Search

Purpose For over 30 years, the place of consolidation high-dose chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma (ES) has been controversial. A randomized study was conducted to determine whether consolidation high-dose chemotherapy improved survival in patients with localized ES at high risk for relapse. Methods Randomization between busulfan and melphalan (BuMel) or standard chemotherapy (vincristine, dactinomycin, and ifosfamide [VAI], seven courses) was offered to patients if they were younger than 50 years of age with poor histologic response (≥ 10% viable cells) after receiving vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (six courses); or had a tumor volume at diagnosis ≥ 200 mL if unresected, or initially resected, or resected after radiotherapy. A 15% improvement in 3-year event-free survival (EFS) was sought (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60). Results Between 2000 and 2015, 240 patients classified as high risk (median age, 17.1 years) were randomly assigned to VAI (n = 118) or BuMel (n = 122). Seventy-eight percent entered the trial because of poor histologic response after chemotherapy alone. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the risk of event was significantly decreased by BuMel compared with VAI: HR, 0.64 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.95; P = .026); 3- and 8-year EFS were, respectively, 69.0% (95% CI, 60.2% to 76.6%) versus 56.7% (95% CI, 47.6% to 65.4%) and 60.7% (95% CI, 51.1% to 69.6%) versus 47.1% (95% CI, 37.7% to 56.8%). Overall survival (OS) also favored BuMel: HR, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.95; P = .028); 3- and 8-year OS were, respectively, 78.0% (95% CI, 69.6% to 84.5%) versus 72.2% (95% CI, 63.3% to 79.6%) and 64.5% (95% CI, 54.4% to 73.5%) versus 55.6% (95% CI, 45.8% to 65.1%). Results were consistent in the sensitivity analysis. Two patients died as a result of BuMel-related toxicity, one after standard chemotherapy. Significantly more BuMel patients experienced severe acute toxicities from this course of chemotherapy compared with multiple VAI courses. Conclusion BuMel improved EFS and OS when given after vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide induction in localized ES with predefined high-risk factors. For this group of patients, BuMel may be an important addition to the standard of care.

Background: Vaginal/uterine rhabdomyosarcoma (VU RMS) is one of the most favorable RMS sites. To determine the optimal therapy, the experience of four cooperative groups (Children's Oncology Group [COG], International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP) Malignant Mesenchymal Tumor Group [MMT], Italian Cooperative Soft Tissue Sarcoma Group [ICG], and European pediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group [EpSSG]) was analyzed. Procedure: From 1981 to 2009, 237 patients were identified. Median age (years) at diagnosis differed by tumor location; it was 1.9 for vagina (n = 160), 2.7 for uterus corpus (n = 26), and 13.5 for uterus cervix (n = 51). Twenty-eight percent of patients received radiation therapy (RT) as part of primary therapy (23% COG, 27% MMT, 46% ICG, and 42% EpSSG), with significant differences in the use of brachytherapy between the cooperative groups (23% COG, 76% MMT, 64% ICG, and 88% EpSSG). Results: Ten-year event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were 74% (95% CI, 67–79%) and 92% (95% CI, 88–96%), respectively. In univariate analysis, OS was inferior for patients with uterine RMS and for those with regional lymph node involvement. Although EFS was slightly lower in patients without initial RT (71% without RT vs. 81% with RT; P = 0.08), there was no difference in OS (94% without RT vs. 89% with RT; P = 0.18). Local control using brachytherapy was excellent (93%). Fifty-one (51.5%) of the 99 survivors with known primary therapy and treatment for relapse were cured with chemotherapy with or without conservative surgery. Conclusions: About half of all patients with VU RMS can be cured without systematic RT or radical surgery. When RT is indicated, modalities that limit sequelae should be considered, such as brachytherapy.

Purpose EWS-ETS fusion genes are the driving force in Ewing's sarcoma pathogenesis. Because of the variable breakpoint locations in the involved genes, there is heterogeneity in fusion RNA and protein architecture. Since previous retrospective studies suggested prognostic differences among patients expressing different EWS-FLI1 fusion types, the impact of fusion RNA architecture on disease progression and relapse was studied prospectively within the Euro-E. W. I. N. G. 99 clinical trial. Patients and Methods Among 1,957 patients who registered before January 1, 2007, 703 primary tumors were accessible for the molecular biology study. Fusion type was assessed by polymerase chain reaction on frozen (n = 578) or paraffin-embedded materials (n = 125). The primary end point was the time to disease progression or relapse. Results After exclusion of noninformative patients, 565 patients were entered into the prognostic factor analysis comparing type 1 (n = 296), type 2 (n = 133), nontype 1/nontype 2 EWS-FLI1 (n = 91) and EWS-ERG fusions (n = 45). Median follow-up time was 4.5 years. The distribution of sex, age, tumor volume, tumor site, disease extension, or histologic response did not differ between the four fusion type groups. We did not observe any significant prognostic value of the fusion type on the risk of progression or relapse. The only slight difference was that the risk of progression or relapse associated with nontype 1/nontype 2 EWS-FLI1 fusions was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.96 to 2.0) times higher than risk associated with other fusion types, but it was not significant (P = .10). Conclusion In contrast to retrospective studies, the prospective evaluation did not confirm a prognostic benefit for type 1 EWS-FLI1 fusions. J Clin Oncol 28: 1982-1988. (C) 2010 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common soft tissue sarcoma of children. Tumors arising in the extrahepatic biliary tree are extremely rare (less than 1% of cases). In this location, most are RMS of the botryoid type. We report a case of a 10-year-old child with embryonal RMS arising in the mesenchyma of the hepatic pedicle. Most tumor cells were large, round with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm. A few cells were small round or spindle-shaped. Tumor cells showed positive immunostaining for muscle markers: desmin and sarcomeric actin. Electron microscopy revealed 2 types of cells: some were undifferentiated and others showed striated muscle differentiation features.

International audience; Background: Although minimally invasive rectal surgery (MIRS) for cancer provides better recovery for similar oncologic outcomes over open approach, conversion is still required in 10% and its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing MIRS for cancer. Methods: From June 2011 to March 2020, we reviewed 257 minimally invasive rectal resections for cancer recorded in a prospectively maintained database, with 192 robotic and 65 laparoscopic approaches. Patients who required conversion to open (Conversion group) were compared to those who did not have conversion (No conversion group) in terms of short-term, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for postoperative morbidity were performed. Results: Eighteen patients (7%) required conversion. The conversion rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic approach than in the robotic approach (16.9% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01). Among the 4 reactive conversions, 3 (75%) were required during robotic resections. Patients in the Conversion group had a higher morbidity rate (83.3% vs 43.1%, p = 0.01) and more severe complications (38.9%, vs 18.8%, p = 0.041). Male sex [HR = 2.46, 95%CI (1.41–4.26)], total mesorectal excision [HR = 2.89, 95%CI (1.57–5.320)], and conversion (HR = 4.87, 95%CI [1.34–17.73]) were independently associated with a higher risk of overall 30-day morbidity. R1 resections were more frequent in the Conversion group (22.2% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023) without differences in the overall (82.7 ± 7.0 months vs 79.4 ± 3.3 months, p = 0.448) and disease-free survivals (49.0 ± 8.6 months vs 70.2 ± 4.1 months, p = 0.362). Conclusion: Conversion to laparotomy during MIRS for cancer was associated with poorer postoperative results without impairing oncologic outcomes. The high frequency of reactive conversion due to intraoperative complications in robotic resections confirmed that MIRS for cancer is a technically challenging procedure.