MC, de Andrade FA, et al.: Stimulated thyroglobulin and diagnostic 131-iodine whole-body scan as a predictor of distant metastasis and association with response to treatment in pediatric thyroid cancer patients. Endocrine 84 (3): 1081-1087, 2024. [PUBMED Abstract]
  24. Christison-Lagay ER, Baertschiger RM, Dinauer C, et al.: Pediatric differentiated thyroid carcinoma: An update from the APSA Cancer Committee. J Pediatr Surg 55 (11): 2273-2283, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  25. Dermody S, Walls A, Harley EH: Pediatric thyroid cancer: An update from the SEER database 2007-2012. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 89: 121-6, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  26. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  27. Brady C, Manning SC, Rudzinski E, et al.: Clinical Outcomes of Diffuse Sclerosing Variant Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma in Pediatric Patients. Laryngoscope 132 (5): 1132-1138, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  28. Sugino K, Nagahama M, Kitagawa W, et al.: Distant Metastasis in Pediatric and Adolescent Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: Clinical Outcomes and Risk Factor Analyses. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105 (11): , 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  29. Stosic A, Fuligni F, Anderson ND, et al.: Diverse Oncogenic Fusions and Distinct Gene Expression Patterns Define the Genomic Landscape of Pediatric Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. Cancer Res 81 (22): 5625-5637, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  30. Bauer AJ: Molecular Genetics of Thyroid Cancer in Children and Adolescents. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 46 (2): 389-403, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  31. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network: Integrated genomic characterization of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Cell 159 (3): 676-90, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  32. Sisdelli L, Cordioli MICV, Vaisman F, et al.: AGK-BRAF is associated with distant metastasis and younger age in pediatric papillary thyroid carcinoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 66 (7): e27707, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  33. Bulanova Pekova B, Sykorova V, Mastnikova K, et al.: RET fusion genes in pediatric and adult thyroid carcinomas: cohort characteristics and prognosis. Endocr Relat Cancer 30 (12): , 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  34. Wasserman JD, Sabbaghian N, Fahiminiya S, et al.: DICER1 Mutations Are Frequent in Adolescent-Onset Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 103 (5): 2009-2015, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  35. Chernock RD, Rivera B, Borrelli N, et al.: Poorly differentiated thyroid carcinoma of childhood and adolescence: a distinct entity characterized by DICER1 mutations. Mod Pathol 33 (7): 1264-1274, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  36. Onder S, Mete O, Yilmaz I, et al.: DICER1 Mutations Occur in More Than One-Third of Follicular-Patterned Pediatric Papillary Thyroid Carcinomas and Correlate with a Low-Risk Disease and Female Gender Predilection. Endocr Pathol 33 (4): 437-445, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  37. Ricarte-Filho JC, Casado-Medrano V, Reichenberger E, et al.: DICER1 RNase IIIb domain mutations trigger widespread miRNA dysregulation and MAPK activation in pediatric thyroid cancer. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 14: 1083382, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  38. Potter SL, Reuther J, Chandramohan R, et al.: Integrated DNA and RNA sequencing reveals targetable alterations in metastatic pediatric papillary thyroid carcinoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 68 (1): e28741, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  39. Pekova B, Sykorova V, Dvorakova S, et al.: RET, NTRK, ALK, BRAF, and MET Fusions in a Large Cohort of Pediatric Papillary Thyroid Carcinomas. Thyroid 30 (12): 1771-1780, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  40. Spinelli C, Strambi S, Rossi L, et al.: Surgical management of papillary thyroid carcinoma in childhood and adolescence: an Italian multicenter study on 250 patients. J Endocrinol Invest 39 (9): 1055-9, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  41. Cherella CE, Richman DM, Liu E, et al.: Predictors of Bilateral Disease in Pediatric Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 106 (10): e4242-e4250, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  42. Banik GL, Shindo ML, Kraimer KL, et al.: Prevalence and Risk Factors for Multifocality in Pediatric Thyroid Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147 (12): 1100-1106, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  43. Machens A, Elwerr M, Thanh PN, et al.: Impact of central node dissection on postoperative morbidity in pediatric patients with suspected or proven thyroid cancer. Surgery 160 (2): 484-92, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  44. Albano D, Bertagna F, Panarotto MB, et al.: Early and late adverse effects of radioiodine for pediatric differentiated thyroid cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64 (11): , 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  45. Cistaro A, Quartuccio N, Garganese MC, et al.: Prognostic factors in children and adolescents with differentiated thyroid carcinoma treated with total thyroidectomy and RAI: a real-life multicentric study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49 (4): 1374-1385, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]
  46. Bojarsky M, Baran JA, Halada S, et al.: Outcomes of ATA Low-Risk Pediatric Thyroid Cancer Patients Not Treated With Radioactive Iodine Therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 108 (12): 3338-3344, 2023. [PUBMED Abstract]
  47. Golpanian S, Perez EA, Tashiro J, et al.: Pediatric papillary thyroid carcinoma: outcomes and survival predictors in 2504 surgical patients. Pediatr Surg Int 32 (3): 201-8, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  48. Vergamini LB, Frazier AL, Abrantes FL, et al.: Increase in the incidence of differentiated thyroid carcinoma in children, adolescents, and young adults: a population-based study. J Pediatr 164 (6): 1481-5, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  49. Powers PA, Dinauer CA, Tuttle RM, et al.: Treatment of recurrent papillary thyroid carcinoma in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 16 (7): 1033-40, 2003. [PUBMED Abstract]
  50. Brose MS, Nutting CM, Jarzab B, et al.: Sorafenib in radioactive iodine-refractory, locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet 384 (9940): 319-28, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  51. Iyer P, Mayer JL, Ewig JM: Response to sorafenib in a pediatric patient with papillary thyroid carcinoma with diffuse nodular pulmonary disease requiring mechanical ventilation. Thyroid 24 (1): 169-74, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  52. Schlumberger M, Tahara M, Wirth LJ, et al.: Lenvatinib versus placebo in radioiodine-refractory thyroid cancer. N Engl J Med 372 (7): 621-30, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  53. Mahajan P, Dawrant J, Kheradpour A, et al.: Response to Lenvatinib in Children with Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma. Thyroid 28 (11): 1450-1454, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  54. Brose MS, Cabanillas ME, Cohen EE, et al.: Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive metastatic or unresectable papillary thyroid cancer refractory to radioactive iodine: a non-randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 17 (9): 1272-82, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  55. Subbiah V, Kreitman RJ, Wainberg ZA, et al.: Dabrafenib and Trametinib Treatment in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic BRAF V600-Mutant Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer. J Clin Oncol 36 (1): 7-13, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  56. Drilon A, Laetsch TW, Kummar S, et al.: Efficacy of Larotrectinib in TRK Fusion-Positive Cancers in Adults and Children. N Engl J Med 378 (8): 731-739, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  57. Chu YH, Dias-Santagata D, Farahani AA, et al.: Clinicopathologic and molecular characterization of NTRK-rearranged thyroid carcinoma (NRTC). Mod Pathol 33 (11): 2186-2197, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  58. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: VITRAKVI (larotrectinib): Prescribing Information. Stamford, Conn: Loxo Oncology, Inc., 2018. Available online. Last accessed November 29, 2024.
  59. Wirth LJ, Sherman E, Robinson B, et al.: Efficacy of Selpercatinib in RET-Altered Thyroid Cancers. N Engl J Med 383 (9): 825-835, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  60. Eli Lilly and Company: RETEVMO (selpercatinib): Prescribing Information. Indianapolis, Ind: Lilly USA, LLC, 2024. Available online. Last accessed November 29, 2024.
  61. Brose MS, Robinson B, Sherman SI, et al.: Cabozantinib for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (COSMIC-311): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 22 (8): 1126-1138, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  62. Duke ES, Barone AK, Chatterjee S, et al.: FDA Approval Summary: Cabozantinib for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 28 (19): 4173-4177, 2022. [PUBMED Abstract]

Medullary Thyroid Cancer

Medullary thyroid carcinoma is a rare form of thyroid carcinoma that originates from calcitonin-secreting parafollicular C cells and accounts for less than 10% of all cases of thyroid carcinoma in children.[1]

Risk Factors

In children, medullary thyroid carcinoma is usually associated with RET germline pathogenic variants in the context of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2) syndrome.[2] In children, medullary thyroid carcinoma is caused by a dominantly inherited or de novo gain-of-function variant in the RET proto-oncogene associated with either MEN2A or MEN2B, depending on the specific variant.[3] In patients with MEN syndromes, thyroid cancer may be associated with the development of other types of malignant tumors. For more information, see Childhood Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN) Syndromes Treatment and Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 2 (MEN2).

A single-institution study retrospectively analyzed 144 patients aged 21 years or younger with medullary thyroid carcinoma presenting between 1961 and 2019.[4] The aim of the study was to compare patients with sporadic versus hereditary medullary thyroid carcinoma. In contrast to hereditary medullary thyroid carcinoma (n = 124, 86%), patients with sporadic medullary thyroid carcinoma (n = 20, 14%) were older (P < .0001) and had larger tumors (P < .0001), a higher initial stage grouping (P = .001), more structural disease (P = .0045), and more distant metastases (P = .00084) at last follow-up. Even so, patients with sporadic medullary thyroid carcinoma were not more likely to die of their disease (P = .42).

Clinical Presentation and Prognostic Factors

Children with thyroid cancer usually present with a thyroid mass with or without painless cervical adenopathy.[5] Based on medical and family history and clinical findings, the thyroid cancer may be part of a tumor predisposition syndrome such as MEN.[6,7]

Children with medullary thyroid carcinoma present with an aggressive clinical course; 50% of patients have hematogenous metastases at diagnosis.[8]

A review of 430 patients aged 0 to 21 years with medullary thyroid cancer reported that worse prognosis was associated with older age (16–21 years) at diagnosis, tumor diameter greater than 2 cm, positive margins after total thyroidectomy, and lymph node metastases.[9]

From 1997 to 2019, the German Society for Pediatric Oncology and Hematology–Malignant Endocrine Tumors registry identified a total of 57 patients with medullary thyroid carcinoma and 17 patients with C-cell hyperplasia.[10][Level of evidence C1] In patients with medullary thyroid carcinoma, the median follow-up was 5 years (range, 0–19 years), and the median age at diagnosis was 10 years (range, 0–17 years).

  • The overall survival (OS) rate was 87%, and the event-free survival (EFS) rate was 52%.
  • In total, 96.4% of patients were affected by MEN2 syndromes; 37 of 42 patients had MEN2A, and 3 of 28 patients had MEN2B (RET M918T variant).
  • The 10-year EFS rates were 78% for patients with MEN2A and 38% for patients with MEN2B (P < .001).
  • In multivariate analyses, positive lymph node status and postoperatively elevated calcitonin levels were significant adverse prognostic factors for EFS.

In children with hereditary MEN2B, medullary thyroid carcinoma may be detectable within the first year of life, and nodal metastases may occur before age 5 years. The recognition of mucosal neuromas, a history of alacrima, constipation (secondary to intestinal ganglioneuromatosis), and marfanoid facial features and body habitus is critical to early diagnosis because the RET M918T variant associated with MEN2B is often de novo. Approximately 50% of patients with MEN2B develop a pheochromocytoma. There is a varying degree of risk of developing pheochromocytoma and hyperparathyroidism in MEN2A, based on the specific RET variant.[3,11]

The National Cancer Institute is conducting a natural history study of children and young adults with medullary thyroid cancer (NCT01660984).

For more information, see Childhood Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN) Syndromes Treatment.

Histology and Molecular Features of Medullary Thyroid Cancer

Tumors of the thyroid are classified as adenomas or carcinomas.[1214] Adenomas are benign, well circumscribed, and encapsulated nodules that may cause notable enlargement of all or part of the gland, which extends to both sides of the neck. Some tumors may secrete hormones. Transformation to a malignant carcinoma may occur in some cells, which may grow and spread to lymph nodes in the neck or to the lungs. Approximately 20% of thyroid nodules in children are malignant.[7,12]

Medullary thyroid carcinoma is a neuroendocrine malignancy derived from the neural crest-originated parafollicular C cells of the thyroid gland. In children, medullary thyroid carcinoma is a monogenic disorder caused by a dominantly inherited or de novo gain-of-function variant in the RET proto-oncogene associated with either MEN2A or MEN2B, depending on the specific variant.[2] The highest risk of medullary thyroid carcinoma is conferred by the RET M918T variant, which is associated with MEN2B. The RET variants associated with MEN2A confer a lower risk of medullary thyroid carcinoma.[3]

Treatment of Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma

Medullary thyroid carcinomas are commonly associated with the MEN2 syndrome. For more information, see Childhood Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN) Syndromes Treatment and Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 2 (MEN2).

Treatment options for medullary thyroid carcinoma include the following:

Surgery

Treatment for children with medullary thyroid carcinoma is mainly surgical. Investigators have concluded that prophylactic central node dissection should not be performed on patients with hereditary medullary thyroid cancer if their basal calcitonin serum levels are lower than 40 pg/mL.[15]

Most cases of medullary thyroid carcinoma in children occur in the context of the MEN2A and MEN2B syndromes. In those familial cases, early genetic testing and counseling is indicated, and prophylactic surgery is recommended for children with the RET germline pathogenic variant. Strong genotype-phenotype correlations have facilitated the development of guidelines for intervention, including screening and age at which prophylactic thyroidectomy should occur.[11]

Evidence (surgery):

  1. A retrospective analysis identified 167 children with RET variants who underwent prophylactic thyroidectomy. This group included 109 patients without a concomitant central node dissection and 58 patients with a concomitant central node dissection. Postoperative hypoparathyroidism was more frequent in older children (32% in the oldest age group vs. 3% in the youngest age group; P = .002), regardless of whether central node dissection was carried out. Three children developed recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy after undergoing central node dissection (P = .040). All complications resolved within 6 months. Postoperative normalization of calcitonin serum levels was achieved in 114 of 115 children (99.1%) with raised preoperative values. Children were classified into risk groups by their specific type of RET variant (see Table 2).[16]
    • In the highest-risk category, medullary thyroid carcinoma was found in five of six children (83%) aged 3 years or younger.
    • In the high-risk category, medullary thyroid carcinoma was present in 6 of 20 children (30%) aged 3 years or younger, 16 of 36 children (44%) aged 4 to 6 years, and 11 of 16 children (69%) aged 7 to 12 years (P = .081).
    • In the moderate-risk category, medullary thyroid carcinoma was seen in one of nine children (11%) aged 3 years or younger, 1 of 26 children (4%) aged 4 to 6 years, 3 of 26 children (12%) aged 7 to 12 years, and 7 of 16 children (44%) aged 13 to 18 years (P = .006).

The American Thyroid Association has proposed the following guidelines for prophylactic thyroidectomy in children with hereditary medullary thyroid carcinoma (see Table 2).[11]

Table 2. Risk Levels and Management Based on Common RET Variants Detected by Genetic Screeninga
  Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma Risk Level
  Highest (MEN2B) High (MEN2A) Moderate (MEN2A)
MEN2A = multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2A; MEN2B = multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B.
aAdapted from Wells et al.[11]
RET Variant M918T A883F, C634F/G/R/S/W/Y G533C, C609F/G/R/S/Y, C611F/G/S/Y/W, C618F/R/S, C620F/R/S, C630R/Y, D631Y, K666E, E768D, L790F, V804L, V804M, S891A, R912P
Age for Prophylactic Thyroidectomy Total thyroidectomy in the first year of life, ideally in the first months of life. Total thyroidectomy at or before age 5 y based on serum calcitonin level. Total thyroidectomy to be performed when the serum calcitonin level is above the normal range or at convenience if the parents do not wish to embark on a lengthy period of surveillance.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy

A number of TKIs have been evaluated and approved for patients with advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma.

  • Vandetanib. Vandetanib is an inhibitor of the RET kinase, VEGFR, and EGFR signaling. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vandetanib for the treatment of symptomatic or progressive medullary thyroid cancer in adult patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic disease. The approval was based on a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial that showed a marked progression-free survival (PFS) improvement for patients randomly assigned to receive vandetanib (hazard ratio, 0.35). The trial also showed an objective response rate advantage for patients receiving vandetanib (44% vs. 1% for the placebo arm).[17,18]

    Children with locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma were treated with vandetanib in a phase I/II trial. Of 16 patients, only 1 had no response, and 7 had partial responses, for an objective response rate of 44%. Disease in three of those patients subsequently recurred, but 11 of 16 patients treated with vandetanib remained on therapy at the time of the report. The median duration of therapy for the entire cohort was 27 months, with a range of 2 to 52 months.[19] A long-term outcome evaluation in a cohort of 17 children and adolescents with advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma who received vandetanib reported a median PFS of 6.7 years and a 5-year OS rate of 88.2%.[20]

  • Cabozantinib. Cabozantinib is an inhibitor of the RET and MET kinases and VEGFR. It has also shown activity against unresectable medullary thyroid cancer (10 of 35 adult patients [29%] had partial responses).[21] A double-blind phase III trial compared cabozantinib with placebo in adults with progressive, metastatic medullary thyroid carcinoma.[22] The estimated PFS was 11.2 months for patients who received cabozantinib and 4 months for patients who received the placebo. At 1 year, 47.3% of patients who were treated with cabozantinib were alive and progression free, compared with 7.2% of patients who received the placebo. Significant adverse effects resulted in dose reductions in 79% of patients and discontinuation of cabozantinib in 16% of patients. The FDA approved cabozantinib in 2012 for the treatment of adults with metastatic medullary thyroid cancer.
  • Selpercatinib. Selpercatinib is a RET inhibitor. A phase I/II trial of selpercatinib therapy for patients with RET-altered cancers enrolled 55 patients with medullary thyroid cancer (age range, 17–84 years) who were previously treated with vandetanib and/or cabozantinib and 88 patients with medullary thyroid cancer (age range, 15–82 years) who were not previously treated with vandetanib or cabozantinib.[23]
    • For the previously treated cohort, 69% of patients had objective responses, and the median duration of response had not been reached, with a median follow-up of 14 months.
    • For the cohort of patients who were not previously treated, 73% of patients had objective responses, with a median duration of response of 22 months.
    • The most common grades 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (12%), increased alanine aminotransferase (10%) and aspartate aminotransferase (7%), diarrhea (3%), and prolonged QT interval (2%).
    • In a small cohort of six children with recurrent medullary thyroid carcinoma who were treated with selpercatinib, all patients had ongoing responses at a median follow-up of 13 months.[24]
    • In 2024, the FDA granted full approval to selpercatinib for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients aged 2 years and older with advanced or metastatic RET fusion–positive medullary thyroid cancer who require systemic therapy.[25]

For more information, see Childhood Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN) Syndromes Treatment and Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 2 (MEN2).

Treatment options under clinical evaluation for medullary thyroid carcinoma

Information about National Cancer Institute (NCI)–supported clinical trials can be found on the NCI website. For information about clinical trials sponsored by other organizations, see the ClinicalTrials.gov website.

References
  1. Dermody S, Walls A, Harley EH: Pediatric thyroid cancer: An update from the SEER database 2007-2012. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 89: 121-6, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. Viola D, Romei C, Elisei R: Medullary thyroid carcinoma in children. Endocr Dev 26: 202-13, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  3. Bauer AJ: Molecular Genetics of Thyroid Cancer in Children and Adolescents. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 46 (2): 389-403, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. Hensley SG, Hu MI, Bassett RL, et al.: Pediatric Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma: Clinical Presentations and Long-Term Outcomes in 144 Patients Over 6 Decades. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 109 (9): 2256-2268, 2024. [PUBMED Abstract]
  5. Al-Qurayshi Z, Hauch A, Srivastav S, et al.: A National Perspective of the Risk, Presentation, and Outcomes of Pediatric Thyroid Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142 (5): 472-8, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  6. Acquaviva G, Visani M, Repaci A, et al.: Molecular pathology of thyroid tumours of follicular cells: a review of genetic alterations and their clinicopathological relevance. Histopathology 72 (1): 6-31, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Francis GL, Waguespack SG, Bauer AJ, et al.: Management Guidelines for Children with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid 25 (7): 716-59, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. Waguespack SG, Rich TA, Perrier ND, et al.: Management of medullary thyroid carcinoma and MEN2 syndromes in childhood. Nat Rev Endocrinol 7 (10): 596-607, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Raval MV, Sturgeon C, Bentrem DJ, et al.: Influence of lymph node metastases on survival in pediatric medullary thyroid cancer. J Pediatr Surg 45 (10): 1947-54, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Kuhlen M, Frühwald MC, Dunstheimer DPA, et al.: Revisiting the genotype-phenotype correlation in children with medullary thyroid carcinoma: A report from the GPOH-MET registry. Pediatr Blood Cancer 67 (4): e28171, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  11. Wells SA, Asa SL, Dralle H, et al.: Revised American Thyroid Association guidelines for the management of medullary thyroid carcinoma. Thyroid 25 (6): 567-610, 2015. [PUBMED Abstract]
  12. Dinauer C, Francis GL: Thyroid cancer in children. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 36 (3): 779-806, vii, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  13. Vasko V, Bauer AJ, Tuttle RM, et al.: Papillary and follicular thyroid cancers in children. Endocr Dev 10: 140-72, 2007. [PUBMED Abstract]
  14. Halac I, Zimmerman D: Thyroid nodules and cancers in children. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 34 (3): 725-44, x, 2005. [PUBMED Abstract]
  15. Machens A, Elwerr M, Thanh PN, et al.: Impact of central node dissection on postoperative morbidity in pediatric patients with suspected or proven thyroid cancer. Surgery 160 (2): 484-92, 2016. [PUBMED Abstract]
  16. Machens A, Elwerr M, Lorenz K, et al.: Long-term outcome of prophylactic thyroidectomy in children carrying RET germline mutations. Br J Surg 105 (2): e150-e157, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  17. Wells SA, Robinson BG, Gagel RF, et al.: Vandetanib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 30 (2): 134-41, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  18. Thornton K, Kim G, Maher VE, et al.: Vandetanib for the treatment of symptomatic or progressive medullary thyroid cancer in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease: U.S. Food and Drug Administration drug approval summary. Clin Cancer Res 18 (14): 3722-30, 2012. [PUBMED Abstract]
  19. Fox E, Widemann BC, Chuk MK, et al.: Vandetanib in children and adolescents with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2B associated medullary thyroid carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 19 (15): 4239-48, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  20. Kraft IL, Akshintala S, Zhu Y, et al.: Outcomes of Children and Adolescents with Advanced Hereditary Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma Treated with Vandetanib. Clin Cancer Res 24 (4): 753-765, 2018. [PUBMED Abstract]
  21. Kurzrock R, Sherman SI, Ball DW, et al.: Activity of XL184 (Cabozantinib), an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with medullary thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol 29 (19): 2660-6, 2011. [PUBMED Abstract]
  22. Elisei R, Schlumberger MJ, Müller SP, et al.: Cabozantinib in progressive medullary thyroid cancer. J Clin Oncol 31 (29): 3639-46, 2013. [PUBMED Abstract]
  23. Wirth LJ, Sherman E, Robinson B, et al.: Efficacy of Selpercatinib in RET-Altered Thyroid Cancers. N Engl J Med 383 (9): 825-835, 2020. [PUBMED Abstract]
  24. Shankar A, Kurzawinski T, Ross E, et al.: Treatment outcome with a selective RET tyrosine kinase inhibitor selpercatinib in children with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 and advanced medullary thyroid carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 158: 38-46, 2021. [PUBMED Abstract]
  25. Eli Lilly and Company: RETEVMO (selpercatinib): Prescribing Information. Indianapolis, Ind: Lilly USA, LLC, 2024. Available online. Last accessed November 29, 2024.

Special Considerations for the Treatment of Children With Cancer

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare, although the overall incidence has slowly increased since 1975.[1] Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the following pediatric specialists and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation to achieve optimal survival and quality of life:

  • Primary care physicians.
  • Pediatric surgeons.
  • Pathologists.
  • Pediatric radiation oncologists.
  • Pediatric medical oncologists and hematologists.
  • Ophthalmologists.
  • Rehabilitation specialists.
  • Pediatric oncology nurses.
  • Social workers.
  • Child-life professionals.
  • Psychologists.
  • Nutritionists.

For specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer, see the summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has outlined guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer.[2] At these centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate is offered to most patients and their families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with current standard therapy. Other types of clinical trials test novel therapies when there is no standard therapy for a cancer diagnosis. Most of the progress in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI website.

Dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Between 1975 and 2020, childhood cancer mortality decreased by more than 50%.[35] Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close monitoring because side effects of cancer therapy may persist or develop months or years after treatment. For information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors, see Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

Childhood cancer is a rare disease, with about 15,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States in individuals younger than 20 years.[6] The U.S. Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines a rare disease as one that affects populations smaller than 200,000 people in the United States. Therefore, all pediatric cancers are considered rare.

The designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among pediatric and adult groups. In adults, rare cancers are defined as those with an annual incidence of fewer than six cases per 100,000 people. They account for up to 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the European Union and about 20% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States.[7,8] In children and adolescents, the designation of a rare tumor is not uniform among international groups, as follows:

  • A consensus effort between the European Union Joint Action on Rare Cancers and the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers estimated that 11% of all cancers in patients younger than 20 years could be categorized as very rare. This consensus group defined very rare cancers as those with annual incidences of fewer than two cases per 1 million people. However, three additional histologies (thyroid carcinoma, melanoma, and testicular cancer) with incidences of more than two cases per 1 million people were also included in the very rare group due to a lack of knowledge and expertise in the management of these tumors.[9]
  • The Children’s Oncology Group defines rare pediatric cancers as those listed in the International Classification of Childhood Cancer subgroup XI, which includes thyroid cancers, melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers, and multiple types of carcinomas (e.g., adrenocortical carcinomas, nasopharyngeal carcinomas, and most adult-type carcinomas such as breast cancers and colorectal cancers).[10] These diagnoses account for about 5% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and about 27% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.[4]

    Most cancers in subgroup XI are either melanomas or thyroid cancers, with other cancer types accounting for only 2% of the cancers diagnosed in children aged 0 to 14 years and 9.3% of the cancers diagnosed in adolescents aged 15 to 19 years.

These rare cancers are extremely challenging to study because of the relatively few patients with any individual diagnosis, the predominance of rare cancers in the adolescent population, and the small number of clinical trials for adolescents with rare cancers.

Information about these tumors may also be found in sources relevant to adults with cancer, such as Thyroid Cancer Treatment.

References
  1. Smith MA, Seibel NL, Altekruse SF, et al.: Outcomes for children and adolescents with cancer: challenges for the twenty-first century. J Clin Oncol 28 (15): 2625-34, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics: Standards for pediatric cancer centers. Pediatrics 134 (2): 410-4, 2014. Also available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  3. Smith MA, Altekruse SF, Adamson PC, et al.: Declining childhood and adolescent cancer mortality. Cancer 120 (16): 2497-506, 2014. [PUBMED Abstract]
  4. National Cancer Institute: NCCR*Explorer: An interactive website for NCCR cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed February 25, 2025.
  5. Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute: SEER*Explorer: An interactive website for SEER cancer statistics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Available online. Last accessed December 30, 2024.
  6. Ward E, DeSantis C, Robbins A, et al.: Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 64 (2): 83-103, 2014 Mar-Apr. [PUBMED Abstract]
  7. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Botta L, et al.: Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 18 (8): 1022-1039, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  8. DeSantis CE, Kramer JL, Jemal A: The burden of rare cancers in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 67 (4): 261-272, 2017. [PUBMED Abstract]
  9. Ferrari A, Brecht IB, Gatta G, et al.: Defining and listing very rare cancers of paediatric age: consensus of the Joint Action on Rare Cancers in cooperation with the European Cooperative Study Group for Pediatric Rare Tumors. Eur J Cancer 110: 120-126, 2019. [PUBMED Abstract]
  10. Pappo AS, Krailo M, Chen Z, et al.: Infrequent tumor initiative of the Children’s Oncology Group: initial lessons learned and their impact on future plans. J Clin Oncol 28 (33): 5011-6, 2010. [PUBMED Abstract]

Latest Updates to This Summary (04/03/2025)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

Differentiated Thyroid Cancer (Papillary/Follicular)

Added text to state that some sections of this summary provide an overview of the American Thyroid Association guidelines and the proposed revisions, which are presented here without a specific endorsement by the National Cancer Institute.

This summary is written and maintained by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of NCI. The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. More information about summary policies and the role of the PDQ Editorial Boards in maintaining the PDQ summaries can be found on the About This PDQ Summary and PDQ® Cancer Information for Health Professionals pages.

About This PDQ Summary

Purpose of This Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of childhood thyroid cancer. It is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians in the care of their patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Reviewers and Updates

This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board, which is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary reflects an independent review of the literature and does not represent a policy statement of NCI or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Board members review recently published articles each month to determine whether an article should:

  • be discussed at a meeting,
  • be cited with text, or
  • replace or update an existing article that is already cited.

Changes to the summaries are made through a consensus process in which Board members evaluate the strength of the evidence in the published articles and determine how the article should be included in the summary.

The lead reviewers for Childhood Thyroid Cancer Treatment are:

  • Denise Adams, MD (Children’s Hospital Boston)
  • Karen J. Marcus, MD, FACR (Dana-Farber of Boston Children’s Cancer Center and Blood Disorders Harvard Medical School)
  • William H. Meyer, MD
  • Paul A. Meyers, MD (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center)
  • Thomas A. Olson, MD (Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston Campus)
  • Arthur Kim Ritchey, MD (Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC)
  • Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD (St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital)

Any comments or questions about the summary content should be submitted to Cancer.gov through the NCI website’s Email Us. Do not contact the individual Board Members with questions or comments about the summaries. Board members will not respond to individual inquiries.

Levels of Evidence

Some of the reference citations in this summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board uses a formal evidence ranking system in developing its level-of-evidence designations.

Permission to Use This Summary

PDQ is a registered trademark. Although the content of PDQ documents can be used freely as text, it cannot be identified as an NCI PDQ cancer information summary unless it is presented in its entirety and is regularly updated. However, an author would be permitted to write a sentence such as “NCI’s PDQ cancer information summary about breast cancer prevention states the risks succinctly: [include excerpt from the summary].”

The preferred citation for this PDQ summary is:

PDQ® Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Childhood Thyroid Cancer Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated <MM/DD/YYYY>. Available at: /types/thyroid/hp/child-thyroid-treatment-pdq. Accessed <MM/DD/YYYY>. [PMID: 26389315]

Images in this summary are used with permission of the author(s), artist, and/or publisher for use within the PDQ summaries only. Permission to use images outside the context of PDQ information must be obtained from the owner(s) and cannot be granted by the National Cancer Institute. Information about using the illustrations in this summary, along with many other cancer-related images, is available in Visuals Online, a collection of over 2,000 scientific images.

Disclaimer

Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options may be described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for insurance reimbursement determinations. More information on insurance coverage is available on Cancer.gov on the Managing Cancer Care page.

Contact Us

More information about contacting us or receiving help with the Cancer.gov website can be found on our Contact Us for Help page. Questions can also be submitted to Cancer.gov through the website’s Email Us.