Sarah S Donaldson1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California 94305-5847, USA. sarah@reyes.stanford.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outcome of children and adolescents with Ewing sarcoma is impacted by many prognostic factors and often measured by estimates of: event-free, relapse-free, disease-free, or overall survival. However, the preferred assessment following radiation therapy is local control. PROCEDURE: A review of large group experiences over the past several decades was undertaken to assess the optimal radiation dose and volume for patients with localized, osseous Ewing sarcoma. New approaches and techniques to improve local control were also investigated. RESULTS: With multidisciplinary therapy, 5-year overall local control rates range from 58 to 93%. Following definitive irradiation, they are 53-86%. Recommended radiation therapy doses are 55.8-60.0 Gy. In the postoperative setting, gross disease requires 55.8 Gy; microscopic disease requires 45 Gy. Altered fractionation schemes have not improved local control. The appropriate irradiated volume is an involved field to the pretreatment tumor volume plus 2.0-2.5 cm margin, followed by a boost to the post-induction chemotherapy tumor volume with margin. Good radiation quality control with central review improves local control. Use of an involved radiation field requires accuracy in defining tumor volume. Techniques to improve local control include risk-adapted multidisciplinary therapy, intraoperative boost radiation, and high radiation doses as delivered by 3-dimensional conformal radiation. Intensity modulated and proton beam radiotherapy may offer an advantage at special sites. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative uses of radiation in the multidisciplinary setting will continue to provide excellent local control, improved function, and quality of life for young patients with localized Ewing sarcoma of bone. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: The outcome of children and adolescents with Ewing sarcoma is impacted by many prognostic factors and often measured by estimates of: event-free, relapse-free, disease-free, or overall survival. However, the preferred assessment following radiation therapy is local control. PROCEDURE: A review of large group experiences over the past several decades was undertaken to assess the optimal radiation dose and volume for patients with localized, osseous Ewing sarcoma. New approaches and techniques to improve local control were also investigated. RESULTS: With multidisciplinary therapy, 5-year overall local control rates range from 58 to 93%. Following definitive irradiation, they are 53-86%. Recommended radiation therapy doses are 55.8-60.0 Gy. In the postoperative setting, gross disease requires 55.8 Gy; microscopic disease requires 45 Gy. Altered fractionation schemes have not improved local control. The appropriate irradiated volume is an involved field to the pretreatment tumor volume plus 2.0-2.5 cm margin, followed by a boost to the post-induction chemotherapy tumor volume with margin. Good radiation quality control with central review improves local control. Use of an involved radiation field requires accuracy in defining tumor volume. Techniques to improve local control include risk-adapted multidisciplinary therapy, intraoperative boost radiation, and high radiation doses as delivered by 3-dimensional conformal radiation. Intensity modulated and proton beam radiotherapy may offer an advantage at special sites. CONCLUSIONS: Innovative uses of radiation in the multidisciplinary setting will continue to provide excellent local control, improved function, and quality of life for young patients with localized Ewing sarcoma of bone. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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: Mark A Applebaum; Jennifer Worch; Katherine K Matthay; Robert Goldsby; John Neuhaus; Daniel C West; Steven G Dubois Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hubert Y Pan; Ajaykumar Morani; Wei-Lien Wang; Kenneth R Hess; Arnold C Paulino; Joseph A Ludwig; Patrick P Lin; Najat C Daw; Anita Mahajan Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Allison F O'Neill; Jason L J Dearling; Yuchuan Wang; Tanya Tupper; Yanping Sun; Jon C Aster; Monica L Calicchio; Antonio R Perez-Atayde; Alan B Packard; Andrew L Kung Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Vivek Subbiah; Pete Anderson; Alexander J Lazar; Emily Burdett; Kevin Raymond; Joseph A Ludwig Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2009-06-17
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: Ming Dong; Jinghao Liu; Zuoqing Song; Xin Li; Tao Shi; Dan Wang; Dian Ren; Jun Chen Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 1.889