![]() ![]() 80% went to week 13 surgery and majority had R0/R1 resection.Įvent Free Survival Local Failure p=0.63 p=0.58 p=0.21 Microscopic + (72%) Negative (62%) Survivors Survivors Reason for margin + lower LF then arm c: patient characteristics: younger age, tumor factors: such # synovial sarcoma’s chemo sensitive, included smaller 5cm margin negative = 3% vs. ![]() Treatment Arm D # patients Total eligible 121 Surgery 98 (81%) Negative margins (R0) 71 Microscopic margins (R1) 19 Gross residual 2 Unknown 6 No Surgery 23 (19%) “Off study” before week 13 16 Unresectable at week 13 5 Poor prognosis 1 Parent/patient preference LC for entire cohort is 14%. Local Failure Event Free Survival Microscopic + (29%) n=29 Negative (72%) Microscopic + (64%) Survivors Survivors Negative (3%) n=54 but margin status did not influence EFS Disportante tumor factors size, #mpnst/liver, RT: dose/volume adeuqate? Complaince with guidelines, contourign more difficlt, hypoixc tumor bed p=0.0015 p=0.21 Years Yearsġ3 Results: Arm D characteristics of week 13 surgery 21 Status of surgical margins (arm B/C only) negative positive. 49 Type SS MPNST ES liver UDS Unclassified ”other NRSTS”. ![]() 17 Tumor characteristics Site body wall head and neck lower extremity upper extremity viscera. p=0.664 Yearsġ1 Results: Potential prognostic factors for LF (Cox model)Ĭategories P-value Age 0-14 15+ years. Arm D - 10% (13 patients), 5 cm tumors Path: SS most common equal distribution of MPNST in each armġ0 Results: 4 yr Cumulative Incidence of Local FailureĪrm D = 14% Arm C = 13% Local Failures Arm B = 9% Note arm D steep increase in LF before week 13 but don’t know if PD or many went off study prior to week 13 surgery. RT at discretion of treating physician Liver primary : post-op (arm C) Age 5 cm. Boost were given for margin + post surgery week 13. 8Gy with ifos Arm D: chemo followed by 45 Gy pre-op dose with ifos. Surgery RT 55.8 Gy / 31 Fx Week 1 4 7 10 13 16 Arm C = post-op RT/chemo Surgery RT 55.8 Gy / 31 Fx Ifos Adria/Ifos Adria/Ifos Ifos Week 1 4 7 10 13 16 Graphically depicts the treatment regimens Arm B: RT only Arm C: Included margin – and + patients and received combination 55. Secondary goal No standard of care for RT dose and volume in pediatric /yng adults heterogenous grp of NRSTS.Īll eligible non-metastatic NRSTS Include only patients assigned to RT 5mm Around entire tumor *or if tumor excised in continuity with periosteum/fasciaħ Treatment regimens Arm B = post-op RT only Arm C = post-op RT/chemo Goal of this analysis is to look at local failure among non-mets NRSTS patients assigned to receive RT. Secondary goal No standard of care for RT dose and volume in pediatric /yng adults heterogenous grp of NRSTS.ģ Objective Primary: Evaluate local failures for non-metastatic NRSTS assigned to receive radiation therapy (RT) on Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Trial ARST0332 Secondary: Evaluate potential predictors of local failure Analyze local control rates after neoadjuvant chemo/RT for unresected NRSTS One of the primary objectives of his study is assess failure patterns of patients enrolled on this trial. One of the primary objectives of his study is assess failure patterns of patients enrolled on this trial. Secondary goal No standard of care for RT dose and volume in pediatric /yng adults heterogenous grp of NRSTS. 1 LOCAL CONTROL AMONG YOUNG PATIENTS WITH NON-RHABDOMYOSARCOMA SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA (NRSTS) FOLLOWING RISK-BASED TREATMENT: RESULTS FROM CHILDREN’S ONCOLOGY GROUP (COG) STUDY ARST0332 Million L, Terezakis S, Donaldson S, Anderson J, Randall RL, Hayes- Jordan A, Laurie F, Coffin C, McCarville MB, Hawkins D, Spunt SL CTOS OctoBerlin One of the primary objectives of his study is assess failure patterns of patients enrolled on this trial.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |