Michael W Bishop1,2, Yu-Chen Chang3, Mark D Krailo3, Paul A Meyers4, Arthur J Provisor5, Cindy L Schwartz6, Neyssa M Marina7, Lisa A Teot8, Mark C Gebhardt9, Richard Gorlick10, Katherine A Janeway11, Alexander J Chou4. 1. Department of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. 5. Division of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Children's Hospital of Memorial University Medical Center, Savannah, Georgia. 6. Division of Pediatrics, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 7. Department of Pediatric Hematology-Oncology, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Palo Alto, California. 8. Department of Pathology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 10. Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, The Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, New York. 11. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of histologic response for osteosarcoma may have changed with induction chemotherapy schedules over time. We hypothesized that the increased intensity of induction therapy provided on INT0133 compared to the Children's Cancer Group study CCG-782 would diminish the impact of histologic response on the risk of events after definitive surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed for patients aged <22 with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic osteosarcoma enrolled on CCG-782 and INT0133. Clinical factors were evaluated for association with response and outcome. Good response was defined as <5% viable tumor at resection. Associations of response, study, and postdefinitive surgery event-free survival (EFS-DS) were determined using Cox proportional hazard models. EFS-DS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: Data were available for 814 patients (206 CCG-782, 608 INT0133). For good responders, 10-year EFS-DS (±SE) was 75.4% ± 7.7% for CCG-782 and 70.8% ± 3.1% for INT0133. For poor responders, 10-year EFS-DS was 39.9% ± 4.9% for CCG-782 and 58.4% ± 3.1% for INT0133. Histologic response predicted outcome across studies (P < 0.0001). Significant interaction between study and histologic response was observed for EFS-DS (P = 0.011). Using proportional hazards regression, INT0133 poor responders had less risk of events compared to CCG-782 poor responders (relative hazard ratio (RHR) = 0.6:1), but good responders on INT0133 had a greater risk of events compared to CCG-782 good responders (RHR = 1.53:1). CONCLUSION: We observed an inverse relationship between the predictive value of tumor necrosis and intensity of induction therapy, raising questions about the true prognostic value of histologic response. This highlights the need for novel markers to develop strategies for treatment in future trials.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of histologic response for osteosarcoma may have changed with induction chemotherapy schedules over time. We hypothesized that the increased intensity of induction therapy provided on INT0133 compared to the Children's Cancer Group study CCG-782 would diminish the impact of histologic response on the risk of events after definitive surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed for patients aged <22 with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic osteosarcoma enrolled on CCG-782 and INT0133. Clinical factors were evaluated for association with response and outcome. Good response was defined as <5% viable tumor at resection. Associations of response, study, and postdefinitive surgery event-free survival (EFS-DS) were determined using Cox proportional hazard models. EFS-DS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: Data were available for 814 patients (206 CCG-782, 608 INT0133). For good responders, 10-year EFS-DS (±SE) was 75.4% ± 7.7% for CCG-782 and 70.8% ± 3.1% for INT0133. For poor responders, 10-year EFS-DS was 39.9% ± 4.9% for CCG-782 and 58.4% ± 3.1% for INT0133. Histologic response predicted outcome across studies (P < 0.0001). Significant interaction between study and histologic response was observed for EFS-DS (P = 0.011). Using proportional hazards regression, INT0133 poor responders had less risk of events compared to CCG-782 poor responders (relative hazard ratio (RHR) = 0.6:1), but good responders on INT0133 had a greater risk of events compared to CCG-782 good responders (RHR = 1.53:1). CONCLUSION: We observed an inverse relationship between the predictive value of tumor necrosis and intensity of induction therapy, raising questions about the true prognostic value of histologic response. This highlights the need for novel markers to develop strategies for treatment in future trials.
Authors: J S Whelan; R C Jinks; A McTiernan; M R Sydes; J M Hook; L Trani; B Uscinska; V Bramwell; I J Lewis; M A Nooij; M van Glabbeke; R J Grimer; P C W Hogendoorn; A H M Taminiau; H Gelderblom Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-10-19 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M P Link; A M Goorin; A W Miser; A A Green; C B Pratt; J B Belasco; J Pritchard; J S Malpas; A R Baker; J A Kirkpatrick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1986-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stefan Bielack; Herbert Jürgens; Gernot Jundt; Matthias Kevric; Thomas Kühne; Peter Reichardt; Andreas Zoubek; Mathias Werner; Winfried Winkelmann; Rainer Kotz Journal: Cancer Treat Res Date: 2009
Authors: Paul A Meyers; Cindy L Schwartz; Mark Krailo; Eugenie S Kleinerman; Donna Betcher; Mark L Bernstein; Ernest Conrad; William Ferguson; Mark Gebhardt; Allen M Goorin; Michael B Harris; John Healey; Andrew Huvos; Michael Link; Joseph Montebello; Helen Nadel; Michael Nieder; Judith Sato; Gene Siegal; Michael Weiner; Robert Wells; Lester Wold; Richard Womer; Holcombe Grier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer A Perry; Adam Kiezun; Peter Tonzi; Eliezer M Van Allen; Scott L Carter; Sylvan C Baca; Glenn S Cowley; Ami S Bhatt; Esther Rheinbay; Chandra Sekhar Pedamallu; Elena Helman; Amaro Taylor-Weiner; Aaron McKenna; David S DeLuca; Michael S Lawrence; Lauren Ambrogio; Carrie Sougnez; Andrey Sivachenko; Loren D Walensky; Nikhil Wagle; Jaume Mora; Carmen de Torres; Cinzia Lavarino; Simone Dos Santos Aguiar; Jose Andres Yunes; Silvia Regina Brandalise; Gabriela Elisa Mercado-Celis; Jorge Melendez-Zajgla; Rocío Cárdenas-Cardós; Liliana Velasco-Hidalgo; Charles W M Roberts; Levi A Garraway; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Stacey B Gabriel; Eric S Lander; Todd R Golub; Stuart H Orkin; Gad Getz; Katherine A Janeway Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Allen M Goorin; Douglas J Schwartzentruber; Meenakshi Devidas; Mark C Gebhardt; Alberto G Ayala; Michael B Harris; Lee J Helman; Holcombe E Grier; Michael P Link Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ian J Lewis; Marianne A Nooij; Jeremy Whelan; Matthew R Sydes; Robert Grimer; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Muhammad A Memon; Simon Weeden; Barbara M Uscinska; Martine van Glabbeke; Anne Kirkpatrick; Esther I Hauben; Alan W Craft; Antonie H M Taminiau Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lindsay Haynes; Sue C Kaste; Kirsten K Ness; Jianrong Wu; Lucia Ortega-Laureano; Michael Bishop; Michael Neel; Bhaskar Rao; Israel Fernandez-Pineda Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Lawrence M White; Angela Atinga; Ali M Naraghi; Katherine Lajkosz; Jay S Wunder; Peter Ferguson; Kim Tsoi; Anthony Griffin; Masoom Haider Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Damon R Reed; Masanori Hayashi; Lars Wagner; Odion Binitie; Diana A Steppan; Andrew S Brohl; Eric T Shinohara; Julia A Bridge; David M Loeb; Scott C Borinstein; Michael S Isakoff Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jianping Hu; Chunlin Zhang; Kunpeng Zhu; Lei Zhang; Tao Cai; Taicheng Zhan; Xiong Luo Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.411