Should adult medulloblastoma patients at low risk receive adjuvant chemotherapy? Long-term results of a prospective study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2018-2018
Author(s):  
E. Franceschi ◽  
A. Tosoni ◽  
M. Ermani ◽  
V. Blatt ◽  
P. Amistà ◽  
...  

2018 Background: Due to the rarity of medulloblastoma (MB) in adults, the few studies available on this condition are retrospective, and the follow-up tends to be short. Furthermore, the different therapeutic strategies used in these patients makes it difficult to assess survival rates and prognostic factors. Methods: Between January 1989 and February 2001, a prospective phase II trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy of treatment for adults with medulloblastoma. Patients were completely staged with a neuroradiological examination of the brain and neuraxis and by CSF cytology, according to Chang’s staging system. Low risk patients received radiotherapy alone, while high risk patients were given 2 cycles of upfront chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy. The results of the preliminary analysis of this study at a median follow-up of 3.7 years are reported elsewhere. The present papers reports on the long- term results of the same trial. Results: After a median follow up of 7.6 years, among a total of 36 enrolled adults with medulloblastoma, overall progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) at 5 years were 72% (range 59% to 84%) and 75% (62% to 91%), respectively. No difference was found between low and high risk patients in terms of PFS and OS at 5 years: in low-risk patients the 5-year PFS was 80% (range, 59–100%) and the 5-year OS, 80% (range, 58 - 100%); in high-risk patients the 5-year PFS was 69% (range, 54 -89%) and the 5-year OS, 73% (range, 58 - 92%). Conclusions: A long-term follow-up is essential to evaluate the real impact of treatments in adult patients with MB. Since there is no significant difference between low-risk and high-risk patients for PFS and OS, the use of chemotherapy is also questionable in low-risk patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 378-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Kopetz ◽  
Zhi-Qin Jiang ◽  
Michael J. Overman ◽  
Christa Dreezen ◽  
Sun Tian ◽  
...  

378 Background: Although the benefit of chemotherapy in stage II and III colon cancer patients is significant, many patients might not need adjuvant chemotherapy because they have a good prognosis even without additional treatment. ColoPrint is a gene expression classifier that distinguish patients with low or high risk of disease relapse. It was developed using whole genome expression data and has been validated in public datasets, independent European patient cohorts and technical studies (Salazar 2011 JCO, Maak 2012 Ann Surg). Methods: In this study, the commercial ColoPrint test was validated in stage II (n=96) and III patients (n=95) treated at the MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2003 to 2009. Frozen tissue specimen, clinical parameters, MSI-status and follow-up data (median follow-up 64 months) were available. The 64-gene MSI-signature developed to identify patients with deficient mismatch repair system (Tian 2012 J Path) was evaluated for its accuracy to identify MSI patients and also for prognosis. Results: In this cohort, ColoPrint classified 56% of stage II and III patients as being at low risk. The 3-year Relapse-Free-Survival (RFS) was 90.6% for Low Risk and 78.4% for High Risk patients with a HR of 2.33 (p=0.025). In uni-and multivariate analysis ColoPrint and stage were the only significant factors to predict outcome. The MSI-signature classified 47 patients (24.6%) as MSI-H and most MSI-H patients were ColoPrint low risk (81%). Patients who were ColoPrint low risk and MSI-H by signature had the best outcome with a 3-year RFS of 95% while patients with ColoPrint high risk had a worse outcome independently of the MSI-status. Low risk ColoPrint patients had a good outcome independent of stage or chemotherapy treatment (90.1% 3-year RFS for treated patients, 91.4% for untreated patients) while ColoPrint high risk patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy had 3-year RFS of 84%, compared to 70.1% 3-year RFS in untreated patients (p=0.026). Conclusions: The combination of ColoPrint and MSI-Print improves the prognostic accuracy in stage II and stage III patients and may help the identification of patients at higher risk who are more likely to benefit from additional treatment


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3612-3612
Author(s):  
Scott Kopetz ◽  
Zhi-Qin Jiang ◽  
Michael J. Overman ◽  
Robert Rosenberg ◽  
Ramon Salazar ◽  
...  

3612 Background: Although benefit of chemotherapy in stage II and III colorectal cancer patients is significant, many patients might not need adjuvant chemotherapy because they have a good prognosis even without additional treatment. ColoPrint is a gene expression classifier that distinguish patients with low or high risk of disease relapse. It was developed using whole genome expression data and validated in independent validation studies (JCO 2011, Ann Surg 2013). Methods: In this study, ColoPrint was validated in stage II (n=96) and III patients (n=95) treated at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Frozen tissue specimen, clinical parameters and follow-up data (median follow-up 64 months) were available. Stage II patients from this study were pooled with patients from previous studies (n=416) and ColoPrint performance was compared to clinical risk factors described in the NCCN Guidelines 2013. Results: In the MDACC patient cohort, ColoPrint classified 56% of stage II and III patients as being at Low Risk. The 3-year Relapse-Free-Survival (RFS) was 90.5% for Low Risk and 78.1% for High Risk patients with a HR of 2.42 (p=0.025). In uni-and multivariate analysis, ColoPrint and stage were the only significant factors to predict outcome. Low Risk ColoPrint patients had a good outcome independent of stage or chemotherapy treatment (91% 3-year RFS for treated patients, 90% for untreated patients) while ColoPrint High Risk patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy had 3-year RFS of 84%, compared to 70% 3-year RFS in untreated patients (p=0.037). In the pooled stage II dataset, ColoPrint identified 63% of patients as Low Risk with a 3-year RFS of 93% while High Risk patients had a 3-year RFS of 82.3% with a HR of 2.7 (p=0.001). In the univariate analysis, no clinical factor reached statistical significance. Using clinical high risk factors as described in the NCCN guidelines as classification, 56% of patients were classified as low risk with a 3-year RFS of 90.3% while high risk patients had a 3-year RFS of 87.7% with a HR of 0.6 (p=0.63). Conclusions: ColoPrint significantly improves prognostic accuracy, thereby facilitating the identification of patients at higher risk who might be considered for additional treatment.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 1293-1293
Author(s):  
Erika Cavanaugh ◽  
Heather Zeman ◽  
Elizabeth Metallinos-Katsaras ◽  
Shelley Strowman ◽  
Kathy Ireland ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives Treatment from registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) has been shown to improve weight and hemoglobin A1c in high-risk patients, yet little is known about these outcomes long term. The current study investigated the association between RDN care and changes in weight and HbA1c compared to primary care in high-risk patients (BMI ≥35 kg/m2 or HbA1c ≥7%) long term up to 24 months. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of high-risk adults. Electronic medical records were reviewed for participants who were 18 years or older with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 or HbA1c ≥7.0% at first visit to a patient centered medical home in Boston, MA. Mean change in weight (kg) and HbA1c (%) at six, 12, and 24 months were compared between patients who saw an RDN and patients who received primary care only. Paired sample t-tests and repeated measures ANOVA adjusting for age, sex, gender, days from baseline at follow-up visit, and number of clinic visits at follow-up were used to analyze outcomes. Results 1902 patients with BMI >35 and 1240 patients with a HbA1c >7.0% were included. There was no significant difference in 24-month weight loss between RDN care and standard primary care. HbA1c decreased significantly with RDN care at all time points (P < 0.001). Patients with at least one RDN visit had a significantly greater mean change in HbA1c of −0.8 ± 0.2 (95% CI −1.0 to −0.5) and −0.6 ± 0.1 (95% CI −0.8 to −0.3) after 12 and 24 months from baseline, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusions RDN care resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvements in HbA1c at 12 and 24 months compared to standard primary care alone. Funding Sources The authors received no specific funding for this work.


Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 1834-1834
Author(s):  
Apostolia-Maria Tsimberidou ◽  
Hagop Kantarjian ◽  
Susan O’Brien ◽  
Guillermo Garcia-Manero ◽  
Charles Koller ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Although ATRA and anthracyclines provide durable remissions in patients with untreated APL, we have reported that ATRA plus As2O3 may do the same while avoiding “chemotherapy.” However, follow-up of patients treated with ATRA plus As2O3 has been relatively limited, prompting this report. Methods: From 2/02 to 4/07, 67 patients with untreated APL were given ATRA 45 mg/m2 daily followed by As2O3 0.15 mg/kg IV 1-hr infusion daily starting on D10. Patients with leukocyte counts (WBC) > 10×109/L (low-risk) also received gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) 9 mg/m2 on D1 and/or idarubicin 12 mg/m2 on D1-4. Patients in complete remission (CR) received As2O3 0.15 mg/kg IV on D1-5 weekly for 4 weeks on and 4 weeks off and ATRA 45 mg/m2 daily for 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off (for 28 weeks). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for PML-RARα (sensitivity level, 10−4) was performed every 3 months from CR for at least 2 yrs. Patients with molecular relapse, defined by two sequential positive PCR tests for PML-RARα within 2 wks, received GO 9 mg/m2 once monthly for 3 months in addition to ATRA and As2O3 as in post-remission therapy. If the PCR results subsequently became negative, low-risk patients received no chemotherapy and high-risk patients received a single dose of GO. Results: The median patient age was 46 yrs (range, 14–81), and 30% were >60 yrs. Thirty-six percent of patients had WBC ≥10×109/L, 54% had coagulopathy, and 27% had Zubrod performance status (PS) > 1. The overall response rate was 91% (CR 90%, CRp 1%). The median time to response was 29 days (range, 19–70). Response rates were higher in patients with PS 0–1 (98% vs. 72%, p=.001), no coagulopathy (100% vs. 83%, p=.02), and LDH <1.5 × upper limit of normal (ULN)(97% vs. 83%, p=.046). The median follow-up in surviving patients is 25 months. Six patients died during induction; 1 died with central nervous system relapse; and 3 died in remission from other metastatic cancers (malignant melanoma, 1; breast, 1; and prostate, 1). The 2-yr survival rate was 84%. Survival rates were higher in patients with PS<1 (p=.0004), no coagulopathy (p=.01), and LDH <1.5×ULN (p=.02). The 2-yr failure-free survival (FFS) rate in responding patients was 92% (Sanz risk: low and intermediate 100%; high, 78%). Four patients relapsed (at 9, 9, 13, and 16 months); molecular relapse preceded hematologic relapse by 21, 23, 38, and 128 days, respectively. None of the remaining patients had evidence of molecular relapse. WBC ≥10×109/L (p=.006), LDH ≥1.5×ULN (p=.02), and high Sanz risk (p=.02) predicted relapse. Molecular remission rates are shown in Table. Time from CR (months) No. of pts in CR tested PCR negative Negative, % 0 52 2 4 3 45 44 98 6 40 40 100 9 37 35 95 12 33 31 94 15 11 11 100 18 22 22 100 24 20 20 100 30 9 9 100 36 8 8 100 48 3 3 100 Grade 3–4 nonhematologic toxicities were infections (n=18), neurologic (n=5), cardiac arrhythmias (n=4), APL differentiation syndrome (n=4), headache (n=3), renal failure (n=3); mucositis (n=1), rash (n=1), and transaminitis (n=1). Conclusions: ATRA plus As2O3 results in high rates of CR, molecular remission, FFS, and survival. PCR testing for PML-RARα accurately predicted relapse and should be performed in high-risk patients during the first year after CR.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3985-3985
Author(s):  
Carola Boccomini ◽  
Marco Ladetto ◽  
Francesca Dutto ◽  
Simone Ferrero ◽  
Luca Baldini ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: we previously reported (Vitolo U, JCO 2013) the results of a randomized study with brief first-line chemoimmunotherapy followed by rituximab maintenance vs observation. With a median follow-up of 42 months, 3-year Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) were 66% and 89%, respectively. The addition of Rituximab maintenance gave a benefit to the patients: 2-year PFS was 81% for rituximab maintenance versus 69% for observation with a HR of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.38-1.05, p=0.079), although not statistically significant. Moreover we also found that achievement of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) negativity predicted a better PFS: 3-year PFS 72% vs 39%, HR 3.1 (Ladetto M, Blood 2013). Overall these data showed the good efficacy of this brief chemoimmunotherapy regimen in elderly FL patients. Aim of this analysis was to report long-term outcome and long-term toxicities of this regimen. Methods: From January 2004 to December 2007, 242 treatment-naive patients aged 60-75 years with FL Grade I, II and IIIa were enrolled by 33 FIL centres. Patients had to have advanced (high tumor burden stage II or stage III-IV) disease requiring treatment: 4 monthly courses of R-FND (standard doses of Rituximab, Fludarabine, Mitoxantrone, Dexamethasone) every 28 days followed by 4 weekly Rituximab infusions as consolidation. Responders patients [complete remission (CR) + unconfirmed CR + partial remission (PR)] were randomized to brief rituximab maintenance (Arm A), once every 2 months for a total of 4 doses, or observation (Arm B). MRD for the bcl-2/IgH translocation was determined on bone marrow cells in a centralized laboratory belonging to Euro-MRD consortium, using qualitative and quantitative PCR. Results: a total of 234 patients began chemoimmunotherapy: after induction and consolidation treatment overall response rate was 86%, with 69% CR. Of these, 210 completed the planned treatment and 202 responders were randomized. Up to date, median follow-up were 96 months from enrollment and 87 months from randomization; additional follow-up data were available for 127/146 (87%) not relapsed/progressed patients. Five- and 7-year PFS for the whole population were 57% and 51%, respectively; 5- and 7-year OS for the whole population were 85% and 80%, respectively. From enrollment, an advantage in term of PFS and also OS was observed in FLIPI low risk patients: 7-year PFS was 67% for low risk versus 38% for intermediate-high risk patients (p<0.001) and 7-year OS was 86% versus 75%, respectively (p=0.03). After randomization, no differences between the two arms were detected for both PFS and for OS at 5 (data not showed) and 7 years: 7-year PFS was 55% for rituximab maintenance arm versus 52% for observation arm (p=0.331; HR 0.8); 7-year OS was 83% for both arms (p=0.208; HR 0.67). Moreover, after randomization no differences between the two arms were detected for both FLIPI low risk and intermediate-high risk patients: 7-year PFS was 67% for Rituximab maintenance arm versus 68% for observation arm (p=0.808) in low risk patients; in intermediate-high risk patients 7-year PFS was 46% vs 35% (p=0.301), respectively in Arm A vs B. Conversion to PCR negativity at the end of treatment maintains predictive value for better PFS: 7-year PFS were 58% and 36% (p=0.084), respectively for MRD negative vs positive patients. The same risk of late toxicity (infections or cardiac events) or secondary cancers was observed in both arms: in particular, 13 secondary neoplasms in maintenance arm vs 16 in observation arm were recorded. Conclusions: the present long-term results of this trial with a prolonged follow-up of 7 years confirm that a good outcome is achievable in elderly FL patients with a short-term chemoimmunotherapy (R-FND + Rituximab consolidation) with a 7-year PFS of 51% and low toxicity. In addition these results did not show clear evidence in favor of a shortened Rituximab maintenance after R-fludarabine containing chemotherapy. Conversely, the achievement of PCR negativity maintains predictive value for a better outcome. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Off Label Use: Rituximab maintenance was not licensed in first-line treatment for follicular lymphoma at that time in Italy; Rituximab was provided free by Roche.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 680-690
Author(s):  
Michiel C. Mommersteeg ◽  
Stella A. V. Nieuwenburg ◽  
Wouter J. den Hollander ◽  
Lisanne Holster ◽  
Caroline M. den Hoed ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Guidelines recommend endoscopy with biopsies to stratify patients with gastric premalignant lesions (GPL) to high and low progression risk. High-risk patients are recommended to undergo surveillance. We aimed to assess the accuracy of guideline recommendations to identify low-risk patients, who can safely be discharged from surveillance. Methods This study includes patients with GPL. Patients underwent at least two endoscopies with an interval of 1–6 years. Patients were defined ‘low risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for discharge, and ‘high risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for surveillance, according to European guidelines (MAPS-2012, updated MAPS-2019, BSG). Patients defined ‘low risk’ with progression of disease during follow-up (FU) were considered ‘misclassified’ as low risk. Results 334 patients (median age 60 years IQR11; 48.7% male) were included and followed for a median of 48 months. At baseline, 181/334 (54%) patients were defined low risk. Of these, 32.6% were ‘misclassified’, showing progression of disease during FU. If MAPS-2019 were followed, 169/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.5% were ‘misclassified’. If BSG were followed, 174/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.2% were ‘misclassified’. Seven patients developed gastric cancer (GC) or dysplasia, four patients were ‘misclassified’ based on MAPS-2012 and three on MAPS-2019 and BSG. By performing one additional endoscopy 72.9% (95% CI 62.4–83.3) of high-risk patients and all patients who developed GC or dysplasia were identified. Conclusion One-third of patients that would have been discharged from GC surveillance, appeared to be ‘misclassified’ as low risk. One additional endoscopy will reduce this risk by 70%.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1565-1565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Mondello ◽  
Irene Dogliotti ◽  
Jan-Paul Bohn ◽  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Simone Ferrero ◽  
...  

Purpose: Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable disease even in advanced-stage, with &gt;90% of long-term survivors. Currently, the standard of care is ABVD (doxorubicin, etoposide, vinblastine and dacarbazine), as it is less toxic and as effective as other more intensive chemotherapy regimens. Alternatively, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone) has been proposed as front-line intensified regimen with a better initial disease control and prolonged time to relapse when compared to ABVD. However, this advantage is associated with higher rates of severe hematologic toxicity, treatment-related deaths, secondary neoplasms and infertility. To date, the debate regarding which regimen should be preferred as first line for advanced-stage HL is still ongoing. To shed some light on this open question we compared efficacy and safety of both regimens in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: From October 2009 to October 2018, patients with HL stage III-IV treated with either ABVD or BEACOPP escalated (BEACOPPesc) were retrospectively assessed in 7 European cancer centers. Results: A total of 372 consecutive patients were included in the study. One-hundred and ten patients were treated with BEACOPPesc and 262 with ABVD. The baseline characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly, except for a higher rate of high-risk patients in the BEACOPPesc group in contrast to the ABVD one (47% vs 18%; p= 0.003). Complete response rate (CR) assessed by PET imaging at the end of the second cycle was 67% and 78% for the ABVD and BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.003), respectively. Thirteen patients of the ABVD group achieved stable disease (SD) and 6 had a progression disease (PD). On the other hand, 4 of the patients in the BEACOPPesc group progressed, another 2 interrupted therapy because life-threatening toxicity. At the end of the therapy, CR was 76% in the ABVD group and 85% in the BEACOPPesc group (p= 0.01). A total of 20% patients in the ABVD group and 14% patients in the BEACOPPesc group received consolidation radiotherapy on the mediastinal mass at the dose of 30Gy. After radiotherapy, the number of patients with CR increased to 79% and 87% in the two groups (p= 0.041), respectively. Thirty-nine patients (35%) in the BEACOPPesc group required dose reduction of chemotherapy due to toxicity compared to 12 patients (5%; p= &lt;0.001) in the ABVD group. Overall, the rate of severe toxicities was higher in the BEACOPPesc group in comparison with the ABVD cohort. In particular, there was a significant increased frequency of acute grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events (neutropenia 61% vs 24%; anemia 29% vs 4%; thrombocytopenia 29% vs 3%), febrile neutropenia (29% vs 3%), severe infections (18% vs 3%). Myeloid growth factors were administered to 85% and 59% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD group. Blood transfusions were required in 51% and 6% of patients in the BEACOPPesc group compared to the ABVD cohort. Progression during or shortly after treatment occurred in 5 patients in the BEACOPPesc group (4%) and in 16 patients in the ABVD group (6%; p= 0.62). Among the 96 patients who achieved a CR after BEACOPPesc and radiotherapy, 8 relapsed (8%), compared to 29 of 208 patients in the ABVD group (14%; p= 0.04). At a median follow-up period of 5 years, no statistical difference in progression free survival (PFS; p=0.11) and event-free survival (EFS; p=0.22) was observed between the BEACOPPesc and ABVD cohorts. Similarly, overall survival (OS) did not differ between the two groups (p=0.14). The baseline international prognostic score (IPS &lt;3 vs ≥ 3) significantly influenced the EFS with an advantage for the high-risk group treated with BEACOPPesc (Figure 1A; p=0.03), but not the PFS (Figure 1B; p=0.06) and OS (Figure 1C; p=0.14). During the follow-up period, in the BEACOPPesc group one patient developed myelodysplasia and one acute leukemia. Second solid tumors developed in one patient in the ABVD group (lung cancer) and one in BEACOPPesc group (breast cancer). Conclusion: We confirm that the ABVD regimen is an effective and less toxic therapeutic option for advanced-stage HL. Although BEACOPP results in better initial tumor control especially in high-risk patients, the long-term outcome remains similar between the two regimens. Disclosures Ferrero: EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Martinelli:BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ARIAD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Willenbacher:European Commission: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Myelom- und Lymphomselbsthilfe Österreich: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; IQVIA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; oncotyrol: Employment, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Fujimoto: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tirol Program: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document