J R Kroep1, M Ouali2, H Gelderblom3, A Le Cesne4, T J A Dekker3, M Van Glabbeke2, P C W Hogendoorn5, P Hohenberger6. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.r.kroep@lumc.nl. 2. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Medicine, Institute Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 5. Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 6. Division of Surgical Oncology and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: the role of chemotherapy in advanced malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: chemotherapy-naive soft tissue sarcomas (STS) patients treated on 12 pooled nonrandomized and randomized European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group trials were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical outcomes, overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS) and response were determined for MPNST and other STS histotypes and compared. Additionally, prognostic factors within the MPNST population were defined. Studied cofactors were demographics, sarcoma history, disease extent and chemotherapy regimen. RESULTS: after a median follow-up of 4.1 years, 175 MPNST out of 2675 eligible STS patients were analyzed. Outcome was similar for MPNST versus other STS histotypes, with a response rate, median PFS and overall survival of 21% versus 22%, 17 versus 16 weeks and 48 versus 51 weeks, respectively. Performance status was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival. Chemotherapy regimen was an independent prognostic factor for response (P < 0.0001) and PFS (P = 0.009). Compared with standard first-line doxorubicin, the doxorubicin-ifosfamide regimen had the best response, whereas ifosfamide had the worst prognosis. CONCLUSION: this series indicates the role of chemotherapy in treatment of advanced MPNST. This first comparison showed similar outcomes for MPNST and other STS histotypes. The apparent superiority of the doxorubicin-ifosfamide regimen justifies further investigations of this combination in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: the role of chemotherapy in advanced malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: chemotherapy-naive soft tissue sarcomas (STS) patients treated on 12 pooled nonrandomized and randomized European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group trials were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical outcomes, overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS) and response were determined for MPNST and other STS histotypes and compared. Additionally, prognostic factors within the MPNST population were defined. Studied cofactors were demographics, sarcoma history, disease extent and chemotherapy regimen. RESULTS: after a median follow-up of 4.1 years, 175 MPNST out of 2675 eligible STS patients were analyzed. Outcome was similar for MPNST versus other STS histotypes, with a response rate, median PFS and overall survival of 21% versus 22%, 17 versus 16 weeks and 48 versus 51 weeks, respectively. Performance status was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival. Chemotherapy regimen was an independent prognostic factor for response (P < 0.0001) and PFS (P = 0.009). Compared with standard first-line doxorubicin, the doxorubicin-ifosfamide regimen had the best response, whereas ifosfamide had the worst prognosis. CONCLUSION: this series indicates the role of chemotherapy in treatment of advanced MPNST. This first comparison showed similar outcomes for MPNST and other STS histotypes. The apparent superiority of the doxorubicin-ifosfamide regimen justifies further investigations of this combination in randomized trials.
Authors: M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; J W Oosterhuis; H Mouridsen; D Crowther; R Somers; J Verweij; A Santoro; J Buesa; T Tursz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matteo Anghileri; Rosalba Miceli; Marco Fiore; Luigi Mariani; Andrea Ferrari; Chiara Mussi; Laura Lozza; Paola Collini; Patrizia Olmi; Paolo G Casali; Silvana Pilotti; Alessandro Gronchi Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Santoro; T Tursz; H Mouridsen; J Verweij; W Steward; R Somers; J Buesa; P Casali; D Spooner; E Rankin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Schlemmer; P Reichardt; J Verweij; J T Hartmann; I Judson; A Thyss; P C W Hogendoorn; S Marreaud; M Van Glabbeke; J Y Blay Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-09-02 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Marjorie Carlson; Adrienne L Watson; Leah Anderson; David A Largaespada; Paolo P Provenzano Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: John B Wojcik; Dylan M Marchione; Simone Sidoli; Anissa Djedid; Amanda Lisby; Jacek Majewski; Benjamin A Garcia Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Hendrikus J Dubbink; Hannah Bakels; Edward Post; Ellen C Zwarthoff; Robert M Verdijk Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2014-07-18 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Arjen H G Cleven; Ghadah A Al Sannaa; Inge Briaire-de Bruijn; Davis R Ingram; Matt van de Rijn; Brian P Rubin; Maurits W de Vries; Kelsey L Watson; Keila E Torres; Wei-Lien Wang; Sjoerd G van Duinen; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Alexander J Lazar; Judith V M G Bovée Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 7.842