| 1. |
- Dantonello, Tobias M, et al.
(author)
-
Cooperative trial CWS-91 for localized soft tissue sarcoma in children, adolescents, and young adults.
- 2009
-
In: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 1527-7755. ; 27:9, s. 1446-55
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- PURPOSE: To improve risk-adapted therapy for localized childhood soft tissue sarcoma within an international multicenter setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred forty-one patients younger than 21 years with localized rhabdomyosarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma-like tumors (ie, extraosseous tumors of the Ewing family, synovial sarcoma, and undifferentiated sarcoma) were eligible. Therapy was stratified according to postsurgical stage, histology, and tumor site. In unresectable tumors, treatment was further adapted depending on response to induction chemotherapy, TN classification, tumor size and second-look surgery. A novel five-drug combination of etoposide, vincristine, dactinomycin, ifosfamide, and doxorubicin (EVAIA) was evaluated for high-risk patients, but cumulative chemotherapy dosage and treatment duration were reduced for the remaining individuals as compared with that of the previous trial CWS-86. Hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (HART) was recommended at doses of either 32 or 48 Gy. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 8 years, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall (OS) survival for the entire cohort was 63% +/- 4% and 73% +/- 4%, respectively (all survival rates in this abstract are calculated and displayed with +/-95% CI). EFS/OS rates by histology were 60% +/- 5%/72% +/- 5% in rhabdomyosarcoma, 62% +/- 10%/69% +/- 10% for Ewing tumors of soft tissues, 84% +/- 12%/90% +/- 10% for synovial sarcoma, and 67% +/- 38%/83% +/- 30% for undifferentiated sarcoma, respectively. Response to one cycle of the five-drug combination EVAIA was similar to that of the four-drug combination VAIA used in CWS-86. Two hundred twelve patients with rhabdomyosarcoma underwent radiation (EFS, 66% +/- 6%); 53 of those patients had a favorable risk profile and received 32 Gy of HART (EFS, 73% +/- 12%). TN classification, tumor site, tumor size, histology, and age were prognostic in univariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Improved risk stratification enabled decreased therapy intensity for selected patients without compromising survival. Intensified chemotherapy with EVAIA did not improve outcome of localized high-risk rhabdomyosarcoma.
|
|
| 2. |
- Koscielniak, Ewa, et al.
(author)
-
Which Patients With Rhabdomyosarcoma Need Radiotherapy? : Analysis of the Radiotherapy Strategies of the CWS-96 and CWS-2002P Studies and SoTiSaR Registry
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 41:31, s. 4916-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- PURPOSETo analyze and compare the indications, doses, and application methods of radiotherapy (RT) and their influence on prognosis of patients with localized rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS).METHODSOne thousand four hundred seventy patients with localized RMS 21 years and younger entered on CWS-96, CWS-2002P, and SoTiSaR were eligible for the analysis. The median follow-up was 6.5 years (IQR, 3.3-9.5).RESULTSThe 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and local control survival (LCS) for 910 (62%) irradiated versus nonirradiated patients were 71% versus 69% and 78% versus 73% (P = .03), respectively. Ninety-five percent of patients in IRS I (90% embryonal RMS [eRMS]) were nonirradiated (EFS, 87%). Irradiated patients with IRS II had improved LCS (91% v 80%; P = .01) and EFS (not significant). In IRS III, EFS and LCS were significantly better for RT patients: 71% versus 56% (P = 3.1e-06) and 76% versus 61% (P = 4.1e-07). Patients with tumors in the head and neck region (orbita, parameningeal, and nonparameningeal) and in other sites had significantly better EFS and LCS and in parameningeal also overall survival (OS). The efficacy of low RT doses of 32 Gy (hyperfractionated, accelerated RT [HART]) and 36 and 41.4 Gy (conventional fractionated RT [CFRT]) in the favorable groups and higher doses of 44.8 Gy (HART) and 50.4 and 55.4 Gy (CFRT) in the unfavorable groups was comparable. Proton RT was used predominantly in head/neck-parameningeal (HN-PM) tumors, with similar EFS and LCS to photon RT.CONCLUSIONRT can be omitted in patients with IRS I eRMS. RT improves LCS and EFS in IRS II and III. RT improves OS in patients with HN-PM, with proton RT comparable with photon RT. Doses of 32 Gy (HART) or 36 and 41.4 Gy (CFRT) had comparable efficacy in patients with favorable risk profiles and 44.8 Gy (HART) or 50.4 and 55.8 Gy (CFRT) in the unfavorable groups.
|
|
