Brady S. Laughlin MD , Aaron Bogan MA , Wendy A. Allen-Rhoades MD, PhD , Peter S. Rose MD , Stephanie F. Polites MD, MPH , Jonathan B. Ashman MD, PhD , Ivy Petersen MD , Michael G. Haddock MD , Anita Mahajan MD , Nadia N. Laack MD , Safia K. Ahmed MD
{"title":"Comprehensive Analysis of Treatment Approaches in Chest Wall Ewing Sarcoma: The Impact of Tumor Volume on Oncologic Outcomes","authors":"Brady S. Laughlin MD , Aaron Bogan MA , Wendy A. Allen-Rhoades MD, PhD , Peter S. Rose MD , Stephanie F. Polites MD, MPH , Jonathan B. Ashman MD, PhD , Ivy Petersen MD , Michael G. Haddock MD , Anita Mahajan MD , Nadia N. Laack MD , Safia K. Ahmed MD","doi":"10.1016/j.adro.2025.101729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Local treatment with surgery (S) and radiation therapy (RT) for chest wall Ewing sarcoma (cwES) is often challenging given the extent of the tumor and the aggressiveness of local treatments needed for cure. We report tumor and treatment characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and toxicities of patients with cwES at 2 centers of a single institution.</div></div><div><h3>Methods and Materials</h3><div>Consecutive patients with cwES treated from 1997 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were treated with standard 5-drug chemotherapy (vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, alternating with ifosfamide and etoposide) before initiation of local therapy. Local treatment was S, RT, or both. The decision on modality and timing was determined by a multidisciplinary sarcoma group or by consensus between sarcoma experts regarding patient preferences.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The cohort consisted of 39 patients. The median age at diagnosis was 19.2 years (range, 3.5-53.6 years). Median tumor volume (TV) was 235.5 mL (range, 5.3-6761.9 mL). The local control (LC) modality was S in 18 patients (46%), RT in 4 (10%), and S + RT in 17 (44%). Four (10%) patients treated with S + RT had R1 margins. The median follow-up was 3.2 years (range, 0.1-21.6 years). Grade 3 radiation-associated toxicity relative to the RT modality was 16.7% and 7.1% for photons (n = 6) and protons (n = 14), respectively. The 2-year LC by modality was 100% for RT (95% CI, 100%-100%), 88.2% (95% CI, 74.2%-100%) for S, and 73.3% (95% CI, 54.0%-99.5%) for S + RT. The 5-year LC, failure-free survival, and overall survival for all patients were 79.7% (95% CI, 67.3%-94.4%), 52.3% (95% CI, 38.1%-71.9%), and 64.2% (95% CI, 49.6%-83.1%), respectively. In univariate and multivariate analysis, TV ≥ 130 mL was associated with a significantly worse 5-year failure-free survival (31.8% TV ≥ 130 mL vs 80.8% TV < 130 mL; hazard ratio, 4.94, <em>p</em> = .013 and adjusted hazard ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 1.28-22.98; <em>p</em> = .022). The multivariate model was adjusted for age, metastatic disease at diagnosis, and S.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Outcomes for cwES tumors are highly dependent on tumor size, even with the use of combined modality local therapy. With early follow-up, smaller tumors may be well controlled with either S or RT.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7390,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","volume":"10 4","pages":"Article 101729"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245210942500017X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Local treatment with surgery (S) and radiation therapy (RT) for chest wall Ewing sarcoma (cwES) is often challenging given the extent of the tumor and the aggressiveness of local treatments needed for cure. We report tumor and treatment characteristics, oncologic outcomes, and toxicities of patients with cwES at 2 centers of a single institution.
Methods and Materials
Consecutive patients with cwES treated from 1997 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were treated with standard 5-drug chemotherapy (vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, alternating with ifosfamide and etoposide) before initiation of local therapy. Local treatment was S, RT, or both. The decision on modality and timing was determined by a multidisciplinary sarcoma group or by consensus between sarcoma experts regarding patient preferences.
Results
The cohort consisted of 39 patients. The median age at diagnosis was 19.2 years (range, 3.5-53.6 years). Median tumor volume (TV) was 235.5 mL (range, 5.3-6761.9 mL). The local control (LC) modality was S in 18 patients (46%), RT in 4 (10%), and S + RT in 17 (44%). Four (10%) patients treated with S + RT had R1 margins. The median follow-up was 3.2 years (range, 0.1-21.6 years). Grade 3 radiation-associated toxicity relative to the RT modality was 16.7% and 7.1% for photons (n = 6) and protons (n = 14), respectively. The 2-year LC by modality was 100% for RT (95% CI, 100%-100%), 88.2% (95% CI, 74.2%-100%) for S, and 73.3% (95% CI, 54.0%-99.5%) for S + RT. The 5-year LC, failure-free survival, and overall survival for all patients were 79.7% (95% CI, 67.3%-94.4%), 52.3% (95% CI, 38.1%-71.9%), and 64.2% (95% CI, 49.6%-83.1%), respectively. In univariate and multivariate analysis, TV ≥ 130 mL was associated with a significantly worse 5-year failure-free survival (31.8% TV ≥ 130 mL vs 80.8% TV < 130 mL; hazard ratio, 4.94, p = .013 and adjusted hazard ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 1.28-22.98; p = .022). The multivariate model was adjusted for age, metastatic disease at diagnosis, and S.
Conclusions
Outcomes for cwES tumors are highly dependent on tumor size, even with the use of combined modality local therapy. With early follow-up, smaller tumors may be well controlled with either S or RT.
期刊介绍:
The purpose of Advances is to provide information for clinicians who use radiation therapy by publishing: Clinical trial reports and reanalyses. Basic science original reports. Manuscripts examining health services research, comparative and cost effectiveness research, and systematic reviews. Case reports documenting unusual problems and solutions. High quality multi and single institutional series, as well as other novel retrospective hypothesis generating series. Timely critical reviews on important topics in radiation oncology, such as side effects. Articles reporting the natural history of disease and patterns of failure, particularly as they relate to treatment volume delineation. Articles on safety and quality in radiation therapy. Essays on clinical experience. Articles on practice transformation in radiation oncology, in particular: Aspects of health policy that may impact the future practice of radiation oncology. How information technology, such as data analytics and systems innovations, will change radiation oncology practice. Articles on imaging as they relate to radiation therapy treatment.