1
|
Harrison DJ, Chi YY, Tian J, Hingorani P, Mascarenhas L, McCowage GB, Weigel BJ, Venkatramani R, Wolden SL, Yock TI, Rodeberg DA, Hayes-Jordan AA, Teot LA, Spunt SL, Meyer WH, Hawkins DS, Shulkin BL, Parisi MT. Metabolic response as assessed by 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography does not predict outcome in patients with intermediate- or high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee. Cancer Med 2020; 10:857-866. [PMID: 33340280 PMCID: PMC7897958 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2020] [Revised: 10/01/2020] [Accepted: 10/26/2020] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Strategies to optimize management in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) include risk stratification to assign therapy aiming to minimize treatment morbidity yet improve outcomes. This analysis evaluated the relationship between complete metabolic response (CMR) as assessed by 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG-PET) imaging and event-free survival (EFS) in intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) RMS patients. METHODS FDG-PET imaging characteristics, including assessment of CMR and maximum standard uptake values (SUVmax) of the primary tumor, were evaluated by central review. Institutional reports of SUVmax were used when SUVmax values could not be determined by central review. One hundred and thirty IR and 105 HR patients had FDG-PET scans submitted for central review or had SUVmax data available from institutional report at any time point. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between these parameters and EFS. RESULTS SUVmax at study entry did not correlate with EFS for IR (p = 0.32) or HR (p = 0.86) patients. Compared to patients who did not achieve a CMR, EFS was not superior for IR patients who achieved a CMR at weeks 4 (p = 0.66) or 15 (p = 0.46), nor for HR patients who achieved CMR at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.28). Change in SUVmax at week 4 (p = 0.21) or 15 (p = 0.91) for IR patients or at week 6 (p = 0.75) or 19 (p = 0.61) for HR patients did not correlate with EFS. CONCLUSION Based on these data, FDG-PET does not appear to predict EFS in IR or HR-RMS. It remains to be determined whether FDG-PET has a role in predicting survival outcomes in other RMS subpopulations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jing Tian
- University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Pooja Hingorani
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Leo Mascarenhas
- Children's Hospital Los Angeles and University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | - Brenda J Weigel
- University of Minnesota/Masonic Cancer Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Rajkumar Venkatramani
- Baylor College of Medicine/Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Torunn I Yock
- Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Sheri L Spunt
- Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - William H Meyer
- University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sun XS, Liu LT, Liu SL, Guo SS, Wen YF, Xie HJ, Tang QN, Liang YJ, Li XY, Yan JJ, Ma J, Chen QY, Tang LQ, Mai HQ. Identifying optimal candidates for local treatment of the primary tumor among patients with de novo metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study based on Epstein-Barr virus DNA level and tumor response to palliative chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 2019; 19:92. [PMID: 30665378 PMCID: PMC6341516 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5281-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2018] [Accepted: 01/07/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To evaluate the clinical outcome in patients with de novo metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treated or not treated with locoregional radiotherapy (LRRT) based on plasma Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA level and tumor response after palliative chemotherapy (PCT). Methods From 2007 to 2016, 502 patients with de novo metastatic NPC were included in this study. All patients were treated with PCT and 315 patients received LRRT. Our primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results EBV DNA was detected in 461 patients (91.8%) before treatment but was undetectable in 249 patients (49.6%) after PCT. Three hundred and seventeen patients (63.1%) achieved satisfactory response (complete response or partial response) to PCT. Both the post-PCT EBV DNA level and tumor response were independent prognostic factors. Among low-risk patients (patients with undetectable EBV DNA and satisfactory tumor response after PCT), the 3-year OS rate was 80.4% in LRRT-treated patients and 45.3% in patients not treated with LRRT (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that LRRT was an independent prognostic factor of OS in the low-risk patients (P < 0.001). However, among the high-risk patients (patients with detectable EBV DNA and/or unsatisfactory response after PCT), no statistically significant survival differences were observed between the LRRT and non-LRRT groups. Conclusions EBV DNA level and tumor response after PCT both correlate with the prognosis of de novo metastatic NPC. In such cases, LRRT may benefit the patients with undetectable EBV DNA levels and satisfactory tumor response after PCT. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5281-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xue-Song Sun
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Li-Ting Liu
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Sai-Lan Liu
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Shan-Shan Guo
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Yue-Feng Wen
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Hao-Jun Xie
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Qing-Nan Tang
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Yu-Jing Liang
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Xiao-Yun Li
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Jin-Jie Yan
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Jun Ma
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China
| | - Qiu-Yan Chen
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China. .,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
| | - Lin-Quan Tang
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China. .,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
| | - Hai-Qiang Mai
- Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, Guangzhou, 510060, China. .,Department of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Peng H, Chen L, Li WF, Guo R, Mao YP, Zhang Y, Guo Y, Sun Y, Ma J. Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts long-term survival outcomes in patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A secondary analysis of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial. Cancer 2016; 123:1643-1652. [PMID: 28001301 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2016] [Revised: 11/29/2016] [Accepted: 11/30/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using the regimen of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil could define high-risk patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, the regimen of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) appears to be more effective than the regimen of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil. Therefore, one needs to redefine the high-risk subpopulation of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with TPF. METHODS A total of 231 patients from a randomized phase 3 trial with American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer stage III to stage IVB NPC (except T3-T4N0 disease) who were receiving treatment with the TPF regimen were enrolled. Patient survival rates between different groups were compared. RESULTS Of the 231 patients, the overall response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was a complete response (CR) for 26 (11.3%), a partial response (PR) for 184 patients (79.6%), and stable disease (SD) for 21 patients (9.1%). Univariate analysis revealed the 3-year failure-free survival (FFS) rates in the CR (88.5% vs 61.9%; P =.017) and PR (81.2% vs 61.9%; P = .01) groups, and the 3-year overall survival rates for the CR (96.2% vs 76.2%; P =.048) and PR (93.4% vs 76.2%; P =.025) groups were obviously higher compared with that of the SD group. In multivariate analysis, CR was established as a favorable prognostic factor for FFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.210; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.057-0.779 [P =.02]), and PR for FFS (HR, 0.447; 95% CI, 0.213-0.936 [P =.033]) and OS (HR, 0.361; 95% CI, 0.132-0.986 [P =.047]) when compared with SD. No survival difference was observed between the CR and PR groups. CONCLUSIONS Tumor response to TPF may be a properly powerful prognosis predictor and help to develop individualized treatment strategies for patients with locoregionally advanced NPC. Cancer 2017;123:1643-1652. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hao Peng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Lei Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wen-Fei Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Rui Guo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yan-Ping Mao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yuan Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ying Guo
- Department of Clinical Trials Center, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ying Sun
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jun Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in Southern China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
The Tumour Response to Induction Chemotherapy has Prognostic Value for Long-Term Survival Outcomes after Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. Sci Rep 2016; 6:24835. [PMID: 27099096 PMCID: PMC4838936 DOI: 10.1038/srep24835] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2015] [Accepted: 04/05/2016] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
The prognostic value of the tumour response to induction chemotherapy (IC) for long-term survival outcomes after intensity-modulated radiation therapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remains unknown. We retrospectively reviewed 1811 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed NPC treated using IMRT, and 399 eligible patients with pre- and post-induction chemotherapy magnetic resonance images were recruited. The clinicopathological features of patients with different tumour responses were compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. Prognostic value was assessed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. After IC, 101/399 (25.3%) patients had a complete tumour response overall (CR), 262 (65.7%) had a partial response (PR) and 36 (9.0%) had stable disease (SD). The 4-year disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and locoregional relapse-free survival (LRRFS) rates for CR vs. PR vs. SD were 90.0% vs. 79.0% vs. 58.2% (CR vs. PR: P1 = 0.007; CR vs. SD: P2 < 0.001; PR vs. SD: P3 = 0.004), 95.7% vs. 88.7% vs. 70.2% (P1 = 0.017, P2 < 0.001, P3 = 0.005), 92.0% vs. 87.4% vs. 74.3% (P1 = 0.162, P2 = 0.005, P3 = 0.029) and 95.9% vs. 88.8% vs. 81.8% (P1 = 0.024, P2 = 0.006, P3 = 0.268), respectively. Multivariate analysis identified that the tumour response to IC was an independent prognostic factor for DFS, OS and LRRFS.
Collapse
|
5
|
Liu LT, Tang LQ, Chen QY, Zhang L, Guo SS, Guo L, Mo HY, Zhao C, Guo X, Cao KJ, Qian CN, Zeng MS, Bei JX, Hong MH, Shao JY, Sun Y, Ma J, Mai HQ. The Prognostic Value of Plasma Epstein-Barr Viral DNA and Tumor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Advanced-Stage Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 93:862-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2015] [Revised: 07/30/2015] [Accepted: 08/03/2015] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
|
6
|
Early response as assessed by anatomic imaging does not predict failure-free survival among patients with Group III rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Eur J Cancer 2013; 50:816-23. [PMID: 24361229 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.11.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2013] [Revised: 10/24/2013] [Accepted: 11/26/2013] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prognostic significance of response to induction therapy for rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) by anatomic imaging [computerised tomographic (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan] is controversial. We previously reported no relationship between early response and failure-free survival (FFS) on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS)-IV. We repeated the same analysis using a more recent clinical trial as an independent cohort of patients with non-metastatic, initially unresected RMS. METHODS A total of 338 patients enrolled in Children's Oncology Group (COG) study D9803 met the inclusion criteria for this analysis: (1) non-metastatic, initially unresected (Group III); (2) embryonal (ERMS) or alveolar (ARMS) histology; (3) documented protocol week 12 response to induction chemotherapy (excluding progressive disease) based on anatomic imaging (CT/MRI) and (4) documented protocol therapy beyond week 12. Response at week 12 was determined by the treating institution as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or no response (NR). FFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons between patient subsets were made using the log-rank test. RESULTS Overall objective response rate (CR+PR) at week 12 of therapy was 85% and was similar between ERMS and ARMS. FFS was similar among all patients with CR, PR or NR (p=0.49). Restricting the analysis to either ERMS or ARMS, there was no difference in FFS by response within either histology subset (p=0.89 and p=0.08, respectively). CONCLUSIONS These findings provide additional evidence that anatomic imaging to assess early response to therapy among patients with RMS does not predict outcome and has questionable use in tailoring subsequent therapy.
Collapse
|
7
|
Labar B, Suciu S, Willemze R, Muus P, Marie JP, Fillet G, Berneman Z, Jaksic B, Feremans W, Bron D, Sinnige H, Mistrik M, Vreugdenhil G, De Bock R, Nemet D, Gilotay C, Amadori S, de Witte T. Dexamethasone compared to prednisolone for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoblastic lymphoma: final results of the ALL-4 randomized, phase III trial of the EORTC Leukemia Group. Haematologica 2010; 95:1489-95. [PMID: 20378563 DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2009.018580] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Corticosteroids are a standard component of the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma. Our aim was to determine whether dexamethasone results in a better outcome than prednisolone. DESIGN AND METHODS Adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoblastic lymphoma were randomized to receive, as part of their induction therapy on days 1-8 and 15-22, either dexamethasone 8 mg/m(2) or prednisolone 60 mg/m(2). Those who reached complete remission were given two courses of consolidation therapy with high-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone and methotrexate and asparaginase. Subsequently patients younger than 50 years, with a suitable donor, were to undergo allogeneic stem cell transplantation, whereas the others were planned to receive either an autologous stem cell transplant or high-dose maintenance chemotherapy with prophylactic central nervous system irradiation. Randomization was done with a minimization technique. The primary endpoint was event-free survival and the analyses was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS Between August 1995 and October 2003, 325 patients between 15 to 72 years of age were randomized to receive either dexamethasone (163 patients) or prednisolone (162 patients). After induction and the course of first consolidation therapy, 131 (80.4%) patients in the dexamethasone group and 124 (76.5%) in the prednisolone group achieved complete remission. No significant difference was observed between the two treatment groups with regards to 6-year event-free survival rates (+/-SE) which were 25.9% (3.6%) and 28.7% (3.5%) in the dexamethasone and prednisolone groups, respectively (P=0.82, hazard ratio 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.25). Disease-free survival after complete remission was also similar in the dexamethasone and prednisolone groups, the 6-year rates being 32.3% and 37.5%, respectively (hazard ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.40). The 6-year cumulative incidences of relapse were 49.8% and 53.5% (Gray's test: P=0.30) while the 6-year cumulative incidences of death were 18% and 9% (Gray's test: P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS In the ALL-4 trial in adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoblastic lymphoma, treatment with dexamethasone did not show any advantage over treatment with prednisolone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Boris Labar
- Department of Hematology University Hospital Center Rebro, Kispatic street 12 1000 Zagreb, Croatia.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ferrari A, Miceli R, Meazza C, Casanova M, Favini F, Morosi C, Trecate G, Marchianò A, Luksch R, Cefalo G, Terenziani M, Spreafico F, Polastri D, Podda M, Catania S, Schiavello E, Giannatempo P, Gandola L, Massimino M, Mariani L. Comparison of the prognostic value of assessing tumor diameter versus tumor volume at diagnosis or in response to initial chemotherapy in rhabdomyosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:1322-8. [PMID: 20124176 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2009.25.0803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In this study on a series of 205 patients with rhabdomyosarcoma, we investigated whether the prognostic effect of tumor size, at diagnosis or in terms of tumor response after induction chemotherapy, differed when tumor diameter or tumor volume were considered. PATIENTS AND METHODS Tumor size was assessed radiologically at diagnosis and, for the 108 patients with measurable disease, after three courses of chemotherapy. The analysis was based on multivariable models (linear for association between size and patient/tumor characteristics, Cox for association with survival). The predictive performance of the Cox model (estimated by V measure) was compared for the tumor's diameter and volume. RESULTS Initial tumor size was significantly larger in male or older patients and in T2 or alveolar tumors, but was not associated with the achievement of complete surgical resection. Initial tumor size significantly influenced overall survival. The risk of death was comparable for tumors 10 cm in maximum diameter and 194.0 cm(3) in volume. The predictive performance of the Cox model was much the same when the tumor's diameter or volume was considered. Tumor response was a significant predictor of survival, again irrespective of the type of tumor measurement considered. CONCLUSION In our analysis, initial tumor size and tumor response were significant prognostic factors in rhabdomyosarcoma, regardless of whether tumor diameter or volume was considered. Three-dimensional tumor assessment was of no greater prognostic value than one-dimensional assessment, neither initially nor after induction treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Ferrari
- Pediatric Oncology Unit, Division of Medical Statistics and Biometry, Radiology and Radiotherapy Department, Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Rodeberg DA, Stoner JA, Hayes-Jordan A, Kao SC, Wolden SL, Qualman SJ, Meyer WH, Hawkins DS. Prognostic significance of tumor response at the end of therapy in group III rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the children's oncology group. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:3705-11. [PMID: 19470937 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2008.19.5933] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Some patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) achieve less than a complete response (CR) despite receiving all planned therapy. We assessed the impact of best response at the completion of all therapy on patient outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS We studied 419 clinical group III participants who completed all protocol therapy without developing progressive disease for Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) IV. Response (complete resolution [CR], partial response [PR; > or = 50% decrease], or no response [NR; < 50% decrease and < 25% increase]) was determined by radiographic measurement and categorized by the best response. RESULTS At the end of therapy, 341 participants (81%) achieved a best response of CR and 78 (19%) had a best response of PR/NR. Five-year failure-free survival was similar for participants achieving CR (80%) and PR/NR (78%). After adjustment for age, nodal status, primary site, and histology, there was no significant indication of lower risk of failure (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.27; P = .3) nor death (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P = .1) for CR versus PR/NR participants. Seventeen participants with a best response of PR/NR had surgical procedures; eight (50%) of 16 with available pathology reports had residual viable tumor and only three achieved a complete resection. Resection of residual masses was not associated with improved outcome. CONCLUSION CR status at the end of protocol therapy in clinical group III participants was not associated with a reduction of disease recurrence and death. Aggressive alternative therapy may not be warranted for RMS patients with a residual mass at the end of planned therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David A Rodeberg
- University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Department of Pediatric Surgery, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2585, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Burke M, Anderson JR, Kao SC, Rodeberg D, Qualman SJ, Wolden SL, Meyer WH, Breitfeld PP. Assessment of response to induction therapy and its influence on 5-year failure-free survival in group III rhabdomyosarcoma: the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study-IV experience--a report from the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee of the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:4909-13. [PMID: 17971587 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2006.10.4257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Initial response to induction chemotherapy predicts failure-free survival (FFS) in osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma. For Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) IV patients with group III rhabdomyosarcoma, we assessed whether reported response assessed by anatomic imaging at week 8 predicted FFS. PATIENTS AND METHODS We studied 444 group III patients who received induction therapy, had response assessed at week 8 by anatomic imaging, and continued with protocol therapy. Induction chemotherapy was generally followed by radiation therapy (RT) starting after week 9. Response to induction therapy was determined at weeks 0 and 8. Local institutions coded response. RESULTS Response rate for the entire cohort at week 8 was 77% (95% CI, 73% to 81%; complete response [CR], 21%; partial response [PR], 56%) but response had no influence on FFS (P = .57). Two hundred seventy-two patients received standard-timing RT at week 9 and thus only chemotherapy during induction. Response rate was 81% (95% CI, 76% to 86%; CR, 22%; PR, 59%). In these patients, response did not influence FFS except for those with alveolar histology. One hundred thirty-two other patients received chemotherapy and RT during induction (up-front RT). Response rate was 65% (95% CI, 57% to 73%; CR, 12%; PR, 53%), but response had no influence on FFS (P = .69). Forty patients received no RT at all (protocol violation) and response to induction therapy had no effect on FFS. CONCLUSION In IRS-IV, response rate to induction therapy was 77% in group III patients, was independent of histology, and had no influence on FFS overall.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Megan Burke
- Children's Hospital Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Faderl S, Thall PF, Kantarjian HM, Estrov Z. Time to platelet recovery predicts outcome of patients with de novo acute lymphoblastic leukaemia who have achieved a complete remission. Br J Haematol 2002; 117:869-74. [PMID: 12060122 DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2002.03506.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Survival in acute leukaemia depends on the achievement of complete remission (CR). However, CR is not a clear-cut phenomenon and certain variables of its definition could more accurately characterize the quality of the remission. Because platelet recovery > 100 x 10(9)/l is an essential component of CR in acute leukaemia, we hypothesized that time to platelet recovery (TPR) might be predictive of overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL). We analysed TPR in 249 patients with ALL who entered CR after one course of induction chemotherapy and correlated TPR with DFS and OS. TPR was significantly associated with both DFS and OS if it occurred within a maximum of about 60 d from start of therapy. Furthermore, during that time period, the relative risk of death increased with increasing TPR. Although presence of the Philadelphia chromosome was the single most important adverse feature at diagnosis, the effect of TPR on survival continued to be significant within this patient subgroup. This effect was so pronounced that Philadelphia chromosome-positive patients with a TPR of 12 d had a better outcome than Philadelphia chromosome-negative patients with a TPR of 48 d. Thus, a short TPR seems to be able to override adverse characteristics in the outcome of ALL patients treated with chemotherapy. We conclude that a quicker TPR predicts longer DFS and OS in patients with ALL. As platelet counts are obtained almost daily in patients undergoing chemotherapy, TPR can readily be utilized to assess the prognosis of these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefan Faderl
- Department of Leukaemia, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|