Lynn M Smith1, James R Anderson, Cheryl M Coffin. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. lynn.m.smith@hsc.utah.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Second-look surgery after therapy for rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) may yield prognostic information regarding tumor responsiveness to treatment. Favorable outcome is suggested by tumor cells which have undergone maturation (cytodifferentiation). PROCEDURE: Specimens from patients treated on Intergroup RMS Study-IV (IRSG-IV) were studied before and after treatment. All patients received chemotherapy and most received radiation therapy. Post-treatment specimens were graded according to the quantity of tumor showing cytodifferentiation (0 = absent, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = extensive). Proliferative activity by MIB-1, topoisomerase II-alpha, and p53 protein expression were measured. RESULTS: 19/31 cases from IRSG-IV were adequate for analysis. Six out of nineteen patients failed therapy within 1.3 years of treatment. Grade 3 cytodifferentiation was present in 10 cases (2 BRMS, 8 ERMS); none failed therapy. Grade 2 cytodifferentiation was present in 5 cases (1 ERMS, 2BRMS, 2ARMS); 2 patients with ARMS failed therapy. Grade 0-1 cytodifferentiation was present in 4 cases (1 ERMS and 3 ARMS); all failed therapy. Proliferative activity by MIB-1 and topoisomerase II-alpha immunohistochemistry decreased or was unchanged after treatment for all ERMS/BRMS, and 4/5 cases of ARMS. p53 immunohistochemistry showed no consistent pattern of reactivity. Sparse persistent tumor cells were present in 9/10 ERMS, 3/4 BRMS, 5/5 ARMS. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive cytodifferentiation is more commonly seen in ERMS/BRMS compared with less evidence for cytodifferentiation in ARMS suggesting fundamentally different mechanisms of cellular response to therapy in RMS. Sparse persistent tumor cells in post treatment ERMS/BRMS specimens does not appear to affect outcome. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Second-look surgery after therapy for rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) may yield prognostic information regarding tumor responsiveness to treatment. Favorable outcome is suggested by tumor cells which have undergone maturation (cytodifferentiation). PROCEDURE: Specimens from patients treated on Intergroup RMS Study-IV (IRSG-IV) were studied before and after treatment. All patients received chemotherapy and most received radiation therapy. Post-treatment specimens were graded according to the quantity of tumor showing cytodifferentiation (0 = absent, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = extensive). Proliferative activity by MIB-1, topoisomerase II-alpha, and p53 protein expression were measured. RESULTS: 19/31 cases from IRSG-IV were adequate for analysis. Six out of nineteen patients failed therapy within 1.3 years of treatment. Grade 3 cytodifferentiation was present in 10 cases (2 BRMS, 8 ERMS); none failed therapy. Grade 2 cytodifferentiation was present in 5 cases (1 ERMS, 2BRMS, 2ARMS); 2 patients with ARMS failed therapy. Grade 0-1 cytodifferentiation was present in 4 cases (1 ERMS and 3 ARMS); all failed therapy. Proliferative activity by MIB-1 and topoisomerase II-alpha immunohistochemistry decreased or was unchanged after treatment for all ERMS/BRMS, and 4/5 cases of ARMS. p53 immunohistochemistry showed no consistent pattern of reactivity. Sparse persistent tumor cells were present in 9/10 ERMS, 3/4 BRMS, 5/5 ARMS. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive cytodifferentiation is more commonly seen in ERMS/BRMS compared with less evidence for cytodifferentiation in ARMS suggesting fundamentally different mechanisms of cellular response to therapy in RMS. Sparse persistent tumor cells in post treatment ERMS/BRMS specimens does not appear to affect outcome. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Simone Hettmer; Zhizhong Li; Andrew N Billin; Frederic G Barr; D D W Cornelison; Alan R Ehrlich; Denis C Guttridge; Andrea Hayes-Jordan; Lee J Helman; Peter J Houghton; Javed Khan; David M Langenau; Corinne M Linardic; Ranadip Pal; Terence A Partridge; Grace K Pavlath; Rossella Rota; Beat W Schäfer; Janet Shipley; Bruce Stillman; Leonard H Wexler; Amy J Wagers; Charles Keller Journal: Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 6.915
Authors: S Gattenlöhner; H Jörissen; M Huhn; A Vincent; D Beeson; S Tzartos; A Mamalaki; B Etschmann; H K Muller-Hermelink; E Koscielniak; S Barth; A Marx Journal: J Biomed Biotechnol Date: 2010-02-24
Authors: Brian P Rubin; Koichi Nishijo; Hung-I Harry Chen; Xiaolan Yi; David P Schuetze; Ranadip Pal; Suresh I Prajapati; Jinu Abraham; Benjamin R Arenkiel; Qing-Rong Chen; Sean Davis; Amanda T McCleish; Mario R Capecchi; Joel E Michalek; Lee Ann Zarzabal; Javed Khan; Zhongxin Yu; David M Parham; Frederic G Barr; Paul S Meltzer; Yidong Chen; Charles Keller Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Wei-Lien Wang; Daniela Katz; Dejka M Araujo; Vinod Ravi; Joseph A Ludwig; Jonathan C Trent; Shreyaskumar R Patel; Patrick P Lin; Ashleigh Guadagnolo; Dolores Lòpez-Terrada; Angelo Paola Dei Tos; Valerie O Lewis; Dina Lev; Raphael E Pollock; Gunar K Zagars; Robert S Benjamin; John E Madewell; Alexander J Lazar Journal: Clin Sarcoma Res Date: 2012-12-29
Authors: David Milewski; Samriddhi Shukla; Berkley E Gryder; Arun Pradhan; Johnny Donovan; Parvathi Sudha; Sushmitha Vallabh; Athena Pyros; Yan Xu; Artem Barski; Sara Szabo; Brian Turpin; Joseph G Pressey; Douglas P Millay; Javed Khan; Vladimir V Kalinichenko; Tanya V Kalin Journal: Oncogene Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 9.867