Archana Shenoy1, Elysia Alvarez2, Yueh-Yun Chi3, Minjie Li4, Jack F Shern5, Javed Khan5, Susan M Hiniker6, Candace F Granberg7, Douglas S Hawkins8, David M Parham9, Lisa A Teot10, Erin R Rudzinski8. 1. Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, United States. Electronic address: shenoy.a@outlook.com. 2. University of California, Davis, CA, United States. 3. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, United States. 4. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States. 5. Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, United States. 6. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States. 7. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States. 8. Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, United States. 9. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States. 10. Boston Children's Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Established prognostic indicators in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), the most common childhood soft tissue sarcoma, include several clinicopathologic features. Among pathologic features, anaplasia has been suggested as a potential prognostic indicator, but the clinical significance of anaplasia remains unclear. METHODS: Patients enrolled on one of five recent Children's Oncology Group clinical trials for RMS (D9602, n = 357; D9802, n = 80; D9803, n = 462; ARST0331, n = 335; and ARST0531, n = 414) with prospective central pathology review were included in this study. Clinicopathologic variables including demographic information, risk group, histologic subtype, and anaplasia were recorded along with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) with failure defined by recurrence, progression, or death. The log-rank test was used to compare OS and FFS. RESULTS: Anaplasia was more common in embryonal RMS (27% of all embryonal RMS) than other subtypes of RMS (11% for alveolar RMS, 7% for botryoid RMS, 11% for spindle cell RMS). On multivariate analyses, anaplasia was not an independent prognostic factor in RMS (OS:hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12, p = 0.43; FFS:HR = 1.07, p = 0.56) across all subtypes or within embryonal RMS only (OS:HR = 1.41, p = 0.078; FFS:HR = 1.25, p = 0.16). Among tumors with TP53 mutations, 69% had anaplasia, while only 24% of tumors with anaplasia had a tumoral TP53 mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Anaplasia is not an independent indicator of adverse outcomes in RMS. Emerging information on the prognostic significance of TP53 mutations raises the possibility that anaplasia may be a surrogate marker of TP53 mutations in some cases. Tumoral TP53 mutation status may be investigated as a prognostic indicator in future studies.
BACKGROUND: Established prognostic indicators in rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), the most common childhood soft tissue sarcoma, include several clinicopathologic features. Among pathologic features, anaplasia has been suggested as a potential prognostic indicator, but the clinical significance of anaplasia remains unclear. METHODS: Patients enrolled on one of five recent Children's Oncology Group clinical trials for RMS (D9602, n = 357; D9802, n = 80; D9803, n = 462; ARST0331, n = 335; and ARST0531, n = 414) with prospective central pathology review were included in this study. Clinicopathologic variables including demographic information, risk group, histologic subtype, and anaplasia were recorded along with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) with failure defined by recurrence, progression, or death. The log-rank test was used to compare OS and FFS. RESULTS: Anaplasia was more common in embryonal RMS (27% of all embryonal RMS) than other subtypes of RMS (11% for alveolar RMS, 7% for botryoid RMS, 11% for spindle cell RMS). On multivariate analyses, anaplasia was not an independent prognostic factor in RMS (OS:hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12, p = 0.43; FFS:HR = 1.07, p = 0.56) across all subtypes or within embryonal RMS only (OS:HR = 1.41, p = 0.078; FFS:HR = 1.25, p = 0.16). Among tumors with TP53 mutations, 69% had anaplasia, while only 24% of tumors with anaplasia had a tumoral TP53 mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Anaplasia is not an independent indicator of adverse outcomes in RMS. Emerging information on the prognostic significance of TP53 mutations raises the possibility that anaplasia may be a surrogate marker of TP53 mutations in some cases. Tumoral TP53 mutation status may be investigated as a prognostic indicator in future studies.
Authors: Julia A Bridge; Jian Liu; Stephen J Qualman; Ron Suijkerbuijk; Gail Wenger; Ji Zhang; Xiaoying Wan; K Scott Baker; Poul Sorensen; Frederic G Barr Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: R Beverly Raney; David O Walterhouse; Jane L Meza; Richard J Andrassy; John C Breneman; William M Crist; Harold M Maurer; William H Meyer; David M Parham; James R Anderson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carola A S Arndt; Julie A Stoner; Douglas S Hawkins; David A Rodeberg; Andrea A Hayes-Jordan; Charles N Paidas; David M Parham; Lisa A Teot; Moody D Wharam; John C Breneman; Sarah S Donaldson; James R Anderson; William H Meyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tobias M Dantonello; Christoph Int-Veen; Peter Winkler; Ivo Leuschner; Andreas Schuck; Bernhard F Schmidt; Helmut Lochbuehler; Sylvia Kirsch; Erika Hallmen; Iris Veit-Friedrich; Stefan S Bielack; Felix Niggli; Bernarda Kazanowska; Ruth Ladenstein; Thomas Wiebe; Thomas Klingebiel; Joern Treuner; Ewa Koscielniak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erin R Rudzinski; Lisa A Teot; James R Anderson; Julie Moore; Julia A Bridge; Frederic G Barr; Julie M Gastier-Foster; Stephen X Skapek; Douglas S Hawkins; David M Parham Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Dana L Casey; Leonard H Wexler; Kenneth L Pitter; Robert M Samstein; Emily K Slotkin; Suzanne L Wolden Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sietse M Aukema; Selina Glaser; Mari F C M van den Hout; Sonja Dahlum; Marinus J Blok; Morten Hillmer; Julia Kolarova; Raf Sciot; Dina A Schott; Reiner Siebert; Constance T R M Stumpel Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 2.446