Introduction Despite effective local therapy with surgery and radiation (RT), approximately 50% of patients with high grade soft tissue sarcoma (STS) will relapse and die of disease. Since experimental data suggest a significant synergistic effect when anti-angiogenic targeted therapies, such as sorafenib, are combined with RT, we chose to evaluate preoperative combined modality sorafenib and conformal RT in a Phase I/II trial among patients with extremity STS amenable to treatment with curative intent. Methods For the Phase I trial, eight patients with intermediate or high grade STS > 5 cm in maximal dimension or low grade STS > 8 cm in maximal dimension received concomitant sorafenib (dose escalation cohort 1:200 bid, cohort 2:200/400 daily) and preoperative RT (50 Gy in 25 fractions). Sorafenib was continued during entire period of RT as tolerated. Surgical resection was completed four to six weeks following completion of neoadjuvant sorafenib/RT. Three sorafenib dose levels were planned. Primary endpoints of the Phase I trial were maximal tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Results Eight patients were enrolled in the Phase I (5 female, median age 44, 3 high grade pleomorphic, 2 myxoid/round cell liposarcoma, 3 other). Median tumor size was 16 cm (range 8–29), and all tumors were located in the lower extremity. Two of 5 patients treated at dose level 2 developed DLT consisting of grade 3 rash not tolerating drug reintroduction. Other grade 3 side effects included anemia, perirectal abscess, and SVT. Radiation toxicity (grade 1 or 2 dermatitis, N=8) and post-surgical complications (3 grade 3 wound complications) were comparable to historical controls and other series of preoperative RT monotherapy. Complete pathologic reponse (≥ 95% tumor necrosis) was observed in 3 patients (38%). Conclusion Neoadjuvant sorafenib in combination with RT is tolerable and appears to demonstrate activity in locally advanced extremity STS. Further study to determine efficacy at dose level 1 is warranted. (NCT#00805727, ClinicalTrials.gov)
Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) now represents nearly a quarter of newly diagnosed breast cancers in the United States. Standard-of-care treatment for DCIS is aggressive local therapy consisting of either mastectomy or breast conserving surgery with radiation. However, DCIS mortality is low regardless of initial treatment, suggesting opportunities to explore a spectrum of treatment options. With these treatment options, there is the potential to create risk-adapted treatment plans, but the question of how to assess risk remains. Molecular tests can help to personalize treatment by stratifying disease sub-types and providing prognosis. One such tool is the Oncotype DX® Breast DCIS Score, a risk measure which was validated in a meta-analysis of 773 patients from the E5194 and Ontario DCIS Cohort studies. Along with calculating a Breast DCIS Score™ from the expression levels of 12 genes, the test provides a predicted 10-year risk of local recurrence from the score result, age, and tumor size for patients who receive breast conserving surgery alone. Understanding how such a tool might impact decision-making will inform its implementation. Eligibility & trial design: The ATHENA Breast Health Network is a consortium of the five University of California Medical centers. Through ATHENA, patients with histologically confirmed DCIS and no concurrent invasive cancer are approached to participate in the Athena DCIS Registry. Patients in the registry facing an active management decision are eligible to participate in the Oncotype DX® DCIS prospective study. Specific aims: The primary aim of the study is to determine whether the additional diagnostic information (i.e. the DCIS Score™) impacts patient treatment decisions and physician recommendation. Additional goals are to correlate the DCIS Score™ with mammographic findings, pathological variables, and treatment recommendations, and to estimate risk within each DCIS Score™ group. Participants and their physicians answer survey questions both before and after receiving the score to evaluate the impact of the DCIS Score™ on treatment recommendations and decisions. Statistical methods: The study will assess the percentage of patients who thought the DCIS risk score influenced their treatment decision. The study will also assess whether a significant proportion of physicians changed their recommendations after considering the DCIS Score™ using the chi-square test. Similarly, the patients’ preferred treatment option pre- and post- test surveys will be evaluated. In addition, the concordance between physicians’ and patients’ choices will be assessed by the Kappa statistic before and after the score. The patients’ and physicians’ confidence levels in their treatment recommendation and decision pre- and post- test will be compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, as well as the percentage of patients and physicians who are glad they used the test. In addition, the study will assess whether the DCIS test influences a patient’s perception of their recurrence risk by comparing the self-reported 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk in their pre- and post- test questionnaires using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Current and target accrual: The current accrual across all sites in the Oncotype study is 94 patients. The target accrual for the initial pilot phase data is defined as the first 100 patients accrued. If interested in learning more about the study, please contact Rita Mukhtar, MD (Rita.Mukhtar@ucsf.edu). Citation Format: Jane M Wei, Paul Kim, Cheryl Ewing, Jasmine Wong, Laura J Esserman, Michael D Alvarado, Abimbola O Olusanya, Skye Stewart, Ashley Tydon, Parima Daroui, Jeffrey V Kuo, Hannah L Park, Karen T Lane, Eliza Jeong, Kelsey Brown, Ava Hosseini, Barbara A Parker, Sarah L Blair, Athena Breast Health Network Investigators, Frederick Baehner, Olivier Harismendy, Antonia Petruse, Carlie K Thompson, Helena R Chang, Alexander D Borowsky, Christina Yau, Gillian L Hirst, Richard J Bold, Rita A Mukhtar. Use of Oncotype DX DCIS for disease management in a prospective DCIS registry [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-09-01.
e19013 Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) was developed for intermediate thickness melanoma. Its use for thick cutaneous melanoma is controversial. We aimed to report on clinical and pathologic factors associated with the overuse of SLNB for thick primary cutaneous melanoma. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database was queried for patients who underwent surgery for thick primary cutaneous melanoma (known Breslow thickness > 4.00 mm) from 2004 to 2008. We excluded patients with mucosal melanoma, those without a biopsy-proven diagnosis, those diagnosed at autopsy, patients whose lymph node evaluation was unknown or other than SLNB “yes” or SLNB “no”. We used multivariate logistic regression models to predict use of SLNB. Covariates examined included: age sex, race/ethnicity, Breslow depth, tumor histology, tumor location, and ulceration status. Likelihood of undergoing sentinel lymph node biopsy was reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Results: Among 1,981 patients with thick cutaneous melanoma, 1,158 (58.2%) received a SLNB. On multivariate analysis, patients with primary melanomas of the arm (OR 2.07, CI 1.56-2.75; p<0.001), leg (OR 2.40, CI 1.70-3.40; p<0.001) and trunk (OR 1.82, CI 1.38-2.40; p<0.001) had an increased likelihood of receiving a SLNB, as did those with desmoplastic histology (OR 1.47, CI 1.11-1.96; p=0.008). Conclusions: A significant number of patients with thick melanomas receive a SLNB, even though this procedure was not developed for this patient population. We have identified predictors associated with the use of SLNB. These include: arm, leg and trunk primary sites and desmoplastic histology. Further research to assess whether use of SLNB in this population is detrimental or beneficial is needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.