Neuroblastoma serves as a paradigm for utilising tumour genomic data for determining patient prognosis and treatment allocation. However, before the establishment of the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Task Force in 2004, international consensus on markers, methodology, and data interpretation did not exist, compromising the reliability of decisive genetic markers and inhibiting translational research efforts. The objectives of the INRG Biology Committee were to identify highly prognostic genetic aberrations to be included in the new INRG risk classification schema and to develop precise definitions, decisive biomarkers, and technique standardisation. The review of the INRG database (n ¼ 8800 patients) by the INRG Task Force finally enabled the identification of the most significant neuroblastoma biomarkers. In addition, the Biology Committee compared the standard operating procedures of different cooperative groups to arrive at international consensus for methodology, nomenclature, and future directions. Consensus was reached to include MYCN status, 11q23 allelic status, and ploidy in the INRG classification system on the basis of an evidence-based review of the INRG database. Standardised operating procedures for analysing these genetic factors were adopted, and criteria for proper nomenclature were developed. Neuroblastoma treatment planning is highly dependant on tumour cell genomic features, and it is likely that a comprehensive panel of DNA-based biomarkers will be used in future risk assignment algorithms applying genome-wide techniques. Consensus on methodology and interpretation is essential for uniform INRG classification and will greatly facilitate international and cooperative clinical and translational research studies.

Background:In the INRG dataset, the hypothesis that any segmental chromosomal alteration might be of prognostic impact in neuroblastoma without MYCN amplification (MNA) was tested.Methods:The presence of any segmental chromosomal alteration (chromosome 1p deletion, 11q deletion and/or chromosome 17q gain) defined a segmental genomic profile. Only tumours with a confirmed unaltered status for all three chromosome arms were considered as having no segmental chromosomal alterations.Results:Among the 8800 patients in the INRG database, a genomic type could be attributed for 505 patients without MNA: 397 cases had a segmental genomic type, whereas 108 cases had an absence of any segmental alteration. A segmental genomic type was more frequent in patients >18 months and in stage 4 disease (P<0.0001). In univariate analysis, 11q deletion, 17q gain and a segmental genomic type were associated with a poorer event-free survival (EFS) (P<0.0001, P=0.0002 and P<0.0001, respectively). In multivariate analysis modelling EFS, the parameters age, stage and a segmental genomic type were retained in the model, whereas the individual genetic markers were not (P<0.0001 and RR=2.56; P=0.0002 and RR=1.8; P=0.01 and RR=1.7, respectively).Conclusion:A segmental genomic profile, rather than the single genetic markers, adds prognostic information to the clinical markers age and stage in neuroblastoma patients without MNA, underlining the importance of pangenomic studies.