Search

PurposeThe role of chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) for management of extraskeletal osteosarcoma (ESOS) remains controversial. We examined disease outcomes for ESOS patients and investigated the association between CT/RT with recurrence and survival.Patients and methodsRetrospective review at 25 international sarcoma centers identified patients ≥18 years old treated for ESOS from 1971 to 2016. Patient/tumour characteristics, treatment, local/systemic recurrence, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional-hazards regression and cumulative incidence competing risks analysis were performed.Results370 patients with localized ESOS treated definitively with surgery presented with mainly deep tumours (n = 294, 80%). 122 patients underwent surgical resection alone, 96 (26%) also received CT, 70 (19%) RT and 82 (22%) both adjuvants. Five-year survival for patients with localized ESOS was 56% (95% CI 51%-62%). Almost half of patients (n = 173, 47%) developed recurrence: local 9% (35/370), distant 28% (102/370) or both 10% (36/370). Considering death as a competing event, there was no significant difference in cumulative incidence of local or systemic recurrence between patients who received CT, RT, both or neither (local p = 0.50, systemic p = 0.69). Multiple regression Cox analysis showed a significant association between RT and decreased local recurrence (HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.26-0.80], p = 0.01).ConclusionAlthough the use of RT significantly decreased local recurrences, CT did not decrease the risk of systemic recurrence, and neither CT, nor RT nor both were associated with improved survival in patients with localized ESOS. Our results do not support the use of CT; however, adjuvant RT demonstrates benefit in patients with locally resectable ESOS.

Although improving representation of racial and ethnic groups in United States clinical trials has been a focus of federal initiatives for nearly 3 decades, the status of racial and ethnic minority enrollment on cancer trials is largely unknown. We used a broad collection of phase 3 cancer trials derived from ClinicalTrials.gov to evaluate racial and ethnic enrollment among US cancer trials. The difference in incidence by race and ethnicity was the median absolute difference between trial and corresponding Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Using a cohort of 168 eligible trials, median difference in incidence by race and ethnicity was +6.8% for Whites (interquartile range [IQR] = +1.8% to +10.1%; P <.001 by Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing median difference in incidence by race and ethnicity to a value of 0), -2.6% for Blacks (IQR = -5.1% to +1.2%; P =.004), -4.7% for Hispanics (IQR = -7.5% to -0.3%; P <.001), and -4.7% for Asians (IQR = -5.7% to -3.3%; P <.001). These data demonstrate overrepresentation of Whites, with continued underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two decades following the creation of the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Cancer Institute, the status of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research within oncology remains opaque. To better understand the landscape of CAM studies in oncology, we identified CAM-related phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through ClinicalTrials.gov and compared these CAM trials to all non-CAM oncologic RCTs. Pearson χ2 testing was used to compare proportions across groups; all tests were two-sided. Comparing the 25 identified CAM RCTs with 739 non-CAM RCTs, CAM studies were more likely to be sponsored by a cooperative group (64.0% vs 28.6%, P < .001) and less likely to be industry funded (8.0% vs 76.5%, P < .001). CAM trials disproportionately excluded disease-related outcomes as endpoints (8.0% vs 84.6%, P < .001), were unsupported by prior early-phase data (55.0% vs 96.1%, P < .001), and did not meet the primary endpoint (8.7% vs 53.0%, P < .001). Given the observed relationship between encouraging pilot data and subsequent phase III trial success, we contend that future CAM RCTs may yield more promising findings if better supported by appropriately designed and well-characterized early-phase signals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND In the United States, an estimated 48 million individuals live without health insurance. The purpose of the current study was to explore the Variation in insurance status by patient demographics and tumor site among nonelderly adult patients with cancer. METHODS A total of 688,794 patients aged 18 to 64 years who were diagnosed with one of the top 25 incident cancers (representing 95% of all cancer diagnoses) between 2007 and 2010 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were analyzed. Patient characteristics included age, race, sex, marital status, and rural or urban residence. County-level demographics included percent poverty level. Insurance status was defined as having non-Medicaid insurance, Medicaid coverage, or no insurance. RESULTS On multivariate logistic regression analyses, younger age, male sex, nonwhite race, being unmarried, residence in counties with higher levels of poverty, and rural residence were associated with being uninsured versus having non-Medicaid insurance (all P <.001). The highest rates of non-Medicaid insurance were noted among patients with prostate cancer (92.3%), melanoma of the skin (92.5%), and thyroid cancer (89.5%), whereas the lowest rates of non-Medicaid insurance were observed among patients with cervical cancer (64.2%), liver cancer (67.9%), and stomach cancer (70.9%) ( P <.001). Among uninsured individuals, the most prevalent cancers were lung cancer (14.9%), colorectal cancer (12.1%), and breast cancer (10.2%) ( P <.001). Lung cancer caused the majority of cancer mortality in all insurance groups. CONCLUSIONS Rates of insurance coverage vary greatly by demographics and by cancer type. The expansion of health insurance coverage would be expected to disproportionally benefit certain demographic populations and cancer types. Cancer 2015;121:2020-2028. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The aim of the present analysis was to retrospectively evaluate outcomes in patients with cutaneous angiosarcoma of the face/scalp treated curatively with surgery, radiation therapy (RT), or a combination of surgery and RT. Methods. In all, 70 patients with nonmetastatic angiosarcoma underwent surgery, RT, or combined-modality therapy. Of these, 20 patients (29%) were treated with surgery alone, 27 patients (39%) with RT alone, and 23 patients (33%) with combined-modality therapy; 44 patients received chemotherapy, either neoadjuvantly or adjuvantly or both. Results. Median follow-up was 2.1 years. The overall survival (OS) rate was 43% at 5 years, and disease-specific survival (DSS) was 46% at 5 years. Tumor size > 5 cm and satellitosis were prognostic for inferior OS and DSS. Combined- modality therapy (vs surgery alone or RT alone) was associated with improved OS, DSS, and local control. Conclusions. Primary local therapy with combined-modality therapy was associated with improved local control, OS, and DSS for patients with angiosarcoma of the face/scalp. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on results of a study of the potential treatment-related mortality in long-term survivors of soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with radiotherapy (RT) and conservation surgery. A description of the experimental set-up and measurement method is provided. The study showed that survivors of STS who were treated with conservation surgery and RT with or without chemotherapy did not experience excess mortality.

Context: Minority patients receive more aggressive and potentially suboptimal care at the end of life (EOL). We investigated preferences about pharmacologic interventions at the EOL and their potential variation by sociodemographic factors among recently diagnosed cancer patients.Methods: A population-based cross-sectional survey of cancer patients identified through the Texas Cancer registry was conducted using a multi-scale inventory between March 2018 and June 2020. Item responses to questions about potential pharmacologic interventions at the EOL were the focus of this investigation. Inverse probability weighted multivariate analysis examined associations of sociodemographic characteristics, health literacy, and trust in medical professionals with pharmacologic preferences.Results: Of the 1480 included responses, 13.3% stated they would take a medication that may prolong life at the cost of feeling worse. Adjusted analyses showed Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, living with another person, and having a higher trust score were more likely to express this preference. In contrast, 41-65 years (vs. 21-40 years), living in a rural area, and adequate or unknown health literacy were less likely to express this preference. Overall 16% of respondents were opposed to potentially life shortening palliative drugs. In adjusted analysis Black or Hispanic respondents were more likely to be opposed to potentially life shortening drugs although age 65-79 and ≥college education were associated with a decreased likelihood of opposition to this item.Conclusion: Black and Hispanic cancer patients were more likely to express preferences toward more aggressive EOL pharmacologic care. These findings were independent of other sociodemographic characteristics, health literacy and trust in the medical profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate local control, survival outcomes, and complication rates of patients treated with aggressive surgery and radiation therapy (RT) for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS). Methods and Materials We reviewed the medical records of 121 consecutive patients treated for RPS with surgery and RT between 1965 and 2012. The most common histology was liposarcoma (n=42; 35%). The median follow-up was 100 months (range: 20-467 months). Eighty-six patients (71%) were treated for initial presentation of RPS, and 35 patients (29%) presented with and were treated for RPS recurrence. RT was preoperative in 88 patients (73%; median dose: 50.4 Gy) and postoperative in 33 patients (27%; median dose: 55 Gy). Results Five-year local control and overall survival rates were 56% and 57%, respectively. Two factors were associated with higher risk of any intra-abdominal recurrence at 5 years: positive or uncertain margins (58% vs 30% for negative margins, P <.001; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-4.8) and disease recurrence after previous resection (76% vs 31% for de novo RPS, P <.001; HR: 4.4; 95% CI: 2.5-7.5). The 10-year complication rate was 5%, and RT-related complications were associated with postoperative RT ( P <.001) and RT dose of ≥60 Gy ( P <.001). Conclusions Intra-abdominal RPS recurrence continues to be a significant challenge despite the use of aggressive surgery and radiation therapy. Given the complications associated with postoperative radiation therapy, we recommend that preoperative radiation therapy is the preferred strategy when combined modality therapy is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Evidence for external beam radiation therapy (RT) as part of treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is limited. Preoperative RT is the subject of a current randomized trial, but the results will not be available for many years. In the meantime, many practitioners use preoperative RT for RPS, and although this approach is used in practice, there are no radiation treatment guidelines. An international expert panel was convened to develop consensus treatment guidelines for preoperative RT for RPS. Methods and Materials An expert panel of 15 academic radiation oncologists who specialize in the treatment of sarcoma was assembled. A systematic review of reports related to RT for RPS, RT for extremity sarcoma, and RT-related toxicities for organs at risk was performed. Due to the paucity of high-quality published data on the subject of RT for RPS, consensus recommendations were based largely on expert opinion derived from clinical experience and extrapolation of relevant published reports. It is intended that these clinical practice guidelines be updated as pertinent data become available. Results Treatment guidelines for preoperative RT for RPS are presented. Conclusions An international panel of radiation oncologists who specialize in sarcoma reached consensus guidelines for preoperative RT for RPS. Many of the recommendations are based on expert opinion because of the absence of higher level evidence and, thus, are best regarded as preliminary. We emphasize that the role of preoperative RT for RPS has not been proven, and we await data from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) study of preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for patients with RPS. Further data are also anticipated pertaining to normal tissue dose constraints, particularly for bowel tolerance. Nonetheless, as we await these data, the guidelines herein can be used to establish treatment uniformity to aid future assessments of efficacy and toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]