scholarly journals Impact of limb salvage versus amputation on overall survival in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremities: an update in the modern era using the National Cancer Database

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Evans ◽  
Alexander Lazarides ◽  
Julia D. Visgauss ◽  
Jason A. Somarelli ◽  
Dan G. Blazer III ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Limb Salvage ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
National Cancer Database ◽  
Significant Survival Benefit ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
Treatment Paradigm ◽  
High Grade Osteosarcoma ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Historically, amputation was the primary surgical treatment for osteosarcoma of the extremities; however, with advancements in surgical techniques and chemotherapies limb salvage has replaced amputation as the dominant treatment paradigm. This study assessed the impact of the type of surgical resection on overall survival in the era of modern limb salvage. Methods: Utilizing the largest registry of primary osteosarcoma, the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we retrospectively analyzed patients with high grade osteosarcoma of the extremities from 2004 through 2015. Unadjusted five-year overall survival between patients who received limb salvage and amputation was assessed utilizing Kaplan Meier curves. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and propensity matched analysis was used to determine the variables independently correlated with survival. Results: From a total of 3,421 patients, 2,634 underwent limb salvage and 787 underwent amputation. After controlling for confounders, limb salvage was associated with a significant survival benefit over amputation (HR: 0.70; p<0.001). This survival benefit remained significant after propensity matched analysis of all significantly different independent variables (HR: 0.74; p=0.001). Chemotherapy and negative surgical margins were also independently associated with survival.Conclusion: Limb salvage is associated with a significant survival benefit over amputation, even when controlling for potentially confounding variables and differences between cohorts.

scholarly journals Limb salvage versus amputation in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremities: an update in the modern era using the National Cancer Database

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Evans ◽  
Alexander L. Lazarides ◽  
Julia D. Visgauss ◽  
Jason A. Somarelli ◽  
Dan G. Blazer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Limb Salvage ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
National Cancer Database ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Significant Survival Benefit ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
Choice Of Treatment ◽  
Treatment Paradigm ◽  
High Grade Osteosarcoma

Abstract Background Historically, amputation was the primary surgical treatment for osteosarcoma of the extremities; however, with advancements in surgical techniques and chemotherapies limb salvage has replaced amputation as the dominant treatment paradigm. This study assessed the type of surgical resection chosen for osteosarcoma patients in the twenty-first century. Methods Utilizing the largest registry of primary osteosarcoma, the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we retrospectively analyzed patients with high grade osteosarcoma of the extremities from 2004 through 2015. Differences between patients undergoing amputation and patients undergoing limb salvage are described. Unadjusted five-year overall survival between patients who received limb salvage and amputation was assessed utilizing Kaplan Meier curves. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and propensity matched analysis was used to determine the variables independently correlated with survival. Results From a total of 2442 patients, 1855 underwent limb salvage and 587 underwent amputation. Patients undergoing amputation were more likely to be older, male, uninsured, and live in zip codes associated with lower income. Patients undergoing amputation were also more likely to have larger tumors, more comorbid conditions, and metastatic disease at presentation. After controlling for confounders, limb salvage was associated with a significant survival benefit over amputation (HR: 0.70; p < 0.001). Although this may well reflect underlying biases impacting choice of treatment, this survival benefit remained significant after propensity matched analysis of all significantly different independent variables (HR: 0.71; p < 0.01). Conclusion Among patients in the NCDB, amputation for osteosarcoma is associated with advanced age, advanced stage, larger tumors, greater comorbidities, and lower income. Limb salvage is associated with a significant survival benefit, even when controlling for significant confounding variables and differences between cohorts.

scholarly journals 51 Timing of adjuvant treatments on glioblastoma survival: A retrospective cohort analysis based on the national cancer database

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (S3) ◽  
pp. S11-S12
Author(s):  
Ping Zhu ◽  
Xianglin L. Du ◽  
Yoshua Esquenazi ◽  
Jay-Jiguang Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
High Dose ◽  
National Cancer Database ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Significant Survival Benefit ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
The Impact

Few studies investigated the associations between intervention modalities, timing, and survival in glioblastoma (GBM) patients. A total of 20511 eligible GBM patients underwent biopsy and craniotomy surgeries followed by adjuvant treatments (2005-2014) were derived from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The time intervals (days) from the date of diagnosis to the initiation date of adjuvant treatment [radiation therapy only (RT), chemotherapy only, concurrent chemoradiation (CRT), or non-concurrent RT and chemotherapy] were categorized into quartiles (Q1-Q4). Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression were applied for survival analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to compare differences in treatment timing, intervention modalities, and secondary outcomes. The patients underwent biopsy obtained significant survival benefit by having delayed adjuvant treatment [comparing to Q1, Q2: HR (hazard ratio), 0.88, Q3: HR, 0.86]. For patients underwent resection, the prolonged waiting time of adjuvant treatment had 5-6% reduced risk of death [comparing to Q1, Q2: HR, 0.95; Q3: HR, 0.94]. Patients received more RT fractions [comparing to 10-29 fractions, 30-33 fractions: HR: 0.62 (biopsy), 0.62 (resection); ≥34 fractions: HR: 0.53 (biopsy), 0.62 (resection)] and high-dose RT [comparing to 34-46 Gy, 50-60 Gy: HR: 0.91 (biopsy), 0.95 (resection); ≥ 60 Gy: HR: 0.77 (biopsy), 0.88 (resection)] experienced significantly superior survival in both biopsy and resection groups. The impact of timing to adjuvant treatment on GBM survival varied by surgery procedures. Having adjuvant treatment initiated within 21 days for both biopsy and craniotomy groups may not guarantee a significant survival benefit. More RT fractions and high-dose RT are associated with better GBM survival.

scholarly journals RARE-09. CYSTIC GLIOBLASTOMA PRESENTATION AS A BENEFICIAL PROGNOSTIC INDICATOR FOR OVERALL SURVIVAL

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi223-vi223
Author(s):  
Lee Curtin ◽  
Paula Whitmire ◽  
Cassandra Rickertsen ◽  
Peter D Canoll ◽  
Maciej Mrugala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Current Standard ◽  
Significant Survival Benefit ◽  
Care Treatment ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
Cystic Component ◽  
Standard Of Care Treatment

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain tumor with a median overall survival of 15 months with standard-of-care treatment. GBM patients sometimes present with a cystic component, which can be identified through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Previous studies suggest that cysts occur in 7–22% of GBM patients and have reported mixed results regarding whether cystic GBM have a survival benefit compared to noncystic GBM. Using our large retrospective cohort of 493 first-diagnosis GBM patients, we aim to elucidate this link between cystic GBM and survival. Within this cohort, 88 patients had a significant cystic component at presentation as identified on MRI. Compared to noncystic GBM (n=405), cystic GBM patients had significantly better overall survival (15 vs 22 months median, log-rank, p=0.001) and were significantly younger at the time of presentation (t-test, p=0.002). However, within patients that received current standard-of-care treatment (n=184), cystic GBM (n=40) was not as beneficial for outcome (22 vs 25 months, log-rank, p=0.3). We also did not observe a significant survival benefit when comparing this standard-of-care cystic cohort to cystic GBM patients diagnosed before the standard was established (n=19, 25 vs 23 months, log-rank, p=0.3), but the analogous result for noncystic GBM patients gives a sizeable benefit, as expected (n=144, n=111, respectively, 22 vs 12 months, log-rank p < 0.0001). Together, these results on current standard-of-care may explain later studies that note no significant survival benefit for cystic GBM patients receiving current standard-of-care. We also report differences in the absolute and relative sizes of imaging abnormalities on MRI and in prognostic impact of cysts based on sex. We discuss current hypotheses for these observed differences, including the possibility that the presence of a cyst could be indicative of a less aggressive tumor.

Effect of time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in resected pancreatic cancer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 368-368
Author(s):  
Katelin Anne Mirkin ◽  
Christopher S Hollenbeak ◽  
Joyce Wong
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Lower Odds ◽  
Significant Survival Benefit ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
Time To Initiation ◽  
The Impact

368 Background: Pancreatic cancer carries a grim prognosis. Surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is standard of care, but little is known about the temporal relationship of chemotherapy initiation and survival. This study analyzed the impact of time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Methods: The National Cancer Data Base (2003-2011) was retrospectively reviewed for patients with clinical stages 1-3 resected pancreatic carcinoma. Time to chemotherapy was stratified at the 12-week post-operative timepoint. Univariate statistics, Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional hazard modeling were performed. Results: 5,205 patients who had undergone surgical resection alone, 3,144 patients who had undergone surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy initiated at or before 12 weeks, and 906 patients who had undergone surgical resection followed by adjuvant therapy started after 12 weeks were included. Patients who received chemotherapy > 12 weeks tended to be older, have more co-morbidities, receive treatment at academic centers, and undergo whipple procedures. In all pathologic disease stages, adjuvant chemotherapy conferred a significant survival benefit over surgical resection alone (p < 0.0001). However, there was no significant overall survival benefit for patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy before 12 weeks as compared to after (p = 0.85). When stratified by pathological stage, there was still no significant survival benefit for earlier initiation of chemotherapy (£ vs. > 12 weeks): stage I, p = 0.16, stage II, p = 0.12, stage III, p = 0.38. After controlling for patient, disease, and surgery characteristics, patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy after 12 weeks had a 31% lower odds of mortality at 5 years, while those who initiated it before 12 weeks had a 34% lower odds (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001 respectively), versus surgery-alone. Conclusions: Earlier initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy does not significantly impact long-term survival in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. However, because adjuvant chemotherapy confers a survival benefit, delayed chemotherapy should be offered when appropriate.

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors as second-line treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7597-7597
Author(s):  
M. C. Cruz ◽  
M. Tan
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Egfr Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Significant Survival Benefit ◽  
Significant Survival

7597 Background: Overall survival in lung cancer remains poor despite availability of chemotherapy, which is limited by its toxicity and drug resistance. Advancement in research resulted to the development of targeted therapies, specifically epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Results of clinical studies on survival benefits of EGFR inhibitors were conflicting although beneficial improvements in the quality of life and adverse effects were consistently demonstrated. The aim of our study is to determine the overall survival benefit of EGFR inhibitors alone or in combination with chemotherapy in second-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: We did a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials involving patients with advanced NSCLC who failed at least one prior chemotherapy and were given EGFR inhibitor alone or in combination with chemotherapy compared to placebo or chemotherapy, with overall survival as an outcome. Pre-planned subgroup analysis was done on studies comparing EGFR to placebo and chemotherapy.Results: Five of the six trials included were analyzed for overall survival involving 4482 patients. Treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) showed a trend towards significant survival benefit (RR=0.96, 95% CI 0.93–1.00, p=0.04) compared to placebo or chemotherapy. Preplanned subgroup analysis demonstrated significant survival benefit with EGFR-TKI versus placebo (RR=0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.97, p=0.003) but comparable efficacy with chemotherapy (RR=1, 95% CI 0.96–1.06, p=0.84).Conclusions: Second-line treatment with EGFR-TKI demonstrated significant survival benefit versus placebo and comparable survival effect to chemotherapy. Further research should be done to identify patients’ characteristics associated with good treatment response. [Table: see text]

Surgery provides survival benefit over systemic therapy alone for stage IV triple negative breast cancer: A propensity matched analysis of the National Cancer Database.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13054-e13054
Author(s):  
Lifen Cao ◽  
Jonathan T. Bliggenstorfer ◽  
Kavin Sugumar ◽  
Christopher W. Towe ◽  
Pamela Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
National Cancer Database ◽  
Propensity Matching ◽  
N Stage ◽  
Metastatic Sites

e13054 Background: Conflicting data exist regarding benefit of surgery of the primary site for stage IV breast cancer, in which systemic therapy is standard of care and patient characteristics may bias treatment decisions. Metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype with limited therapy options and poor prognosis. Our aim was to assess whether surgery for the primary tumor in stage IV TNBC provides a survival advantage over systemic therapy alone. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with de-novo stage IV TNBC who received systemic therapy alone or systemic therapy and surgery of the primary breast site 2004-2016. Patients receiving surgery for metastatic tumor sites or with incomplete follow up data were excluded. 1:1 propensity matching was performed for demographics, comorbidities, clinical T and N stage, and metastatic sites to minimize confounding factors. Survival outcomes were analyzed using a stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. Results: Of 2989 patients, 782 (26.21%) underwent surgery plus systemic therapy and 2207 (73.84%) were treated with systemic therapy alone. The majority of all patients were aged 51-70 with low co-morbidity, and treated in metropolitan areas. Patients treated at academic facilities (OR = 0.67, p = 0.025), with multiple metastatic sites (OR = 0.59, p < 0.001), or advanced clinical N stage (OR = 0.55, p < 0.001) were less likely to undergo surgery. Of those who completed surgery, 58% had unilateral mastectomy, and 63% had axillary lymph node dissection. Propensity matching identified 507 ‘paired’ patients with similar characteristics in the surgery and systemic therapy alone groups. After multivariable adjustment, surgery was associated with superior overall survival compared with systemic therapy alone (HR 0.73, P < 0.001). Older age (HR = 1.47, p < 0.001), greater comorbidity (HR = 1.28, p < 0.001) and multiple metastatic sites (HR = 1.53, p < 0.001) significantly decreased overall survival in the matched cohort. Median survival was shortest in the systemic therapy alone group (12.8 months, 95% CI 11.3-14.5) and longest in those undergoing systemic therapy plus simple mastectomy (18 months, 95% CI 14.3-21.2), though approximately 4 months of median survival was added for all patients undergoing any surgery vs. systemic therapy alone (p = 0.0001). Conclusions: In stage IV TNBC, surgical resection of the primary tumor site in addition to systemic therapy may provide a survival benefit in selected patients. Though in this retrospective study the sequence of treatment was unknown, surgery could be considered for low disease burden as in other malignancies with oligometastatic disease. Additional research is needed to determine if these findings persist in prospective studies and for other hormone-receptor subtypes.

scholarly journals P14.56 Recurrent Glioblastomas: Should we operate a second and even a third time

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii80-iii80
Author(s):  
M Yahia-Cherif ◽  
O De Witte ◽  
C Mélot ◽  
F Lefranc
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Second Surgery ◽  
Second Resection ◽  
Initial Resection

Abstract BACKGROUND The aim of this study was i) to analyse the effect of repeat surgeries on the survival of patients with focally recurrent glioblastoma who have benefited from temozolomide treatment and ii) to identify potential prognostic factors for survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS Cases from 2005 to 2014 in the glioblastoma database of our department were retrospectively reviewed. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) as a function of time after one, two and three surgical resections. All patients received the standard of care after the first surgery (temozolomide during and after radiotherapy) and adjuvant treatment after repeat surgeries. RESULTS One hundred-thirty-two glioblastoma patients (median age: 57 years) were included in the study. Among them, 68, 53 and 11 patients underwent one, two and three surgical resections, respectively. The median OS was 11, 16 and 18 months, respectively, for patients who underwent one, two and three surgical resections. Patients who underwent two (p<0.001) or three (p<0.01) surgeries survived significantly longer than patients who underwent only one. No significant difference was observed between patients who underwent two versus three surgeries (p=0.76). A second resection performed more than 6 months after the initial resection was the only factor associated with prolonged survival (p=0.008). CONCLUSION Glioblastoma patients who benefited from temozolomide treatment and underwent surgery for recurrent glioblastoma exhibited a significant increase in survival compared with patients who did not undergo a second surgery. By contrast, a third surgery for a second recurrence did not contribute to any significant survival benefit.

A randomized phase III trial of active symptom control (ASC) with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: First results of the Medical Research Council (MRC) / British Thoracic Society (BTS) MS01 trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA7525-LBA7525 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Muers ◽  
P. Fisher ◽  
M. Snee ◽  
E. Lowry ◽  
M. O'Brien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Significant Survival Benefit ◽  
Significant Survival ◽  
Symptom Palliation ◽  
Weekly Cycles

LBA7525 Background: Although chemotherapy is widely used in the treatment of mesothelioma it has never been compared in a randomized trial with ASC alone. Two chemotherapy regimens that had shown good symptom palliation in phase II studies were chosen for investigation. Methods: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma were randomized to ASC alone (regular follow-up in a specialist clinic, and treatment could include steroids, analgesics, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy, etc), ASC+MVP (4 × 3-weekly cycles of mitomycin 6g/m2, vinblastine 6mg/m2, and cisplatin 50mg/m2), or ASC+N (12 weekly injections of vinorelbine 30mg/m2). 420 patients were required to detect a 3-month improvement in median survival with ASC+CT (both chemotherapy arms combined). Quality of Life (QL) was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Results: 409 patients were accrued (136 ASC, 137 ASC+MVP, 136 ASC+N). Median age: 65 years, male: 91%, Performance status 0: 23%, Epithelial histology: 73%, Stage III: 33%, Stage IV: 48%. In the ASC+MVP group 61% received all 4 cycles, and in the ASC+N group 49% received at least 10 weekly cycles. Good symptom palliation (defined as prevention, control or improvement) was achieved in all 3 groups, and no between-group differences were observed in 4 pre-defined QL subscales (physical functioning, dyspnoea, pain and global QL). A small (not conventionally significant) survival benefit was seen for ASC+CT (349 deaths, HR 0.89, 95%CI 0.72, 1.12, p=0.32). Median survival: ASC: 7.6 months, ASC+CT: 8.5 months. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for vinorelbine compared to ASC alone (HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.63, 1.05, p=0.11), with a median survival of 9.4 months, but no evidence of a benefit with MVP (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.76, 1.28), p=0.91). Conclusions: This is the 2nd largest ever randomized trial in mesothelioma and the first to compare ASC with or without chemotherapy. Although the addition of chemotherapy to ASC did not result in a conventionally significant survival benefit, there was an indication that vinorelbine should be investigated further, and that MVP probably has no role in this disease. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document