PURPOSE: One of the concerns about intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is that its tight dose distribution, an advantage in reducing RT morbidity to surrounding normal structures, might compromise tumor coverage. The purpose of this study is to determine if such concern is warranted in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity. METHODS: Between 02/02 and 05/05, 41 adult patients with primary STS of the extremity were treated with limb-sparing surgery and adjuvant IMRT. The margins were positive/within 1 mm in 21. Tumor size was more than 10 cm in 68% of patients and grade was high in 83%. Preoperative IMRT was given to 7 patients (50 Gy) and postoperative IMRT (median dose, 63 Gy) was given to 34 patients. Complete gross resection including periosteal stripping/bone resection was required in 11, and neurolysis/nerve resection in 24. RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 35 months, two (4.8%) of 41 patients developed local recurrence. The 5-year actuarial local control rate was 94% (95% CI, 86% to 100%). The local control rate was also 94% for patients with negative or positive/close margin. Other prognostic factors such as age, size, and grade did not impact local control either. The 5-year distant control rate was 61% (95% CI, 45% to 76%) and the overall survival rate was 64% (95% CI, 45% to 84%). CONCLUSION: IMRT in STS of the extremity provides excellent local control in a group of patients with high risk features. This suggests that the precision with which IMRT dose is distributed has a beneficiary effect in sparing normal tissue and improving local control.
PURPOSE: One of the concerns about intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is that its tight dose distribution, an advantage in reducing RT morbidity to surrounding normal structures, might compromise tumor coverage. The purpose of this study is to determine if such concern is warranted in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity. METHODS: Between 02/02 and 05/05, 41 adult patients with primary STS of the extremity were treated with limb-sparing surgery and adjuvant IMRT. The margins were positive/within 1 mm in 21. Tumor size was more than 10 cm in 68% of patients and grade was high in 83%. Preoperative IMRT was given to 7patients (50 Gy) and postoperative IMRT (median dose, 63 Gy) was given to 34 patients. Complete gross resection including periosteal stripping/bone resection was required in 11, and neurolysis/nerve resection in 24. RESULTS: With a median follow-up time of 35 months, two (4.8%) of 41 patients developed local recurrence. The 5-year actuarial local control rate was 94% (95% CI, 86% to 100%). The local control rate was also 94% for patients with negative or positive/close margin. Other prognostic factors such as age, size, and grade did not impact local control either. The 5-year distant control rate was 61% (95% CI, 45% to 76%) and the overall survival rate was 64% (95% CI, 45% to 84%). CONCLUSION: IMRT in STS of the extremity provides excellent local control in a group of patients with high risk features. This suggests that the precision with which IMRT dose is distributed has a beneficiary effect in sparing normal tissue and improving local control.
Authors: Dian Wang; Qiang Zhang; Burton L Eisenberg; John M Kane; X Allen Li; David Lucas; Ivy A Petersen; Thomas F DeLaney; Carolyn R Freeman; Steven E Finkelstein; Ying J Hitchcock; Manpreet Bedi; Anurag K Singh; George Dundas; David G Kirsch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: George D Demetri; Laurence H Baker; Derrick Beech; Robert Benjamin; Ephraim S Casper; Ernest U Conrad; Thomas F DeLaney; David S Ettinger; Martin J Heslin; Ray J Hutchinson; Krystyna Kiel; William G Kraybill; G Douglas Letson; James Neff; Richard J O'Donnell; I Benjamin Paz; Raphael E Pollock; R Lor Randall; Karen D Schupak; Douglas S Tyler; Margaret von Mehren; Jeffrey Wayne Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Joal D Beane; James C Yang; Donald White; Seth M Steinberg; Steven A Rosenberg; Udo Rudloff Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mohamed H Abouarab; Iman L Salem; Magdy M Degheidy; Dominic Henn; Christoph Hirche; Ahmad Eweida; Matthias Uhl; Ulrich Kneser; Thomas Kremer Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Maximilian Rudert; Cornelia Winkler; Boris Michael Holzapfel; Hans Rechl; Peter Kneschaurek; Reiner Gradinger; Michael Molls; Barbara Röper Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Michael R Folkert; Samuel Singer; Murray F Brennan; Deborah Kuk; Li-Xuan Qin; Wendy K Kobayashi; Aimee M Crago; Kaled M Alektiar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cynthia L Emory; Corey O Montgomery; Benjamin K Potter; Martin E Keisch; Sheila A Conway Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Anusha Kalbasi; Mitchell Kamrava; Fang-I Chu; Donatello Telesca; Ritchell Van Dams; Yingli Yang; Dan Ruan; Scott D Nelson; Sarah M Dry; Jackie Hernandez; Bartosz Chmielowski; Arun S Singh; Susan V Bukata; Nicholas M Bernthal; Michael L Steinberg; Joanne B Weidhaas; Fritz C Eilber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Matthew J Krasin; Andrew M Davidoff; Xiaoping Xiong; Shengjie Wu; Chia-Ho Hua; Fariba Navid; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Bhaskar N Rao; Kelly A Hoth; Michael D Neel; Thomas E Merchant; Larry E Kun; Sheri L Spunt Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 7.038