4.7 Article

Non-metastatic unresected paediatric non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas: Results of a pooled analysis from United States and European groups

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 47, 期 5, 页码 724-731

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.013

关键词

Non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas; Unresected sarcoma; Paediatric sarcoma; Synovial sarcoma, malignant; peripheral nerve sheath tumour; Chemotherapy, response to chemotherapy; Radiotherapy; Surgery; Prognostic factors

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA021765] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas (NRSTS) with initially unresected tumours represent a particular subset of patients with a poor outcome. Various international research groups pooled their data in a joint study in order to investigate prognostic variables and treatment modalities. Methods: The study population consisted of 304 patients <21 years old treated between 1980 and 2005 using a multimodality therapeutic strategy. Results: Synovial sarcoma and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour (MPNST) were the most frequent histotypes. Most patients received initial chemotherapy: major responses were recorded in 41% and minor in 16% of cases. Overall survival (OS) was 60.0% and 51.5% at S and 10 years, respectively, and it was significantly associated with patient's age, histological subtype, tumour site and size, quality of delayed surgical resection, radiotherapy administration and response to induction chemotherapy. MPNST associated to neurofibromatosis type 1 was the tumour type with the worst rate of response to chemotherapy and the worst outcome. Conclusions: In unresected NRSTS patients, radiotherapy and delayed surgery are of crucial importance. Patients who respond to chemotherapy have better chance of survival. However, given the relatively poor prognosis, research on intensive multimodal treatment approaches and novel strategies is warranted. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据