Search

Background: We retrospectively investigated the role of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with primary, localized angiosarcoma. Methods: We selected all patients with primary, localized angiosarcoma, who had received radical surgery between January 2005 and December 2019 at 33 European sarcoma reference centers. The primary objective was to compare the outcome of patients who received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not, in terms of overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). To reduce the risk of confounding due to imbalance, a propensity-score matching(PSM) was performed. Finally, subgroups analysis was performed according to tumor site, tumor size (< 50 mm or ≥ 50 mm) and patients predicted 10-years OS according to the nomogram sarculator (two different cutoff-values were applied: ≤ 33% or > 33% and < 60% or ≥ 60%). Results: 362 patients were analyzed: 149 (41.2%; treated group) received (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy and 213 (58.6%; control group) did not. The median follow-up for the OS endpoint was 5.1 years (95% CI: 4.0–5.5). The OS-HR was 0.58 (95%CI: 0.40–0.83; p-value = 0.003) in the univariate analysis and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.38–1.43; p = 0.367) in the PSM analysis. The DFS-HR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.57–0.98; p-value = 0.036) in the univariate analysis, and 0.91 (95% CI:0.56–1.48; p-value = 0.7) in the PSM analysis. The DMFS-HR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.55–1.02; p-value = 0.065) in univariate analysis and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.53–1.61; p-value = 0.769) in the PSM analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed no heterogeneity of results in strata of tumor site. On the contrary, there was a trend for heterogeneity according to tumor size and patient's risk of death. For all the endpoints analyzed, patients with tumors smaller than 50 mm or at lower risk of death seem to have no benefit from chemotherapy, while patients with larger tumors or at higher risk of death at 10 years seem to derive substantial benef

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy is a possible treatment strategy for patients with testicular seminoma after orchiectomy in clinical stage I or II disease. Little is known about the outcome of patients who experience a relapse after radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from 61 patients who relapsed after adjuvant or curative radiation therapy from 17 centers in 11 countries were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were disease-free and overall survival. Secondary outcomes were time to relapse, stage at relapse, treatment for relapse, and rate of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy for relapse. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 9.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.5-10.9), we found a 5-year disease-free survival of 90% (95% CI, 79-95) and a 5-year overall survival of 98% (95% CI, 89-100). Sixty-six percent of patients had stage III disease at time of relapse and 93% of patients fell into the good prognosis group per the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group classification. The median time to relapse after radiation therapy was 15.6 months (95% CI, 12-23). Twenty-two (36%) patients relapsed more than 2 years after radiation therapy and 7 (11.5%) patients relapsed more than 5 years after radiation therapy. One-third of relapses was detected owing to patients' symptoms, whereas two-thirds of relapses were detected during routine follow-up. The majority (93%) of cases were treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The rate of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy was 35%. Five patients experienced a second relapse. At last follow-up, 55 patients (90%) were alive without disease. Only 1 patient died owing to disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with seminoma who have relapsed after treatment with radiation therapy alone leads to excellent outcomes. Patients and physicians should be aware of possible late relapses after radiation therapy.

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: The effect of high-dose imatinib (800 mg/day) on survival in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected KIT exon 9-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not established. Here, the association of dose and other clinicopathologic variables with survival was evaluated in a large multi-institutional European cohort. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Data from 185 patients were retrospectively collected in 23 European GIST reference centers. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to account for confounders. Univariate and multivariate unweighted and weighted Cox proportional hazard regression models were estimated for relapse-free survival (RFS), modified-RFS (mRFS) and imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS). Univariate Cox models were estimated for overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 185 patients, 131 (70.8%) received a starting dose of 400 mg/d and the remaining 54 (29.2%) a dose of 800 mg/d. Baseline characteristics were partially unbalanced, suggesting a potential selection bias. PSM and IPTW analyses showed no advantage of imatinib 800 mg/d. In the weighted multivariate Cox models, high-dose imatinib was not associated with the survival outcomes [RFS: hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.94; mRFS: HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.92-3.10; IFFS: HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28]. The variables consistently associated with worse survival outcomes were high mitotic index and nongastric tumor location. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective series of patients with KIT exon 9-mutated GIST treated with adjuvant imatinib, a daily dose of 800 mg versus 400 mg did not show better results in terms of survival outcomes. Prospective evaluation of the more appropriate adjuvant treatment in this setting is warranted.

Contains fulltext : 238293.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: This observational, retrospective effort across Europe, US, Australia, and Asia aimed to assess the activity of systemic therapies in EHE, an ultra-rare sarcoma, marked by WWTR1-CAMTA1 or YAP1-TFE3 fusions. METHODS: Twenty sarcoma reference centres contributed data. Patients with advanced EHE diagnosed from 2000 onwards and treated with systemic therapies, were selected. Local pathologic review and molecular confirmation were required. Radiological response was retrospectively assessed by local investigators according to RECIST. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Overall, 73 patients were included; 21 had more than one treatment. Thirty-three patients received anthracyclines regimens, achieving 1 (3%) partial response (PR), 25 (76%) stable disease (SD), 7 (21%) progressive disease (PD). The median (m-) PFS and m-OS were 5.5 and 14.3 months respectively. Eleven patients received paclitaxel, achieving 1 (9%) PR, 6 (55%) SD, 4 (36%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were 2.9 and 18.6 months, respectively. Twelve patients received pazopanib, achieving 3 (25%) SD, 9 (75%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were.2.9 and 8.5 months, respectively. Fifteen patients received INF-α 2b, achieving 1 (7%) PR, 11 (73%) SD, 3 (20%) PD. The m-PFS and m-OS were 8.9 months and 64.3, respectively. Among 27 patients treated with other regimens, 1 PR (ifosfamide) and 9 SD (5 gemcitabine +docetaxel, 2 oral cyclophosphamide, 2 others) were reported. CONCLUSION: Systemic therapies available for advanced sarcomas have limited activity in EHE. The identification of new active compounds, especially for rapidly progressive cases, is acutely needed.

PURPOSE: The prognostic significance of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in patients with metastatic seminoma is not defined. We investigated the prognostic impact of LDH levels prior to first-line systemic treatment and other clinical characteristics in this subset of patients. METHODS: Files from two registry studies and one single-institution database were analyzed retrospectively. Uni- and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify patient characteristics associated with recurrence free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and complete response rate (CRR). RESULTS: The dataset included 351 metastatic seminoma patients with a median follow-up of 5.36 years. Five-year RFS, OS and CRR were 82%, 89% and 52%, respectively. Explorative analysis revealed a cut-off LDH level of < 2.5 upper limit of normal (ULN) (n = 228) vs. ≥ 2.5 ULN (n = 123) to be associated with a significant difference concerning OS associated with 5-years OS rates of 93% vs. 83% (p = 0.001) which was confirmed in multivariate analysis (HR 2.87; p = 0.004). Furthermore, the cut-off LDH < 2.5 ULN vs. ≥ 2.5 ULN correlated with RFS and CRR associated with a 5-years RFS rate and CRR of 76% vs. 86% (p = 0.012) and 32% vs. 59% (p ≤ 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: LDH levels correlate with treatment response and survival in metastatic seminoma patients and should be considered for their prognostic stratification.