| 1. |
- Bertucci, F., et al.
(author)
-
The genomic grade index predicts postoperative clinical outcome in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma
- 2018
-
In: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534. ; 29:2, s. 459-465
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs) are a group of rare, heterogeneous, and aggressive tumors, with high metastatic risk and relatively few efficient systemic therapies. We hypothesized that the Genomic Grade Index (GGI), a 108-gene signature previously developed in early-stage breast cancer, might improve the prognostic assessment of patients with early-stage STS. Patients and methods: We collected gene expression and clinicopathological data of 678 operated STS, and searched for correlations between the GGI-based classification and clinicopathological variables, including the metastasis-free survival (MFS). Results: Based on GGI, 275 samples (41%) were classified as 'GGI-low' and 403 (59%) as 'GGI-high'. The 'GGI-high' class was more associated with poor-prognosis features than the 'GGI-low' class: pathological grade 3 (P=9.50E-11), undifferentiated sarcomas and leiomyosarcomas (P<1.00E-06), location in extremities (P<1.00E-06), and complex genetic profile (P=2.1E-20). The 5-year MFS was 53% (95%CI 47-59) in the 'GGI-high' class versus 78% (95%CI 72-85) in the 'GGI-low' class (P=3.02E-11), with a corresponding hazard ratio for metastatic relapse equal to 2.92 (95%CI 2.10-4.07; P=2.23E-10). In multivariate analysis, the GGI-based classification remained significant, whereas the pathological grade did not. In fact, the GGI-based classification stratified the patients with pathological grades 1 and 2 and those with pathological grade 3 in two classes with different 5-year MFS. Comparison of the GGI and CINSARC multigene signatures revealed similar correlations with clinicopathological variables, which were, however, stronger with GGI than with CINSARC, a strong concordance (71%) in terms of low-risk or high-risk classifications, and independent prognostic value for MFS in multivariate analysis, suggesting complementary prognostic information. Conclusion: GGI refines the prediction of MFS in operated STS and might improve the tailoring of adjuvant chemotherapy. Further clinical validation is warranted in larger retrospective, then prospective series, as well as the functional validation of relevant genes that could provide new therapeutic targets.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Martin-Broto, Javier, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of denosumab on pain and analgesic use in giant cell tumor of bone: Interim results from a phase II study
- 2014
-
In: Acta Oncologica. - 1651-226X. ; 53:9, s. 1173-1179
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background. Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is an aggressive primary osteolytic tumor. GCTB often involves the epiphysis, usually causing substantial pain and functional disability. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor. kappa beta ligand (RANKL), is an effective treatment option for patients with advanced GCTB. This analysis of data from an ongoing, open-label study describes denosumab's effects on pain and analgesic use in patients with GCTB. Material and methods. Patients with unresectable disease (e. g. sacral or spinal GCTB, or multiple lesions including pulmonary metastases) were enrolled into Cohort 1 (N = 170), and patients with resectable disease whose planned surgery was associated with severe morbidity (e. g. joint resection, limb amputation, or hemipelvectomy) were enrolled into Cohort 2 (N = 101). Patients received denosumab (120 mg) subcutaneously every four weeks, with additional doses on study days 8 and 15. Patients assessed worst pain severity with the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form (BPI-SF) at baseline, at each visit for the first six months, and every three months thereafter. Results. Clinically relevant pain improvement was reported by 29% of patients in Cohort 1 and 35% in Cohort 2 during week 1 and by >= 50% of patients in each cohort at each study visit from months 2-30. Median time to clinically relevant improvement was 30 (95% CI 16, 57) days in Cohort 1 and 15 (95% CI 15, 29) days in Cohort 2. Results in patients with moderate/severe pain at baseline were similar. Fewer than 30% of patients in Cohort 1 and 10% in Cohort 2 experienced clinically relevant pain worsening at any visit through 27 months. Most patients had no/low analgesic use during the study. Conclusion. Most patients treated with denosumab experienced clinically relevant decreases in pain within two months.
|
|
