connective tissue oncology society november 17 th , 2012 prague, czech republic
Post on 24-Feb-2016
34 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES FOR BENIGN AND MALIGNANT
SOLITARY FIBROUS TUMOR / HEMANGIOPERICYTOMA (SFT/HPC) –
A SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE
Nicholas DeVito, M.D.; Evita Henderson, M.D.; Gang Han, Ph.D.; Damon Reed, M.D.; Marilyn Bui, M.D., Ph.D.; Robert Lavey, M.D., M.P.H.; Lary Robinson, M.D.; Jonathan S. Zager, M.D.; Ricardo
J Gonzalez, M.D.; Vernon K. Sondak, M.D.; G. Douglas Letson, M.D.; Anthony Conley, M.D.
Moffitt Cancer Center, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
Connective Tissue Oncology SocietyNovember 17th, 2012
Prague, Czech Republic
Introduction and Background• Solitary Fibrous Tumor/Hemangiopericytoma
(SFT/HPC) is a ubiquitous mesenchymal tumor of fibroblastic type. SFT/HPC typically affects adults from ages 20 to 70 years
• Vallat-Decouvelaere et al first distinguished malignant from benign variants on the basis of nuclear atypia, hypercellularity, greater than 4 mitosis/10 HPFs, and necrosis
• However, the correlation between morphology and aggressiveness is poorly defined
• Surgery is the treatment of choice for local disease, radiation is an option of unclear benefit, and chemotherapy is often a final effort
Introduction and Background• One recent retrospective study examined the use
of temozolomide and bevacizumab to treat SFT/HPC
• A prospective trial was presented at AACR in 2010 that examined the molecular characteristics and targeted therapeutics for patients with SFT/HPC resistant to conventional chemotherapies. Eleven patients received sunitinib maleate and figitumumab with favorable response
Our Purpose
• This retrospective chart review was conducted to further define the clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with benign and malignant SFT/HPC
• We hope that it will further the understanding of this rare disease and become useful as a reference for future clinical trials
Methods• Patients with pathology defined SFT/HPC who were
treated at the Moffitt Cancer Center were first identified through the Total Cancer Care database and then through PowerChart database queries from 1993 to 2011
• Two sarcoma pathologists re-reviewed every case in an un-blinded manner
• Internal Review Board approval under an umbrella protocol for the purpose of retrospective studies
• Data collected from PowerChart included age of the patient, patient gender and race, vital status, last follow up, age of presentation, primary tumor site, date and site of metastases, chemotherapeutic, surgical and radiotherapeutic interventions
Our Patients• 82 patients total
• 47(57%) women
• 73(89%) Caucasian
• Median age: 62 years (range, 20 - 89)
• Thirty-two (39%) pts died as of Nov. 2011
• The median follow-up was 55.3 months
Lung/Pleura Abdomen/Pelvis
Extremity Head/Neck0
5
10
15
20
25
30Primary Sites
- Lung/Pleura in 28(34%) - Abdomen/Pelvis in 23(28%) - Extremity in 13(16%) - Head/Neck in 9(11%)
Disease Characteristics
Disease CharacteristicsHistology
BenignMalignant
Benign: 43(52%)Malignant: 39(48%)
Benign
Malignant
Disease CharacteristicsBenign N (%) Malignant N (% ) P-Value
Tumor Size < 5 cm 15 (35) 3 (8) 0.006
5 - 10 cm 9 (21) 16 (41)
> 10 cm 15 (35) 15 (38.5)
Unknown 4 (9) 5 (13)
Mitotic Count < 4/10 HPF 40 (93) 8 (20.5) < 0.001
4 - 10/10 HPF 1 (2) 25 (64)
>10/10 HPF 0 6 (15)
Unknown 2 (5) 0
CD34 Status Positive 33 (77) 29 (74) 0.702
Negative 5 (12) 7 (18)
Unknown 5 (12) 3 (8)Presentation at Dx Metastatic 0 6 (15)
0.057
Localized 43 (100) 33 (85)
Disease Characteristics• Compared to benign SFT/HPC, malignant
histology was associated with:– larger tumor size– higher mitotic counts– metastatic disease at diagnosis– greater use of chemotherapy and radiation
therapy • Gender, age, and tumor site were not
significantly different between benign and malignant subtypes.
Treatments78 of 82 received surgery
Benign N (%) Malignant N (%) P - Value
Resection status 0.342
R0 31 (74) 19 (53)R1 5 (12) 8 (22)R2 2 (5) 1 (3)Missing 4 (9.5) 8 (22)Chemotherapy 0.003
Yes 5 (12) 15 (38)No 38 (88) 22 (56)Missing 0 2 (5)Radiation 0.010
Yes 9 (21) 19 (49)No 34 (79) 20 (51)
Survival Differences Between Benign and Malignant SFT/HPC
By univariate analysis, benign vs. malignant variant positively impacted overall survival (P=0.02)
Survival Differences in Surgically and Non-Surgically Treated Patients
By univariate analysis, complete resection positively impacted overall survival (P<0.0001, HR 0.09)
Univariate Survival AnalysisVariables P-value from
OSHistologic Status 0.02Tumor Classification 0.11Primary Site 0.54Metastasis at Diagnosis 0.09Chemotherapy Use 0.01Surgery <0.00Radiation Use 0.82Tumor Size 0.36Mitotic Count 0.28
Survival Data for Clinical CharacteristicsOverall Survival
(months)Median
(months) (95% CI)
1-year % Survival (95% CI)
3-year % Survival (95% CI)
5-year % Survival (95% CI)
Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
All patients 107.7 (61 - 139.8) 88 76 65 N/A
Benign SFT/HPC 186.6 (61 - NR) 92 86 77 0.42
Malignant SFT/HPC 94.4 (30.6 - 124.9) 84 66 58
Localized Disease at Diagnosis
107.7 (94.4 - 154.9) 89 77 68 0.45
Metastatic Disease at Diagnosis
54.6 (3.4 - 139.8) 69 51 26
No Surgery 7.53 (3.43 - 19.8) 25 0 0 12.48
Surgery 107.7 (94.4 - 154.9) 93 80 69
Discussion and Conclusions
• Malignant SFT/HPC was associated with larger, mitotically active tumors that were more likely to be metastatic at diagnosis compared to benign SFT/HPC
• Primary site was not associated with tumor behavior
• Clear survival differences exist between benign and malignant SFT/HPC
Discussion and Conclusions• Patients treated with chemotherapy had an
inferior OS compared to untreated patients, however, this is likely due to the severity of their disease.
• While surgery is the best treatment option for benign and malignant SFT/HPC, targeted systemic therapies and better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis are needed to improve outcomes for patients with metastatic, malignant SFT/HPC.
Acknowledgements• Moffitt Cancer Center:
– Sarcoma Department – Our Statistician Gang Han– Our Pathologists Dr. Henderson and Dr. Bui– Eric Anderson for facilitating funding for this trip– My Principal Investigator Dr. Anthony Conley
• University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine for supporting my research
• The Connective Tissue Oncology Society• Tufts Medical Center, for arranging my schedule to allow
me to present at CTOS
top related