Three years of adjuvant imatinib therapy are recommended for patients with GI stromal tumor (GIST) with high-risk features, according to survival findings in the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group XVIII/AIO ...(Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie) trial. To investigate whether the survival benefits have persisted, we performed the second planned analysis of the trial.
Eligible patients had macroscopically completely excised, KIT-positive GIST with a high risk of recurrence, as determined by using the modified National Institutes of Health criteria. After surgery, the patients were randomly assigned to receive imatinib for either 1 or 3 years. The primary objective was recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the secondary objectives included survival.
A total of 400 patients were entered onto this open-label study between February 4, 2004, and September 29, 2008. During a median follow-up of 90 months, 171 recurrences and 69 deaths were detected. Patients assigned to the 3-year group had longer RFS than those assigned to the 1- year group; 5-year RFS was 71.1% versus 52.3%, respectively (hazard ratio HR, 0.60; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.81; P < .001), and survival was 91.9% versus 85.3% (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.97; P = .036). Patients in the 3-year group survived longer in the subset with centrally confirmed GIST and without macroscopic metastases at study entry (93.4% v 86.8%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.93; P = .024). Similar numbers of cardiac events and second cancers were recorded in the groups.
Three years of adjuvant imatinib therapy results in longer survival than 1 year of imatinib. High 5-year survival rates are achievable in patient populations with high-risk GIST.
Background:
Primary and recurrent giant cell tumor of bone is typically benign; however, rarely giant cell tumor of bone can undergo malignant transformation. Malignancy in giant cell tumor of bone ...may be primary (adjacent to benign giant cell tumor of bone at first diagnosis) or secondary (at the site of previously treated giant cell tumor of bone). Malignant giant cell tumor of bone has a poor prognosis; it is important to distinguish malignant from benign lesions to facilitate appropriate management. The true incidence of malignant giant cell tumor of bone is not known, probably owing to inaccurate diagnosis and inconsistent nomenclature. We have analyzed current data to provide a robust estimate of the incidence of malignancy in giant cell tumor of bone.
Methods:
A literature search was performed to source published reports of primary and secondary cases of malignant giant cell tumor of bone. Studies that reported a denominator were used to estimate the incidence of malignancy.
Results:
We identified 4 large series of patients with malignant giant cell tumor of bone that provided data on 2315 patients with giant cell tumor of bone. Across these studies, the cumulative incidence of malignancy was 4.0%; the cumulative incidence of primary malignancy was 1.6% compared with 2.4% for secondary malignancy. Our analyses confirmed that most malignant giant cell tumor of bone is secondary and occurs following radiation. In addition, data from 8 small series showed that 4.8% of patients with giant cell tumor of bone who received radiation therapy developed secondary malignancy.
Conclusions:
Malignant giant cell tumor of bone is rare, and its identification is hindered by a lack of clear diagnostic criteria. For optimal care of patients with giant cell tumor of bone, we recommend: comprehensive histologic sampling to ensure accurate diagnoses; watchful follow-up, particularly for patients treated with radiation; and timely treatment of local recurrence.
Dexrazoxane can prevent anthracycline-associated cardiotoxicity. However, in 2011, its use in children was contraindicated by the EMA over concerns of increased risk of infection, myelosuppression ...and second primary malignancies, and because its efficacy in children had not then been established. We review here the evidence published since 2011, which confirms that dexrazoxane is an effective cardioprotectant in children and adolescents, is not associated with an increased risk of second primary malignancies or excess early or late mortality and does not impair chemotherapy efficacy. Based on this evidence, the contraindication for children and adolescents requiring high doses of anthracyclines and at risk for cardiotoxicity was removed from the European labeling for dexrazoxane.
Summary Background Giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is a very rare, aggressive, and progressive osteolytic tumour for which no standard medicinal treatment or chemotherapy exists. We report interim ...safety and efficacy results from a phase 2 study of denosumab in patients with GCTB. Methods We did an international, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2 trial of patients with histologically confirmed GCTB and radiographically measurable active disease. Eligible patients were adults or skeletally mature adolescents with radiographic evidence of at least one mature long bone who were at least 12 years old and weighed at least 45 kg. We divided patients into three cohorts—those with surgically unsalvageable GCTB (cohort 1), those with salvageable GCTB whose surgery was associated with severe morbidity (cohort 2), and those who transferred from a previous study of denosumab for GCTB (cohort 3). Patients in cohorts 1 and 2 received 120 mg of subcutaneous denosumab every 4 weeks with loading doses on days 8 and 15 of the first cycle; those in cohort 3 continued the regimen from the previous study. Investigator-determined disease status and clinical benefit were assessed every 4 weeks. Our primary endpoint was the safety profile of denosumab in terms of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities. Prespecified secondary endpoints were time to disease progression in cohort 1 and the proportion of patients without any surgery at 6 months in cohort 2. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of denosumab. Efficacy analyses included all eligible patients who received at least one dose of denosumab. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier NCT00680992. Findings 282 patients, including ten adolescents, were included between Sept 9, 2008, and March 25, 2011. Of the 281 patients analysable for safety, three (1%) had osteonecrosis of the jaw and 15 (5%) hypocalcaemia. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypophosphataemia, which occurred in nine (3%) patients, and anaemia, back pain, and pain in extremities, each of which occurred in three patients (1%). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were reported. On the basis of investigators' assessment of disease status, 163 of 169 (96%) analysable patients in cohort 1 had no disease progression after median follow-up of 13 months (IQR 5·8–21·0). In cohort 2, 74 of 100 (74%) analysable patients had no surgery and 16 of 26 (62%) patients who had surgery underwent a less morbid procedure than planned. Median follow-up in cohort 2 was 9·2 months (IQR 4·2–12·9). Interpretation Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of denosumab. Denosumab was associated with tumour responses and reduced the need for morbid surgery in patients with GCTB. Denosumab represents a new treatment option for patients with GCTB. Funding Amgen.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Until now, only imatinib and sunitinib have proven clinical benefit in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST), but almost all metastatic GIST eventually develop ...resistance to these agents, resulting in fatal disease progression. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic or unresectable GIST progressing after failure of at least imatinib and sunitinib. Methods We did this phase 3 trial at 57 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with histologically confirmed, metastatic or unresectable GIST, with failure of at least previous imatinib and sunitinib were randomised in a 2:1 ratio (by computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system; preallocated block design (block size 12); stratified by treatment line and geographical region) to receive either oral regorafenib 160 mg daily or placebo, plus best supportive care in both groups, for the first 3 weeks of each 4 week cycle. The study sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). At disease progression, patients assigned placebo could crossover to open-label regorafenib. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01271712. Results From Jan 4, to Aug 18, 2011, 240 patients were screened and 199 were randomised to receive regorafenib (n=133) or matching placebo (n=66). Data cutoff was Jan 26, 2012. Median PFS per independent blinded central review was 4·8 months (IQR 1·4–9·2) for regorafenib and 0·9 months (0·9–1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio HR 0·27, 95% CI 0·19–0·39; p<0·0001). After progression, 56 patients (85%) assigned placebo crossed over to regorafenib. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 130 (98%) patients assigned regorafenib and 45 (68%) patients assigned placebo. The most common regorafenib-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher were hypertension (31 of 132, 23%), hand-foot skin reaction (26 of 132, 20%), and diarrhoea (seven of 132, 5%). Interpretation The results of this study show that oral regorafenib can provide a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients with metastatic GIST after progression on standard treatments. As far as we are aware, this is the first clinical trial to show benefit from a kinase inhibitor in this highly refractory population of patients. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Patients with locally advanced gastric cancer benefit from combined pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, although fewer than 50% could receive postoperative chemotherapy. We examined the value of ...purely preoperative chemotherapy in a phase III trial with strict preoperative staging and surgical resection guidelines.
Patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction (AEG II and III) were randomly assigned to preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery or to surgery alone. To detect with 80% power an improvement in median survival from 17 months with surgery alone to 24 months with neoadjuvant, 282 events were required.
This trial was stopped for poor accrual after 144 patients were randomly assigned (72:72); 52.8% patients had tumors located in the proximal third of the stomach, including AEG type II and III. The International Union Against Cancer R0 resection rate was 81.9% after neoadjuvant chemotherapy as compared with 66.7% with surgery alone (P = .036). The surgery-only group had more lymph node metastases than the neoadjuvant group (76.5% v 61.4%; P = .018). Postoperative complications were more frequent in the neoadjuvant arm (27.1% v 16.2%; P = .09). After a median follow-up of 4.4 years and 67 deaths, a survival benefit could not be shown (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.35; P = .466).
This trial showed a significantly increased R0 resection rate but failed to demonstrate a survival benefit. Possible explanations are low statistical power, a high rate of proximal gastric cancer including AEG and/or a better outcome than expected after radical surgery alone due to the high quality of surgery with resections of regional lymph nodes outside the perigastic area (celiac trunc, hepatic ligament, lymph node at a. lienalis; D2).
Summary Background The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival for resected soft-tissue sarcoma remains unknown. We investigated the effect of intensive adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in ...patients after resection of high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas. Methods In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with macroscopically resected, Trojani grade II–III soft-tissue sarcomas at any site, no metastases, performance status lower than 2 and aged between 16 and 70 years were eligible within 4 weeks of definitive surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant chemotherapy or no chemotherapy (control group). Randomisation was done with a minimisation technique, stratified by hospital, site of primary tumour, tumour size, planned radiotherapy, and isolated limb perfusion therapy. Chemotherapy consisted of five cycles of doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 , ifosfamide 5 g/m2 , and lenograstim every 3 weeks. Patients in both groups received radiotherapy if the resection was marginal or the tumour recurrent. The primary endpoint was overall survival and analyses were done by intention to treat. The final results are presented. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00002641. Findings Between February, 1995, and December, 2003, 351 patients were randomly assigned to the adjuvant chemotherapy group (175 patients) or to the control group (176). 258 (73%) of 351 patients received radiotherapy, 129 in each group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (hazard ratio HR 0·94 95% CI 0·68–1·31, p=0·72) nor did relapse-free survival (HR 0·91 0·67–1·22, p=0·51). 5-year overall survival rate was 66·5% (58·8–73·0) in the chemotherapy group and 67·8% (60·3–74·2) in the control group. Chemotherapy was well tolerated, with 130 (80%) of 163 patients who started it completing all five cycles. 16 (10%) patients had grade 3 or 4 fever or infection, but no deaths due to toxic effects were recorded. Interpretation Adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and ifosfamide in resected soft-tissue sarcoma showed no benefit in relapse-free survival or overall survival. Future studies should focus on patients with larger, grade III, and extremity sarcomas. Funding European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Rhone-Poulenc-Rorer.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background The optimum treatment for high-risk soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) in adults is unclear. Regional hyperthermia concentrates the action of chemotherapy within the heated tumour region. ...Phase 2 studies have shown that chemotherapy with regional hyperthermia improves local control compared with chemotherapy alone. We designed a parallel-group randomised controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of regional hyperthermia with chemotherapy. Methods Patients were recruited to the trial between July 21, 1997, and November 30, 2006, at nine centres in Europe and North America. Patients with localised high-risk STS (≥5 cm, Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer FNCLCC grade 2 or 3, deep to the fascia) were randomly assigned to receive either neo-adjuvant chemotherapy consisting of etoposide, ifosfamide, and doxorubicin (EIA) alone, or combined with regional hyperthermia (EIA plus regional hyperthermia) in addition to local therapy. Local progression-free survival (LPFS) was the primary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT 00003052. Findings 341 patients were enrolled, with 169 randomly assigned to EIA plus regional hyperthermia and 172 to EIA alone. All patients were included in the analysis of the primary endpoint, and 332 patients who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy were included in the safety analysis. After a median follow-up of 34 months (IQR 20–67), 132 patients had local progression (56 EIA plus regional hyperthermia vs 76 EIA). Patients were more likely to experience local progression or death in the EIA-alone group compared with the EIA plus regional hyperthermia group (relative hazard RH 0·58, 95% CI 0·41–0·83; p=0·003), with an absolute difference in LPFS at 2 years of 15% (95% CI 6–26; 76% EIA plus regional hyperthermia vs 61% EIA). For disease-free survival the relative hazard was 0·70 (95% CI 0·54–0·92, p=0·011) for EIA plus regional hyperthermia compared with EIA alone. The treatment response rate in the group that received regional hyperthermia was 28·8%, compared with 12·7% in the group who received chemotherapy alone (p=0·002). In a pre-specified per-protocol analysis of patients who completed EIA plus regional hyperthermia induction therapy compared with those who completed EIA alone, overall survival was better in the combined therapy group (HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·45–0·98, p=0·038). Leucopenia (grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in the EIA plus regional hyperthermia group compared with the EIA-alone group (128 of 165 vs 106 of 167, p=0·005). Hyperthermia-related adverse events were pain, bolus pressure, and skin burn, which were mild to moderate in 66 (40·5%), 43 (26·4%), and 29 patients (17·8%), and severe in seven (4·3%), eight (4·9%), and one patient (0·6%), respectively. Two deaths were attributable to treatment in the combined treatment group, and one death was attributable to treatment in the EIA-alone group. Interpretation To our knowledge, this is the first randomised phase 3 trial to show that regional hyperthermia increases the benefit of chemotherapy. Adding regional hyperthermia to chemotherapy is a new effective treatment strategy for patients with high-risk STS, including STS with an abdominal or retroperitoneal location. Funding Deutsche Krebshilfe, Helmholtz Association (HGF), European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology (ESHO), and US National Institute of Health (NIH).
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
During the early phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, reductions of hospital admissions with a focus on emergencies have been observed for several medical and surgical conditions, while trend data during ...later stages of the pandemic are scarce. Consequently, this study aims to provide up-to-date hospitalization trends for several conditions including cardiovascular, psychiatry, oncology and surgery cases in both the in- and outpatient setting.
Using claims data of 86 Helios hospitals in Germany, consecutive cases with an in- or outpatient hospital admission between March 13, 2020 (the begin of the "protection" stage of the German pandemic plan) and December 10, 2020 (end of study period) were analyzed and compared to a corresponding period covering the same weeks in 2019. Cause-specific hospitalizations were defined based on the primary discharge diagnosis according to International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) or German procedure classification codes for cardiovascular, oncology, psychiatry and surgery cases. Cumulative hospitalization deficit was computed as the difference between the expected and observed cumulative admission number for every week in the study period, expressed as a percentage of the cumulative expected number. The expected admission number was defined as the weekly average during the control period. A total of 1,493,915 hospital admissions (723,364 during the study and 770,551 during the control period) were included. At the end of the study period, total cumulative hospitalization deficit was -10% 95% confidence interval -10; -10 for cardiovascular and -9% -10; -9 for surgical cases, higher than -4% -4; -3 in psychiatry and 4% 4; 4 in oncology cases. The utilization of inpatient care and subsequent hospitalization deficit was similar in trend with some variation in magnitude between cardiovascular (-12% -13; -12), psychiatry (-18% -19; -17), oncology (-7% -8; -7) and surgery cases (-11% -11; -11). Similarly, cardiovascular and surgical outpatient cases had a deficit of -5% -6; -5 and -3% -4; -3, respectively. This was in contrast to psychiatry (2% 1; 2) and oncology cases (21% 20; 21) that had a surplus in the outpatient sector. While in-hospital mortality, was higher during the Covid-19 pandemic in cardiovascular (3.9 vs. 3.5%, OR 1.10 95% CI 1.06-1.15, P<0.01) and in oncology cases (4.5 vs. 4.3%, OR 1.06 95% CI 1.01-1.11, P<0.01), it was similar in surgical (0.9 vs. 0.8%, OR 1.06 95% CI 1.00-1.13, P = 0.07) and in psychiatry cases (0.4 vs. 0.5%, OR 1.01 95% CI 0.78-1.31, P<0.95).
There have been varying changes in care pathways and in-hospital mortality in different disciplines during the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany. Despite all the inherent and well-known limitations of claims data use, this data may be used for health care surveillance as the pandemic continues worldwide. While this study provides an up-to-date analysis of utilization of hospital care in the largest German hospital network, short- and long-term consequences are unknown and deserve further studies.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Aberrant mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling is common in sarcomas and other malignancies. Drug resistance and toxicities often limit benefits of systemic chemotherapy used to treat ...metastatic sarcomas. This large randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluated the mTOR inhibitor ridaforolimus to assess maintenance of disease control in advanced sarcomas.
Patients with metastatic soft tissue or bone sarcomas who achieved objective response or stable disease with prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive ridaforolimus 40 mg or placebo once per day for 5 days every week. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), best target lesion response, safety, and tolerability.
A total of 711 patients were enrolled, and 702 received blinded study drug. Ridaforolimus treatment led to a modest, although significant, improvement in PFS per independent review compared with placebo (hazard ratio HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P = .001; median PFS, 17.7 v 14.6 weeks). Ridaforolimus induced a mean 1.3% decrease in target lesion size versus a 10.3% increase with placebo (P < .001). Median OS with ridaforolimus was 90.6 weeks versus 85.3 weeks with placebo (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.12; P = .46). Adverse events (AEs) more common with ridaforolimus included stomatitis, infections, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, noninfectious pneumonitis, hyperglycemia, and rash. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were more common with ridaforolimus than placebo (64.1% v 25.6%).
Ridaforolimus delayed tumor progression to a small statistically significant degree in patients with metastatic sarcoma who experienced benefit with prior chemotherapy. Toxicities were observed with ridaforolimus, as expected with mTOR inhibition. These data provide a foundation on which to further improve control of sarcomas.
PDF
