Numerical, dimensional or mixed progression disease to imatinib as prognostic factor in patients with metastatic GIST.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11040-11040
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Badalamenti ◽  
Lorena Incorvaia ◽  
Antonio Galvano ◽  
Giovanni Manfredi Assanto ◽  
Emmanuela Musso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Mitotic Activity ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Tumor Site ◽  
Clinical Factors ◽  
Anatomic Site ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Metastatic Gist ◽  
Dimensional Growth

11040 Background: The majority of GIST patients with advanced disease initially achieves disease control from imatinib treatment. Approximately 10% of patients progresses within 6 months of starting therapy (primary resistance) and also 50-60% of the responding patients develops progression disease within two years (secondary resistance). Progression disease (PD) can be numerical, dimensional or mixed. The known prognostic factors of risk stratification in local disease are tumor size, mitotic activity and anatomic site. In this retrospective analysis we explore several clinical factors affecting survival in metastatic setting. Methods: The population included in this large database of 128 patients with metastatic GIST was obtained examining data collected from four Oncologic Centres with expertise for the GIST management. The clinical factors analyzed were sex, tumor size, mitotic activity, anatomic site, KIT and PDGFRa mutational status, site of metastasis, FDG-PET status at progressing disease and pattern of tumor progression to I line imatinib 400, II line Imatinib 800 or Sunitinib, evaluated with CT scan or MRI: PD with dimensional growth (dimensional, dPD), with new lesions appearance (numerical, nPD) and with both numerical and dimensional growth (Mixed, mPD). Every factor has been correlated with Overall Survival (OS) measured in months. Survival analyses were performed by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were executed to search for association with the outcome. Results: Univariate analysis showed significant value for primary tumor site (p < 0.0001), mitotic activity (p = 0.02), tumor size (p = 0.05) and PD pattern (p = 0.008): OS nPD group was 102.7 months, in dPD group 87 and in mPD group 70. The multivariate analysis confirm significant prognostic factors for OS tumor site (p = 0.0004) and PD pattern (p = 0.02). Conclusions: with the limitations of a retrospective analisys, this study shows for the first time the impact of pattern of progression on OS: patients with dPD have a worse prognosis than those with nPD or mPD, suggesting type of PD as an independent prognostic factor for OS in advanced GISTs.

Prognostic Factors for Children and Adolescents With Surgically Resected Nonrhabdomyosarcoma Soft Tissue Sarcoma: An Analysis of 121 Patients Treated at St Jude Children's Research Hospital

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 3697-3705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheri L. Spunt ◽  
Catherine A. Poquette ◽  
Yasmeen S. Hurt ◽  
Alvida M. Cain ◽  
Bhaskar N. Rao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Distant Recurrence ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Tumor Site ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Positive Surgical Margins

PURPOSE: The rarity and heterogeneity of pediatric nonrhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS) has precluded meaningful analysis of prognostic factors associated with surgically resected disease. To define a population of patients at high risk of treatment failure who might benefit from adjuvant therapies, we evaluated the relationship between various clinicopathologic factors and clinical outcome of children and adolescents with resected NRSTS over a 27-year period at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the records of 121 consecutive patients with NRSTS who underwent surgical resection between August 1969 and December 1996. Demographic data, tumor characteristics, treatment, and outcomes were recorded. Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for survival, event-free survival (EFS), and local and distant recurrence were performed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 9.2 years, 5-year survival and EFS rates for the entire cohort were 89% ± 3% and 77% ± 4%, respectively. In univariate models, positive surgical margins (P = .004), tumor size ≥ 5 cm (P < .001), invasiveness (P = .002), high grade (P = .028), and intra-abdominal primary tumor site (P = .055) adversely affected EFS. All of these factors except invasiveness remained prognostic of EFS and survival in multivariate models. Positive surgical margins (P = .003), intra-abdominal primary tumor site (P = .028), and the omission of radiation therapy (P = .043) predicted local recurrence, whereas tumor size ≥ 5 cm (P < .001), invasiveness (P < .001), and high grade (P = .004) predicted distant recurrence. CONCLUSION: In this largest single-institution analysis of pediatric patients with surgically resected NRSTS, we identified clinicopathologic features predictive of poor outcome. These variables should be prospectively evaluated as risk-adapted therapies are developed.

Prognostic factors for response and survival of second-line chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 18023-18023
Author(s):  
Y. Kim ◽  
K. Goto ◽  
K. Yoh ◽  
S. Niho ◽  
H. Ohmatsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Response Duration ◽  
Significant Prognostic Factor ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Clinical Factors ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Extent Of Disease ◽  
Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Sensitive Relapse

18023 Background: Despite high response rates to initial chemotherapy, the majority of patients with SCLC experience tumor progression. Previous studies showed that both the response to initial chemotherapy and the response duration are important for predicting the efficacy of second-line chemotherapy. Therefore, relapsed SCLC is commonly classified into two groups: sensitive relapse (respond to initial chemotherapy and relapse more than 3 months after the completion of initial chemotherapy) and refractory relapse (not respond to initial chemotherapy or respond but relapse within 3 months). However, prognostic factors of the second-line chemotherapy have not been fully understood. Methods: From July 1992 to December 2003, four hundred and seventy-four patients with SCLC received chemotherapy as initial treatment, subsequently 229 patients received second-line chemotherapy (144 sensitive relapse and 85 refractory relapse) in our hospital. We analyzed the association of patients’ clinical factors with response and survival of second-line chemotherapy in sensitive relapsed patients and refractory relapsed patients, separately. For sensitive relapsed patients, analyzed clinical factors were as follows: age (<70/=70), gender (M/F), response to initial chemotherapy (CR/PR), PS at relapse (<2/=2) and the extent of disease at relapse (LD/ED). For refractory relapsed patients, analyzed clinical factors were as follows: age (<70/=70), gender (M/F), response to initial chemotherapy (responder/non-responder), PS at relapse (<2/=2) and the extent of disease at relapse (LD/ED). Results: Response to second-line chemotherapy was significantly correlated with PS in sensitive relapsed patients, however, no significant factor was detected in refractory relapsed patients. For survival, PS was the only significant prognostic factor in both sensitive and refractory relapsed patients. The median survival time was 328 days (PS<2) and 128 days (PS=2) in sensitive relapsed patients (p<0.0001), while 195 days (PS<2) and 113 days (PS=2) in refractory relapsed patients (p=0.0001), respectively. Conclusions: PS was the only significant prognostic factor for survival both in sensitive and refractory relapsed SCLC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Prognostic Factors Influencing Progression-Free Survival Determined From a Series of Sporadic Desmoid Tumors: A Wait-and-See Policy According to Tumor Presentation

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (26) ◽  
pp. 3553-3558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sébastien Salas ◽  
Armelle Dufresne ◽  
Binh Bui ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Philippe Terrier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Surgical Margins ◽  
Desmoid Tumors ◽  
Tumor Site ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Wait And See

Purpose Desmoid tumors are mesenchymal fibroblastic/myofibroblastic proliferations with locoregional aggressiveness and high ability to recur after initial treatment. We present the results of the largest series of sporadic desmoid tumors ever published to determine the prognostic factors of these rare tumors. Patients and Methods Four hundred twenty-six patients with a desmoid tumor at diagnosis were included, and the following parameters were studied: age, sex, delay between first symptoms and diagnosis, tumor size, tumor site, previous history of surgery or trauma in the area of the primary tumor, surgical margins, and context of abdominal wall desmoids in women of child-bearing age during or shortly after pregnancy. We performed univariate and multivariate analysis for progression-free survival (PFS). Results In univariate analysis, age, tumor size, tumor site, and surgical margins (R2 v R0/R1) had a significant impact on PFS. PFS curves were not significantly different for microscopic assessment of surgical resection quality (R0 v R1). In multivariate analysis, age, tumor size, and tumor site had independent values. Three prognostic groups for PFS were defined on the basis of the number of independent unfavorable prognostic factors (0 or 1, 2, and 3). Conclusion This study clearly demonstrates that there are different prognostic subgroups of desmoid tumors that could benefit from different therapeutic strategies, including a wait-and-see policy.

One Hundred Years After “Carcinoid”: Epidemiology of and Prognostic Factors for Neuroendocrine Tumors in 35,825 Cases in the United States

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (18) ◽  
pp. 3063-3072 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Yao ◽  
Manal Hassan ◽  
Alexandria Phan ◽  
Cecile Dagohoy ◽  
Colleen Leary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
The United States ◽  
Histologic Grade ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Tumor Site ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Limited Duration

Purpose Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are considered rare tumors and can produce a variety of hormones. In this study, we examined the epidemiology of and prognostic factors for NETs, because a thorough examination of neither had previously been performed. Methods The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries were searched to identify NET cases from 1973 to 2004. Associated population data were used for incidence and prevalence analyses. Results We identified 35,618 patients with NETs. We observed a significant increase in the reported annual age-adjusted incidence of NETs from 1973 (1.09/100,000) to 2004 (5.25/100,000). Using the SEER 9 registry data, we estimated the 29-year limited-duration prevalence of NETs on January 1, 2004, to be 9,263. Also, the estimated 29-year limited-duration prevalence in the United States on that date was 103,312 cases (35/100,000). The most common primary tumor site varied by race, with the lung being the most common in white patients, and the rectum being the most common in Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and African American patients. Additionally, survival duration varied by histologic grade. In multivariate analysis of patients with well-differentiated to moderately differentiated NETs, disease stage, primary tumor site, histologic grade, sex, race, age, and year of diagnosis were predictors of outcome (P < .001). Conclusion We observed increased reported incidence of NETs and increased survival durations over time, suggesting that NETs are more prevalent than previously reported. Clinicians need to be become familiar with the natural history and patterns of disease progression, which are characteristic of these tumors.

scholarly journals The prognostic role of Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) scores in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weili Yang ◽  
Chunhui Shou ◽  
Jiren Yu ◽  
Qing Zhang ◽  
Xiaosun Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Mitotic Index ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Stromal Tumors ◽  
Common Location ◽  
Conut Score

Abstract Background: The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is associated with the postoperative outcomes in various types of tumors. The relationship between the CONUT score and prognosis in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) needs to be clarified. Methods: Patients with completely resected primary GISTs in the absence of imatinib adjuvant therapy were included. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Prognostic factors were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 455 patients were included. The median age was 57 years and 222 (48.8%) patients were male. The most common location was stomach (n= 219, 48.1%), the median tumor size was 4.5 cm (range 0.4-40.0) and the median mitotic index was 2/50 HPFs (range 0-200). Recurrence/metastasis developed in 92 (20.2%) patients. Patients were assigned to three groups: 219 (48.1%) were in normal nutrition group (CONUT=0-1), 196 (43.1%) were in light undernutrition group (CONUT=2-4) and 40 (8.8%) were in moderate-severe undernutrition group (CONUT≥5). Primary tumor site, tumor size, mitotic index, tumor rupture and CONUT score were independent prognostic factors for RFS using multivariate analysis (p<0.05). Conclusions: The CONUT score was an independent prognostic factor for patients with completely resected GIST.

scholarly journals Assessment of Systemic Inflammation and Nutritional Indicators in Predicting Recurrence-Free Survival After Surgical Resection of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenhua Lu ◽  
Rui Li ◽  
Xianglong Cao ◽  
Chengyu Liu ◽  
Zhen Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽  
Mitotic Index ◽  
Systemic Inflammation ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Operating Characteristic ◽  
Tumor Location ◽  
Recurrence Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival

BackgroundRecent studies have shown that the systemic inflammation and nutritional indicators are prognostic for a variety of malignancies. However, only limited data have so far demonstrated their usefulness in gastrointestinal mesenchymal tumors (GIST).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of GIST patients who underwent radical surgery in Beijing hospital from October 2004 to July 2018. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare several commonly used inflammatory and nutritional indicators. The indicators with largest AUC were further analysis. Optimal cut-off values of those indicators in predicting recurrence-free survival (RFS) were determined. Kaplan-Meier curve and the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used to assess the prognostic values. We then used univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses to identify prognostic factors that were associated with RFS.ResultsIn total, 160 patients who underwent surgery for GIST were included in the study. The median survival time was 34.5 months, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates of 96.1%, 84.7%, and 80.8%, respectively. The inflammatory and nutritional indicators with largest AUC were Systemic immunoinflammatory Index (SII) and Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index (GNRI), reached 0.650 and 0.713, respectively. The optimal cutoff of GNRI and SII were 98.3, and 820.0, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that GNRI, SII, KI67, surgery method, tumor location, tumor size, and mitotic index were all significant prognostic indicators of RFS. After multivariate Cox analysis, independent prognostic factors for RFS in GIST included tumor location, mitotic index, tumor size, and GNRI (HR=2.802,95% CI: 1.045 to 7.515, p = 0.041). Besides, SII also tended to be associated with RFS (HR = 2.970, 95% CI: 0.946 to 9.326, p = 0.062).ConclusionsHigh GNRI is an independent prognostic factor for RFS in GIST, while SII can be considered as a prognostic factor. GNRI and SII can be used as tools to evaluate the prognosis of patients before surgery, helping doctors to better treat high-risk patients.

Prognostic factors and grading systems for overall survival in patients treated with radiosurgery for brain metastases: variation by primary site

2008 ◽  
Vol 109 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 77-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel W. Golden ◽  
Kathleen R. Lamborn ◽  
Michael W. McDermott ◽  
Sandeep Kunwar ◽  
William M. Wara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Tumor Site ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Grading Systems ◽  
Extracranial Metastases

Object The authors conducted a study to determine whether prognostic factors and the applicability of prognostic systems vary by primary tumor site in patients treated with radiosurgery for brain metastases. Methods The authors evaluated data obtained in patients who underwent radiosurgery with or without whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) from 1991 to 2005 for newly diagnosed brain metastases. Four groups were analyzed: 1) all primary sites combined, 2) breast, 3) lung, and 4) melanoma primary sites. Kaplan–Meier, log-rank, Cox proportional hazard uni- and multivariate analysis, and recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) were used to assess prognostic factors and 4 prognostic systems: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) RPA, Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA), basic score for brain metastases (BSBM), and the newly proposed Golden grading system (GGS). The GGS divides patients into 4 prognostic groups by age ≥ 65 years, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score < 70, and known presence of extracranial metastases. Results Data acquired in 479 newly diagnosed patients with 1664 lesions were analyzed. The median survival time from diagnosis of brain metastases was 12.1 months; the median follow-up was 25.4 months in 73 patients who were censored. Survival and prognostic factors were equivalent for 369 patients treated with radiosurgery compared with 110 patients treated with radiosurgery and WBRT, so these subsets were combined. Multivariate analysis of all primary sites combined demonstrated age < 65 years, KPS score ≥ 70, no known extracranial metastases, and ≤ 3 brain metastases were associated with longer survival, and primary tumor control was not. In subgroup multivariate analysis of patients with breast, lung, or melanoma primaries, favorable factors included only primary tumor control in 87 patients with breast primary; age < 65 years, no known extracranial metastases, and ≤ 3 brain metastases in 169 patients with lung primary; and KPS ≥ 70 years, primary tumor control, and ≤ 3 brain metastases in 137 patients with melanoma primary. The median survival for ≤ 3 versus > 3 metastases was 15.6 and 16.9 months, respectively, for breast, 16.5 and 11.3 months for lung, and 9.0 and 5.7 months for melanoma. Analysis of the 4 prognostic systems (RTOG RPA, BSBM, GPA, and GGS) showed that each prognostic system's clinical applicability varied depending on primary tumor site. The RPA confirmed that GGS and primary tumor site are significant variables for prognosis. Conclusions Favorable prognostic factors for patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases treated with radiosurgery vary by primary site. The 4 prognostic grading systems analyzed were applicable to different primary sites depending on which prognostic factors each individual system incorporated. Therefore, the authors recommend further development and use of primary-specific prognostic systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document