Introduction Survival of childhood cancer has increased over the past decades. This has led to the development of strategies aiming to enhance follow-up care and research, for which priorities may vary globally. We explored perspectives of an international healthcare workers panel. Methods Attendants of a meet-the-expert session on childhood cancer survivorship at the 2018 SIOP conference completed a survey about their view on important follow-up care and research aspects for survivors below and over 18 years. We analyzed overarching categories and subtopics, and compared Asian versus European and American healthcare workers. Results Fifty-eight participants from different medical specialties (67.2% pediatric oncologists) and continents (48.3% Asia, 39.7% Europe/America) responded. Follow-up care priorities for survivors below and over 18 years included physical care (39.3% ≤18 years, 35.9% >18 years) and healthcare structure (29.4%, 26.0%). Physical care was also the most important research aspect for both age groups (52.5%, 50.7%). Asian clinicians (n=22) primarily prioritized physical care aspects of follow-up care (48.0%, 45.6%), whereas European/American (n=19) clinicians underscored the importance of healthcare structure (43.9%, 34.4%). The main research priority category concerned physical care for all clinicians. Psychological support was the most frequently reported subtopic. Conclusion Physical care is the most important aspect of survivorship care and research according to clinicians from several continents. Asian and European/American respondents shared most priorities, however, healthcare structure was a more important category for European/American clinicians. The most common subtopic was psychological support, underlining also the need to involve psychologists in follow-up.

Appropriate high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) for high-risk neuroblastoma has not yet been established. In Japan, a unique HDC regimen (called double-conditioning regimen) comprising two cycles of total 800 mg/m2 of thiotepa and total 280 mg/m2 of melphalan is widely used. To re-evaluate the safety and the efficacy of this regimen for high-risk neuroblastoma, the medical records of 41 patients with high-risk neuroblastoma who underwent the double-conditioning regimen followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell rescue between 2002 and 2012 were reviewed. MYCN-amplified high-risk neuroblastomas were observed in 23 patients. All patients underwent intensive multidrug induction chemotherapy, but none underwent anti-GD2 antibody immunotherapy. The primary tumor was resected at the adequate time point. The median follow-up duration for living patients was 9.2 years (range = 5.5–14.0 years). The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates from treatment initiation were 41.5% ± 7.7% and 56.1% ± 7.8%, respectively. The 5-year EFS of MYCN-amplified high-risk neuroblastoma patients was 60.9% ± 10.2%, which was significantly superior compared to MYCN-non-amplified high-risk neuroblastoma patients (16.7% ± 8.8%; P < 0.001). MYCN amplification was the most favorable prognostic factor for EFS (hazard ratio = 0.29; 95% confidence interval = 0.12–0.66). Of the 41 patients, 3 died because of regimen-related toxicity (infection, n = 2; microangiopathy, n = 1). The double-conditioning regimen with thiotepa and melphalan is effective for high-risk neuroblastoma, especially in patients with MYCN amplification. However, the double-conditioning regimen is toxic and warrants special attention in clinical practice.