| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Hesla, AC, et al.
(författare)
-
Current Status of Management and Outcome for Patients with Ewing Sarcoma
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Cancers. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6694. ; 13:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Ewing sarcoma is the second most common bone sarcoma in children after osteosarcoma. It is a very aggressive malignancy for which systemic treatment has greatly improved outcome for patients with localized disease, who now see survival rates of over 70%. However, for the quarter of patients presenting with metastatic disease, survival is still dismal with less than 30% of patients surviving past 5 years. Patients with disease relapse, local or distant, face an even poorer prognosis with an event-free 5-year survival rate of only 10%. Unfortunately, Ewing sarcoma patients have not yet seen the benefit of recent years’ technical achievements such as next-generation sequencing, which have enabled researchers to study biological systems at a level never seen before. In spite of large multinational studies, treatment of Ewing sarcoma relies entirely on chemotherapeutic agents that have been largely unchanged for decades. As many promising modern therapies, including monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, and immunotherapy, have been disappointing to date, there is no clear candidate as to which drug should be investigated in the next large-scale clinical trial. However, the mechanisms driving tumor development in Ewing sarcoma are slowly unfolding. New entities of Ewing-like tumors, with fusion transcripts that are related to the oncogenic EWSR1-FLI1 fusion seen in the majority of Ewing tumors, are being mapped. These tumors, although sharing much of the same morphologic features as classic Ewing sarcoma, behave differently and may require a different treatment. There are also controversies regarding local treatment of Ewing sarcoma. The radiosensitive nature of the disease and the tendency for Ewing sarcoma to arise in the axial skeleton make local treatment very challenging. Surgical treatment and radiotherapy have their pros and cons, which may give rise to different treatment strategies in different centers around the world. This review article discusses some of these controversies and reproduces the highlights from recent publications with regard to diagnostics, systemic treatment, and surgical treatment of Ewing sarcoma.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lin, YB, et al.
(författare)
-
Telomerase promoter mutations and copy number alterations in solitary fibrous tumours
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of clinical pathology. - : BMJ. - 1472-4146 .- 0021-9746. ; 71:9, s. 832-839
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Solitary fibrous tumour (SFT) is an infrequently metastasising mesenchymal tumour defined by the NAB2–STAT6 fusion gene. Activating mutations in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) gene promoter has been reported to associate with adverse patient outcome in SFTs.MethodsWe analysed the hTERT gene for promoter mutations and copy number alterations in 43 primary extrameningeal SFTs (9 malignant and 34 benign tumours according to WHO 2013 criteria), six local recurrences and three metastatic lesions.ResultsActivating −124 C>T (n=12) or −148 C>T (n=2) mutations were found in 33% of the tumours and associated with older age (P=0.006), necrosis (P=0.009), higher mitotic rate (P=0.003), nuclear atypia (P=0.002), malignant histological diagnosis (P=0.04) and worse progression-free survival (P=0.023). We also observed frequent (24%) hTERT promoter mutations in histologically benign tumours without metastasis (mean follow-up >9 years), and in 14%–18% of low-risk SFTs as determined by three risk-stratification models. Mutations were seen in 2/6 metastatic tumours and metastatic lesions. hTERT copy number gain was seen in 11/28 hTERT promoter wild-type cases.ConclusionsActivating hTERT promoter mutations associate with aggressive histopathological features, indicating a role in tumour progression. Given the comparatively high prevalence of hTERT promoter mutations in low-risk and non-metastasising lesions, further studies are required to clarify the prognostic value of hTERT promoter analysis before implementing the analysis in clinical diagnostics.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
