BACKGROUND: The Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Study (CESS 86), conducted by the German Society of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology (GPOH), was planned on the basis of the results of the preceding CESS 81 study. The prognostic significance of tumor volume in localized Ewing sarcoma of bone was well documented in the CESS 81 trial. As a consequence, the treatment intensity was adapted to volume in the follow-up CESS 86 trial: the four-drug combination used in CESS 81 was amended for patients with large tumor volume (> or = 100 ml), where ifosfamide was substituted for cyclophosphamide. PROCEDURE: From January 1986 to June 1991, 177 protocol patients with localized Ewing sarcoma of bone were registered in CESS 86. The prognostic implication of tumor volume and several covariates was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier life table analysis and Cox's proportional hazard model. RESULTS: The estimated 5- and 8-year event-free survival (EFS) rates were both 59%. Age, gender, tumor site, and a tumor volume of 100 ml did not distinguish groups of patients with different prognosis. However, the prognosis of patients with tumors >200 ml (8-year EFS rate: 42%) was significantly inferior compared to patients with tumors both of 100 to 200 ml (70%) and of <100 ml (63%). In contrast to CESS 81, the histological response to chemotherapy was no longer a significant prognostic factor (EFS: 64% for good and 50% for poor responders, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite risk-adapted treatment intensity, tumor volume retained its prognostic significance; the cut point, however, was shifted toward larger volumes.
BACKGROUND: The Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Study (CESS 86), conducted by the German Society of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology (GPOH), was planned on the basis of the results of the preceding CESS 81 study. The prognostic significance of tumor volume in localized Ewing sarcoma of bone was well documented in the CESS 81 trial. As a consequence, the treatment intensity was adapted to volume in the follow-up CESS 86 trial: the four-drug combination used in CESS 81 was amended for patients with large tumor volume (> or = 100 ml), where ifosfamide was substituted for cyclophosphamide. PROCEDURE: From January 1986 to June 1991, 177 protocol patients with localized Ewing sarcoma of bone were registered in CESS 86. The prognostic implication of tumor volume and several covariates was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier life table analysis and Cox's proportional hazard model. RESULTS: The estimated 5- and 8-year event-free survival (EFS) rates were both 59%. Age, gender, tumor site, and a tumor volume of 100 ml did not distinguish groups of patients with different prognosis. However, the prognosis of patients with tumors >200 ml (8-year EFS rate: 42%) was significantly inferior compared to patients with tumors both of 100 to 200 ml (70%) and of <100 ml (63%). In contrast to CESS 81, the histological response to chemotherapy was no longer a significant prognostic factor (EFS: 64% for good and 50% for poor responders, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite risk-adapted treatment intensity, tumor volume retained its prognostic significance; the cut point, however, was shifted toward larger volumes.
Authors: S L Gardner; J Carreras; C Boudreau; B M Camitta; R H Adams; A R Chen; S M Davies; J R Edwards; A C Grovas; G A Hale; H M Lazarus; M Arora; P J Stiff; M Eapen Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: Steven G DuBois; Mark D Krailo; Mark C Gebhardt; Sarah S Donaldson; Karen J Marcus; John Dormans; Robert C Shamberger; Scott Sailer; Richard W Nicholas; John H Healey; Nancy J Tarbell; R Lor Randall; Meenakshi Devidas; James S Meyer; Linda Granowetter; Richard B Womer; Mark Bernstein; Neyssa Marina; Holcombe E Grier Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John A van Doorninck; Lingyun Ji; Betty Schaub; Hiroyuki Shimada; Michele R Wing; Mark D Krailo; Stephen L Lessnick; Neyssa Marina; Timothy J Triche; Richard Sposto; Richard B Womer; Elizabeth R Lawlor Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erin E Karski; Elizabeth McIlvaine; Mark R Segal; Mark Krailo; Holcombe E Grier; Linda Granowetter; Richard B Womer; Paul A Meyers; Judy Felgenhauer; Neyssa Marina; Steven G DuBois Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Aimee C Talleur; Fariba Navid; Sheri L Spunt; M Beth McCarville; John Wu; Shenghua Mao; Andrew M Davidoff; Michael D Neel; Matthew J Krasin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ahmed Mohammed Morsy; Salah Abdel-Hadi; Khalid Mohammed Rezk; Gamal Amira; Badawy Mohammed Ahmed; Marwa Tammam Hussien; Mahmoud Gamal Ameen; Hosam Eldein Mostafa Kamel; Doaa Mohamed Fouad; Alia Mohamed Attia; Asmaa Salah; Osama Mostafa Abd Elbadee; Ayatallah Ali Yousseif; Marwa Ismail Abdelgawad; Asmaa Hussein Fathy; Yasmine Nagy Elwany; Islam Karam-Allah Ramadan; Khaled Hassan Mosallam; Ahmed Ibrahim Abd Elwahab; Khaled Hashim Mahmoud; Maged Abdel Fattah Amine; Ahmed Refaat Abd Elzaher; Hanan Ahmed Eltyb; Ahmed Mubarak Hefni Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 6.166