Citations 2

Early Treatment Failure in Intermediate-Risk Rhabdomyosarcoma: Results From IRS-IV and D9803—A Report From the Children's Oncology Group

Journal of Clinical Oncology | August 17, 2010 | Volume: 28 | Issue: 27 | Pages: 4228-4232

10.1200/jco.2010.29.0247 | PMID 20713850

Purpose The goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical features of early treatment failure during induction chemotherapy before protocol radiation therapy for children with intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS). Patients and Methods Patients with intermediate-risk RMS enrolled onto the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study-IV and the Children's Oncology Group D9803 study were reviewed for an early treatment failure. Early failure was defined as failure caused by progressive disease, death as a result of progressive disease, or death as a result of other causes occurring fewer than 120 days from study entry. Patients with parameningeal site RMS with high-risk features who received radiation therapy at week 1 were excluded from analysis. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Fisher's exact test was used to compare differences between groups. Cumulative incidence of progression was estimated. Results Of 916 patients, 20 (2.2%) were found to have an early disease progression and did not receive planned protocol radiotherapy. Three additional early failures resulted from treatment-related death without progression. Median time to failure was 48 days (range, 7 to 106 days). Nineteen (95%) of the 20 patients experienced progression at their primary site. Five-year OS was 32% (95% CI, 12% to 54%) for patients experiencing an early progression. Conclusion A small proportion of patients with intermediate-risk RMS suffer an early failure as a result of early progression (2.2%) or treatment-related mortality (0.3%). The majority of patients with early progression had a local failure. Earlier radiotherapy could potentially improve outcome by preventing early local progression.
Clinicopathologic Study of Ectomesenchymomas from Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Groups III and IV

Pediatric and Developmental Pathology | July 25, 2002 | Volume: 3 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 290-300

10.1007/s100249910039 | PMID 10742419

Ectomesenchymomas (EM) are rare malignant neoplasms usually consisting of rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) with a neural component. Only 21 cases have been previously reported. Here we extend the clinicopathologic spectrum of EM by describing our findings in 15 cases. Only 5 patients were infants; 10 were ≤3 years old and 5 were ≥6 years old. No male predilection was observed; 7 were female. The originating institutional diagnoses were; RMS (12), undifferentiated sarcoma (1), or EM (2), suggesting underdiagnosis of this entity. The primary tumor sites included external genital (5), pelvis/abdomen (6), head and neck (3), and extremity (1). The size of the primary neoplasm was usually ≥5 cm at diagnosis but dissemination only occurred in a minority. Local infiltration was not uncommon. These neoplasms were typically multilobate, thinly encapsulated, hemorrhagic, and necrotic. Light microscopic features were highly variable, but embryonal RMS with scattered or clustered ganglion cells, often in lacunae, was characteristic. In some cases, primitive neuroblastic or neuroectodermal areas were found and/or a component of alveolar RMS was seen. Focal anaplasia was occasionally observed. Mitotic activity appears higher than previously appreciated and some necrosis was invariably present. Electron microscopy was performed in 11 cases, which confirmed skeletal muscle ± neural differentiation. Cytogenetic studies performed in five cases revealed no specific abnormality. Monoclonal neuron-specific enolase was the best marker of ganglion cells and primitive neural elements. MIC-2 (CD99) membrane expression was not definitively present in any of the six cases examined. A number of the above parameters appear to be of some prognostic significance, but overall, these neoplasms appear to have a similar outcome as would be predicted for their RMS element alone (exclusive of any neural component), with respect to the RMS subtype, age of the patient, and anatomic location of the neoplasm.