1
|
Matsui JK, Jackson S, Fang J, Mohler DG, Steffner RJ, Avedian RS, Charville GW, Rijn MVD, Million L, Chin AL, Hiniker SM, Kalbasi A, Moding EJ. Association of Histologic Subtype With Radiation Response and Survival Outcomes in Synovial Sarcoma. Adv Radiat Oncol 2025; 10:101718. [PMID: 40092155 PMCID: PMC11910705 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2025.101718] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2024] [Accepted: 01/03/2025] [Indexed: 03/19/2025] Open
Abstract
Purpose Synovial sarcoma (SS) is a rare, aggressive soft tissue malignancy that is divided into biphasic and monophasic histologic subtypes. In addition to surgical resection, radiation therapy (RT) improves local control in patients at higher risk of recurrence. This study aimed to investigate the impact of histologic subtype on radiation response and survival outcomes in patients treated with RT as part of definitive management. Methods and Materials We retrospectively identified patients with SS treated with RT and surgical resection from 1997 to 2020 at Stanford Medical Center. We assessed the association between histologic subtypes (biphasic vs monophasic) and response to preoperative RT based on imaging and pathology. Volumetric response was calculated using the pre-RT and post-RT/preoperative postcontrast T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging images. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted using Cox regression models. Variables for univariable and multivariable analyses included age, histologic subtypes, tumor location, tumor size, margin status, chemotherapy, and performance status. Results In our study, 50 patients met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 34.8 years at diagnosis, and 36% (n = 18) received concurrent chemotherapy. Biphasic (n = 18, 36%) and monophasic (n = 32, 64%) tumors exhibited significant differences in negative margin status (94% vs 66%, P = .036). Of the 22 patients who underwent preoperative RT, 15 patients had pre-RT and post-RT imaging to assess volumetric changes. Biphasic tumors demonstrated less necrosis at the time of surgical resection but a significantly greater volumetric decrease with preoperative RT (42% vs 5%, P = .004). PFS and OS were superior in biphasic tumors (P = .003 and P = .009, respectively). Multivariable analyses identified histologic subtypes (monophasic vs biphasic) as a significant factor impacting PFS (HR, 5.65; 95% CI, 1.78-17.91; P = .003). Conclusions Biphasic tumors exhibit an improved volumetric response to preoperative RT and improved outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of considering histology when tailoring treatment for patients with SS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer K. Matsui
- The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Scott Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Judy Fang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - David G. Mohler
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Robert J. Steffner
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Raffi S. Avedian
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | | | - Matt van de Rijn
- Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Lynn Million
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Alexander L. Chin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Susan M. Hiniker
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Anusha Kalbasi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Everett J. Moding
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Stergioula A, Kormas T, Kokkali S, Memos N, Pantelis E, Pouloudi D, Agrogiannis G. What Is the Prognostic Value of the Pathologic Response after Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy in Soft Tissue Sarcoma? An Institutional Study Using the EORTC-STBSG Response Score. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:3449. [PMID: 39456543 PMCID: PMC11506461 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16203449] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2024] [Revised: 10/09/2024] [Accepted: 10/10/2024] [Indexed: 10/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Background/Objectives: The relationship between pathologic findings in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) after neoadjuvant treatment and oncological outcomes remains uncertain due to varying evaluation methods and cut-off values. This study aims to assess pathologic findings after neoadjuvant radiotherapy in STS using the EORTC-STBSG response score and evaluate its prognostic value. Methods: Clinical and outcome data from 44 patients were reviewed. Resected specimens were re-evaluated to measure viable cells, necrosis, fibrosis, and hyalinization. Local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used for univariate and multivariate analyses to correlate outcomes with pathologic response. Results: The median percentages of viable cells, necrosis, and fibrosis/hyalinization were 20%, 11%, and 40%, respectively. A pathologic complete response (pCR), defined as ≤5% viable cells, was achieved in 25% of cases. Local recurrence occurred in 33% of cases, with a significantly higher rate of 64% after R1 resection compared to 22% after R0 resection. Distant metastases were observed in 42% of patients, primarily in the lungs. The 3-year rates for LRFS, DMFS, and OS were 65%, 54%, and 67%, respectively. A correlation between outcomes and tumor size, grade and histological subtype was observed. Classifying pathologic response by the EORTC-STBSG score failed to show an association with outcomes. Patients achieving pCR showed lower risk of LR and improved OS. Conclusions: While the EORTC-STBSG score did not show a prognostic value, resection specimens with ≤5% viable cells were linked to improved LRFS and OS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anastasia Stergioula
- 1st Department of Pathology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 72 Athens, Greece; (D.P.); (G.A.)
- Center of Radiotherapy, IASO General Hospital, 151 23 Athens, Greece
- Radiotherapy Department, Iatropolis Clinic, 115 21 Athens, Greece;
| | - Theodoros Kormas
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Agios Savvas Anticancer Hospital, 115 22 Athens, Greece;
| | - Stefania Kokkali
- Oncology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Hippocratio General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 72 Athens, Greece;
| | - Nikolaos Memos
- 2nd Department of Surgery, Medical School, Aretaieion Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 72 Athens, Greece;
| | - Evaggelos Pantelis
- Radiotherapy Department, Iatropolis Clinic, 115 21 Athens, Greece;
- Medical Physics Laboratory, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 72 Athens, Greece
| | - Despina Pouloudi
- 1st Department of Pathology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 72 Athens, Greece; (D.P.); (G.A.)
| | - Georgios Agrogiannis
- 1st Department of Pathology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 72 Athens, Greece; (D.P.); (G.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fernandez-Gil BI, Schiapparelli P, Navarro-Garcia de Llano JP, Otamendi-Lopez A, Ulloa-Navas MJ, Michaelides L, Vazquez-Ramos CA, Herchko SM, Murray ME, Cherukuri Y, Asmann YW, Trifiletti DM, Quiñones-Hinojosa A. Effects of PreOperative radiotherapy in a preclinical glioblastoma model: a paradigm-shift approach. J Neurooncol 2024; 169:633-646. [PMID: 39037687 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-024-04765-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2024] [Accepted: 06/29/2024] [Indexed: 07/23/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE PreOperative radiotherapy (RT) is commonly used in the treatment of brain metastasis and different cancer types but has never been used in primary glioblastoma (GBM). Here, we aim to establish, describe, and validate the use of PreOperative RT for the treatment of GBM in a preclinical model. METHODS Rat brains were locally irradiated with 30-Gy, hypofractionated in five doses 2 weeks before or after the resection of intracranial GBM. Kaplan-Meier analysis determined survival. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was performed, and nuclei size and p21 senescence marker were measured in both resected and recurrent rodent tumors. Immunohistochemistry assessed microglia/macrophage markers, and RNAseq analyzed gene expression changes in recurrent tumors. Akoya Multiplex Staining on two human patients from our ongoing Phase I/IIa trial served as proof of principle. RESULTS PreOperative RT group median survival was significantly higher than PostOperative RT (p < 0.05). Radiation enlarged cytoplasm and nuclei in PreOperative RT resected tumors (p < 0.001) and induced senescence in PostOperative RT recurrent tumors (p < 0.05). Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) suggested a more proliferative profile in PreOperative RT group. PreOperative RT showed lower macrophage/microglia recruitment in recurrent tumors (p < 0.01) compared to PostOperative RT. Akoya Multiplex results indicated TGF-ß accumulation in the cytoplasm of TAMs and CD4 + lymphocyte predominance in PostOperative group. CONCLUSIONS This is the first preclinical study showing feasibility and longer overall survival using neoadjuvant radiotherapy before GBM resection in a mammalian model. This suggests strong superiority for new clinical radiation strategies. Further studies and trials are required to confirm our results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Steven M Herchko
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Melissa E Murray
- Department of Molecular Neuroscience, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Yesesri Cherukuri
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Yan W Asmann
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Naghavi AO, Bryant JM, Kim Y, Weygand J, Redler G, Sim AJ, Miller J, Coucoules K, Michael LT, Gloria WE, Yang G, Rosenberg SA, Ahmed K, Bui MM, Henderson-Jackson EB, Lee A, Lee CD, Gonzalez RJ, Feygelman V, Eschrich SA, Scott JG, Torres-Roca J, Latifi K, Parikh N, Costello J. Habitat escalated adaptive therapy (HEAT): a phase 2 trial utilizing radiomic habitat-directed and genomic-adjusted radiation dose (GARD) optimization for high-grade soft tissue sarcoma. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:437. [PMID: 38594603 PMCID: PMC11003059 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12151-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2023] [Accepted: 03/20/2024] [Indexed: 04/11/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Soft tissue sarcomas (STS), have significant inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity, with poor response to standard neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT). Achieving a favorable pathologic response (FPR ≥ 95%) from RT is associated with improved patient outcome. Genomic adjusted radiation dose (GARD), a radiation-specific metric that quantifies the expected RT treatment effect as a function of tumor dose and genomics, proposed that STS is significantly underdosed. STS have significant radiomic heterogeneity, where radiomic habitats can delineate regions of intra-tumoral hypoxia and radioresistance. We designed a novel clinical trial, Habitat Escalated Adaptive Therapy (HEAT), utilizing radiomic habitats to identify areas of radioresistance within the tumor and targeting them with GARD-optimized doses, to improve FPR in high-grade STS. METHODS Phase 2 non-randomized single-arm clinical trial includes non-metastatic, resectable high-grade STS patients. Pre-treatment multiparametric MRIs (mpMRI) delineate three distinct intra-tumoral habitats based on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) sequences. GARD estimates that simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) doses of 70 and 60 Gy in 25 fractions to the highest and intermediate radioresistant habitats, while the remaining volume receives standard 50 Gy, would lead to a > 3 fold FPR increase to 24%. Pre-treatment CT guided biopsies of each habitat along with clip placement will be performed for pathologic evaluation, future genomic studies, and response assessment. An mpMRI taken between weeks two and three of treatment will be used for biological plan adaptation to account for tumor response, in addition to an mpMRI after the completion of radiotherapy in addition to pathologic response, toxicity, radiomic response, disease control, and survival will be evaluated as secondary endpoints. Furthermore, liquid biopsy will be performed with mpMRI for future ancillary studies. DISCUSSION This is the first clinical trial to test a novel genomic-based RT dose optimization (GARD) and to utilize radiomic habitats to identify and target radioresistance regions, as a strategy to improve the outcome of RT-treated STS patients. Its success could usher in a new phase in radiation oncology, integrating genomic and radiomic insights into clinical practice and trial designs, and may reveal new radiomic and genomic biomarkers, refining personalized treatment strategies for STS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT05301283. TRIAL STATUS The trial started recruitment on March 17, 2022.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arash O Naghavi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
| | - J M Bryant
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Youngchul Kim
- Department of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Joseph Weygand
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Applied Sciences, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
| | - Gage Redler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Austin J Sim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, James Cancer Hospital, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Justin Miller
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Kaitlyn Coucoules
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Lauren Taylor Michael
- Clinical Trials Office, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Warren E Gloria
- Department of Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - George Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Stephen A Rosenberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Kamran Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Marilyn M Bui
- Department of Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Andrew Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Caitlin D Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Ricardo J Gonzalez
- Department of Sarcoma, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Vladimir Feygelman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Steven A Eschrich
- Department of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Jacob G Scott
- Translational Hematology and Oncology Research, Radiation Oncology Department, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Javier Torres-Roca
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Kujtim Latifi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Nainesh Parikh
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Interventional Radiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - James Costello
- Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Interventional Radiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Montero A, Chen-Zhao X, Ciérvide R, Álvarez B, Prado A, López M, Sánchez E, Hernando O, de la Casa MA, García-Aranda M, Valero J, Alonso R, Fernández-Letón P, Rubio C. Moderate hypofractionated radiation therapy and pathologic response for soft tissue sarcomas (STS) of limbs and trunk: experience from a tertiary cancer center. Clin Transl Oncol 2024; 26:204-213. [PMID: 37277526 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-023-03237-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2023] [Accepted: 05/28/2023] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preoperative radiation therapy following by limb-sparing or conservative surgery is a standard approach for limb and trunk STS. Data supporting hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules are scarce albeit biological sensitivity of STS to radiation would justify it. We sought to evaluate the impact of moderate hypofractionation on pathologic response and its influence on oncologic outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS From October 2018 to January 2023, 18 patients with limb or trunk STS underwent preoperative radiotherapy at a median dose of 52.5 Gy (range 49.5-60 Gy) in 15 fractions of 3.5 Gy (3.3-4 Gy) with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A favorable pathologic response (fPR) was considered as ≥ 90% tumor necrosis on specimen examination. RESULTS All patients completed planned preoperative radiotherapy. Eleven patients (61.1%) achieved a fPR, and 7 patients (36.8%) a complete pathologic response with total disappearance of tumor cells. Nine patients (47%) developed grade 1-2 acute skin toxicity, and 7 patients (38.8%) had wound complications on follow-up. With a median follow-up of 14 months (range 1-40), no cases of local relapse were observed, and actuarial 3-year overall survival (OS) and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) are 87% and 76.4%, respectively. In the univariate analysis, the presence of a favorable pathologic response (fPR) was associated with improved 3-year OS (100% vs. 56.03%, p = 0.058) and 3-year DMFS (86.91% vs. 31.46%, p = 0.002). Moreover, both complete or partial RECIST response and radiological stabilization of the tumor lesion showed a significant association with higher rates of 3-year distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (83% vs. 83% vs. 56%, p < 0.001) and 3-year overall survival (OS) (100% vs. 80% vs. 0, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Preoperative moderate hypofractionated radiation treatment for STS is feasible and well tolerated and associates encouraging rates of pathologic response that could have a favorable impact on final outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angel Montero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain.
- Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Camilo José Cela, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Xin Chen-Zhao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Raquel Ciérvide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Beatriz Álvarez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Alejandro Prado
- Department of Medical Physics, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mercedes López
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Emilio Sánchez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Ovidio Hernando
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Miguel Angel de la Casa
- Department of Medical Physics, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mariola García-Aranda
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jeannette Valero
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Rosa Alonso
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| | - Pedro Fernández-Letón
- Department of Medical Physics, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain
| | - Carmen Rubio
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal (C.I.O.C.C.), HM Hospitales, Calle Oña 10, 28050, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|