2001
DOI: 10.1023/a:1013148730966
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Second malignancies after Ewing tumor treatment in 690 patients from a cooperative German/Austrian/Dutch study

Abstract: The second cancder risk observed was in the range to be expected in cancer survivors. High-dose therapy, and less markedly, etoposide, may contribute to the overall second cancer risk.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
52
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 88 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
2
52
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…[26][27][28] In the present study, one possible case of treatment-related fatal adverse effect and two cases of secondary malignancy (one MDS and one AML) were observed. Treatmentrelated deaths in three out of 21 patients (14%) strongly suggest that such intensive treatment must be restricted to patients with a high risk of mortality.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…[26][27][28] In the present study, one possible case of treatment-related fatal adverse effect and two cases of secondary malignancy (one MDS and one AML) were observed. Treatmentrelated deaths in three out of 21 patients (14%) strongly suggest that such intensive treatment must be restricted to patients with a high risk of mortality.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…A low risk (0.4-2.2%) of secondary neoplasias was reported for patients diagnosed with ESFT and treated with moderatedose combination chemotherapy regimens [4,15]. However, in recent years, the use of protocols that included intensification of alkylators and topoisomerase-II inhibitors has resulted in a significant increase in the incidence of t-AML/MDS [4,7,16].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, as primary site was an important prognostic factor associated with tumour burden, and trials were open for patients with both localised and metastatic disease, this seems unlikely. There was a maximum interval of 3 weeks between diagnosis and starting treatment for patients to be eligible for EICESS-92 (Paulussen et al, 2001), but no maximum period between diagnosis and starting treatment was specified for the two earlier trials Craft et al, 1998). Patients with any primary site and those with metastatic disease at diagnosis were eligible for all three trials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%