Disparities in Perioperative Radiation Therapy Use in Elderly Patients With Soft-Tissue Sarcoma

Refusal of Adjuvant Therapies and Its Impact on Local Control and Survival in Patients with Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas of the Extremities and Trunk

BACKGROUND

In soft tissue or bone sarcomas, multimodal therapeutic concepts represent the standard of care. Some patients reject the therapeutic recommendations due to several reasons. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of that rejection on both prognosis and local recurrence.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2019, a total of 828 sarcoma patients were surgically treated. Chemotherapy was scheduled as a neoadjuvant, and adjuvant multi-agent therapy was performed following recommendations from an interdisciplinary tumor board. Radiotherapy, if deemed appropriate, was administered either in a neoadjuvant or an adjuvant manner. The recommended type of therapy, patient compliance, and the reasons for refusal were documented. Follow-ups included local recurrences, diagnosis of metastatic disease, and patient mortality.

RESULTS

Radiotherapy was recommended in 407 (49%) patients. A total of 40 (10%) individuals did not receive radiation. A reduction in overall survival and local recurrence-free survival was evident in those patients who declined radiotherapy. Chemotherapy was advised for 334 (40%) patients, 250 (75%) of whom did receive all recommended cycles. A total of 25 (7%) individuals did receive a partial course while 59 (18%) did not receive any recommended chemotherapy. Overall survival and local recurrence-free survival were reduced in patients refusing chemotherapy. Overall survival was worst for the group of patients who received no chemotherapy due to medical reasons. Refusing chemotherapy for non-medical reasons was seen in 8.8% of patients, and refusal of radiotherapy for non-medical reasons was seen in 4.7% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Divergence from the advised treatment modalities significantly impacted overall survival and local recurrence-free survival across both treatment modalities. There is an imperative need for enhanced physician-patient communication. Reducing treatment times, as achieved with hypofractionated radiotherapy and with therapy in a high-volume sarcoma center, might also have a positive effect on complying with the treatment recommendations.

Anlotinib treatment in elderly patients with unresectable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a retrospective study

Palliative chemotherapy can improve outcomes in most patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS), but the treatment of elderly patients remains a challenge because of older age, comorbidities and poor performance status. This study retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of the multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor anlotinib in elderly patients with advanced STS. Eligible patients included those of age at least 60 years, diagnosed with unresectable or metastatic STS, and treated with at least one cycle of anlotinib between June 2018 and September 2020 in our center. Clinical characteristics, treatment response, survival status and adverse events were analyzed by reviewing medical records. The median age of 35 eligible patients was 65 (range, 61-85) years, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 8 (range, 4-11). Anlotinib as first-line systemic treatment was in 24 (68.6%) patients, and as second-line or third-line treatment in the remaining 11 (31.4%) patients. The objective response rate was 8.6%. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-9.6] months and the median overall survival was 14.3 (95% CI, 9.6-19.0) months. Thirteen (37.1%) patients developed at least one grade 3/4 adverse event during anlotinib treatment. Our findings suggest that anlotinib treatment has promising efficacy and an acceptable toxicity profile in elderly patients with unresectable or metastatic STS. Prospective controlled trials are needed to compare the safety and efficacy of anlotinib and chemotherapy as first-line treatment in elderly patients with advanced STS.

Treatment at Specialized Cancer Centers Is Associated with Improved Survival in Adolescent and Young Adults with Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Background: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a heterogeneous group of tumors whose management benefits from a multidisciplinary therapeutic approach. Published data suggest that cancer treatment at a specialized cancer center (SCC) can improve survival in other cancers. Therefore, we examined the impact of the location of treatment on survival in children and adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with STS. Methods: We performed a population-based analysis of children and AYAs hospitalized within 1 year of diagnosis with first primary STS (2000-2014) using the California Cancer Registry linked with hospitalization data. Patients were categorized based on receiving all inpatient treatments at a SCC versus part/none. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression identified factors associated with overall and STS-specific survival by age group. Results are presented as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Of the 1,674 patients with STS, 142 were children (0-14) and 1,532 were AYAs (15-39) and 89.4% and 40.4% received all inpatient treatments at a SCC, respectively. Overall, the 5-year survival was improved for patients who received all inpatient care at a SCC (59.8% vs. those who received part/none, 50.7%). Multivariable regression analysis found that having all treatments at a SCC was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.79, CI: 0.65-0.95) in AYAs, but not in children. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that treatment for STS at a SCC is associated with better survival in AYAs. Eliminating barriers to treatment of AYAs with STS at SCCs could improve survival in this population.

Care Disparities Across the Health Care Continuum for Older Adults: Lessons From Multidisciplinary Perspectives

Older adults comprise a considerable proportion of patients with cancer in the world. Across multiple cancer types, cancer treatment outcomes among older age groups are often inferior to those among younger adults. Cancer care for older individuals is complicated by the need to adapt treatment to baseline health, fitness, and frailty, all of which vary widely within this age group. Rates of social deprivation and socioeconomic disparities are also higher in older adults, with many living on reduced incomes, further compounding health inequality. It is important to recognize and avoid undertreatment and overtreatment of cancer in this age group; however, simply addressing this problem by mandating standard treatment of all would lead to harms resulting from treatment toxicity and futility. However, there is little high-quality evidence on which to base these decisions, because older adults are poorly represented in clinical trials. Clinicians must recognize that simple extrapolation of outcomes from younger age cohorts may not be appropriate because of variance in disease stage and biology, variation in fitness and treatment tolerance, and reduced life expectancy. Older patients may also have different life goals and priorities, with a greater focus on quality of life and less on length of life at any cost. Health care professionals struggle with treatment of older adults with cancer, with high rates of variability in practice between and within countries. This suggests that better national and international recommendations that more fully address the needs of this special patient population are required and that primary research focused on the older age group is urgently required to inform these guidelines.

Adult Pleomorphic Rhabdomyosarcomas: Assessing Outcomes Associated with Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy Use in the National Cancer Database

Purpose

Practice patterns for treatment of localized adult pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma (PRMS) remain quite variable given its rarity. Current national guidelines recommend management similar to that of other high-grade soft tissue sarcomas (STS), which include surgery with perioperative radiation (RT) with or without chemotherapy. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we assessed practice patterns and overall outcomes of patients with localized PRMS. Patients and Methods. Patients with stage II/III PRMS treated with surgical resection from 2004 to 2015 were identified from the NCDB. Predictors of RT and chemotherapy use were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The association of radiation and chemotherapy status on overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses.

Results

Of 243 total patients, RT and chemotherapy were not uniformly utilized, with 44% receiving chemotherapy and in those who did not undergo amputation 62% receiving RT. In those who did not undergo amputation, RT was associated with improved survival on both univariate (HR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.73, P < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (HR: 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.62, P < 0.001), corresponding to greater 5-year overall survival (59% vs. 38%, P < 0.001). Chemotherapy was associated with a higher rate of 5-year overall survival (63% vs. 39%, P < 0.001). However, the survival benefit of chemotherapy did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis (HR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.41-1.03, P=0.064). Notable predictors of omission of RT included female gender (OR: 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.74, P < 0.01) and age ≥ 70 (OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.30-1.00, P=0.05). Correspondingly, factors associated with omission of chemotherapy included age ≥70 (OR: 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.39, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

A significant proportion of patients with localized adult PRMS are not receiving RT. Likewise, use of chemotherapy was heterogeneous. Our findings note potential benefits and underutilization of RT, for which further investigation is warranted.

Radiotherapy Remains Underused in the Treatment of Soft-Tissue Sarcomas: Disparities in Practice Patterns in the United States

BACKGROUND

Practice patterns of radiation therapy (RT) use for soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) remain quite variable, despite clinical practice guidelines recommending the addition of RT to surgery for patients with high-grade STS, particularly for larger tumors. Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we assessed patterns of overall RT use, neoadjuvant versus adjuvant treatment, and specific RT modalities in this population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years with stage II/III STS in 2004 through 2015 were identified from the NCDB. Patterns of care were assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 27,426 total patients, 11,654 (42%) were treated with surgery alone versus 15,772 (58%) with RT in addition to surgery, with no overall increase in RT use over the study period. Notable clinical predictors of receipt of RT included tumor size (>5 cm), grade III, and tumors arising in the extremities. Conversely, female sex, older age (≥70 years), Black race, noncommercial insurance coverage, farther distance to treatment, and poor performance status were negative predictors of RT use. Of those receiving RT, 27% were treated with neoadjuvant RT and 73% with adjuvant RT. The proportion of those receiving neoadjuvant RT increased over time. Relevant factors associated with neoadjuvant RT included treatment at academic centers, larger tumor size, and extremity tumors. Of those who received RT with a modality specified as either intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) or 3D conformal RT (3DCRT), 61% were treated with IMRT and 39% with 3DCRT. The proportion of patients treated with IMRT increased over time. Relevant factors associated with IMRT use included treatment at academic centers, commercial insurance coverage, and larger and nonextremity tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

Although use of neoadjuvant RT and IMRT has increased over time, a significant number of patients with STS are not receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant RT. Our findings also note potential sociodemographic disparities and highlight the concern that not all patients with STS are being equally considered for RT.

Retroperitoneal tumors: Review of diagnosis and management

Retroperitoneal tumors are extremely rare tumors occurring in the retroperitoneum. Retroperitoneal tumors are divided into benign tumors and malignant tumors, including retroperitoneal sarcoma. Approximately 70-80% of primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue tumors are malignant; however, these only account for 0.1-0.2% of all malignancies. Retroperitoneal sarcoma is an orphan malignant disease with a low incidence. The information on benign retroperitoneal tumors is limited. The American Joint Committee on Cancer/TNM classification updated to the 8th edition in 2017. In 2010, three new drugs for soft tissue sarcoma were approved based on the results of phase III trials, but the histological subtypes of the patients enrolled in the trials of each drug differed. Recently, in addition to surgery for retroperitoneal sarcoma, the effectiveness of perioperative radiation therapy has become interesting. For malignant retroperitoneal tumors and retroperitoneal sarcoma, survival improvement and locoregional recurrence prevention can be undertaken by carrying out surgery to secure negative margins with wide and combined resection of some adjacent organs, and cooperation with a trained medical team comprising of radiologists, pathologists and medical oncologists in centralized hospitals. Some clinical trials aimed at further improving treatment results by adding preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy based on histological confirmation using a correct needle biopsy are in progress. In recent years, molecular profiling has been used to select eligible patients for chemotherapy. In the future, precision medicine with next-generation sequencing technology will be expected among the diverse and potential future treatments for retroperitoneal sarcoma. In this review, we summarized the current state of retroperitoneal tumors and retroperitoneal sarcoma.

The Real-Life Journey of Elderly Patients in Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcomas: A Retrospective Analysis from a Sarcoma Referral Center

The high complexity of multimodality treatment frequently results in undertreatment of elderly sarcoma patients, and this may be one of the factors that influence their prognosis. We describe the real-life approach to a population of patients aged over 70 with both soft tissue (STS) and bone sarcomas (BS) followed by our Sarcoma Disease Management Team from 2012 to 2017. One-hundred and twenty-three patients with a median age of 77 years (range: 70–92) were identified. STS were the most common histological subtypes (94%) and the grade was high in 79/123 patients (64%). At diagnosis, 88% of patients had localized disease (LD) and 12% were metastatic (MD). Overall, 96% of patients with LD underwent surgery, 46/54 (85%) with high grade STS patients underwent complementary radiotherapy, and 10/54 (19%) received adjuvant treatments. Twelve out of 33 patients who relapsed (36%) underwent local therapies. Seventeen (52%) and eight (24%) patients were treated with first-line and second-line medical treatments, respectively. Tolerability to systemic treatments was fairly good. Overall, 21% of the patients with advanced disease were candidates for best supportive care alone. Our case series of elderly patients with both STS and BS shows that personalized multidisciplinary treatment can nevertheless be offered to this frail population in order to control the evolution of disease.

A Phase II Trial of 5-Day Neoadjuvant Radiotherapy for Patients with High-Risk Primary Soft Tissue Sarcoma

PURPOSE

In a single-institution phase II study, we evaluated the safety of a 5-day dose-equivalent neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) regimen for high-risk primary soft tissue sarcoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received neoadjuvant RT alone (30 Gy in five fractions) to the primary tumor with standard margins. The primary endpoint was grade ≥2 late-radiation toxicity. Major wound complications, local recurrences, and distant metastases were also examined. In exploratory analysis, we evaluated germline biomarkers for wound toxicity and the effects of the study on treatment utilization.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, 52 patients were enrolled with median follow-up of 29 months. Seven of 44 evaluable patients (16%) developed grade ≥2 late toxicity. Major wound complications occurred in 16 of 50 patients (32%); a signature defined by 19 germline SNPs in miRNA-binding sites of immune and DNA damage response genes, in addition to lower extremity tumor location, demonstrated strong predictive performance for major wound complications. Compared with the preceding 2-year period, the number of patients treated with neoadjuvant RT alone at our institution increased 3-fold, with a concomitant increase in the catchment area.

CONCLUSIONS

A shorter 5-day neoadjuvant RT regimen results in favorable rates of wound complications and grade ≥2 toxicity after 2-year follow-up. Five-day RT significantly increased utilization of neoadjuvant RT at our high-volume sarcoma center. With further validation, a putative germline biomarker for wound complications may guide safer RT utilization.