Assessing Sarcoma Awareness Among the General Population in Minnesota: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study from the Minnesota State Fair in 2015 and 2022.

Sarcomas are commonly misdiagnosed, and treatment delays negatively impact patient outcomes. The purpose of this study is to explore patient threshold for and timeline to medical evaluation, to identify providers most likely to be contacted first, and to assess general sarcoma knowledge in Minnesota's general population. Voluntary participants were recruited at the 2015 and 2022 Minnesota State Fair to complete a three-part survey. Part 1 assessed evaluation timeline and provider choice, part 2 evaluated sarcoma knowledge via a ten-question survey, and part 3 documented demographics. Responses were electronically recorded, and results were tabulated. Overall, 2124 participants completed some or all of the survey. Part 1: Participants indicated they would seek more urgent treatment for a painful mass compared to a non-painful mass (p < 0.001). The majority (77%) of participants indicated a family medicine physician would be their first contact for painful and non-painful masses. Part 2: There was no difference in overall score (percent correct) when comparing results from 2015 (mean = 40%) to 2022 (mean = 42%) (p = 0.183). Overall, 16% (349/2117) of participants had no correct responses. Individuals who self-identified as Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and a non-White race performed worse (p < 0.001). In general, scores improved with increased education and those with a graduate or professional degree had an estimated 2.515-point increase in score compared to participants with some high school education or high school diploma/general education diploma (p < 0.001). Participants with a healthcare background scored better (p < 0.001). Pain is a driving factor for patient-initiated evaluation, and primary care providers are the most likely first contact for patients. General sarcoma awareness remains low, even among those with advanced degrees and healthcare experience. Ongoing educational efforts are warranted for both the general public and healthcare communities in Minnesota.

Pulsed Reduced Dose Rate Radiotherapy in Conjunction With Bevacizumab or Bevacizumab Alone in Recurrent High-grade Glioma: Survival Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Dismal prognosis and limited treatment options for recurrent high-grade glioma have provoked interest in various forms of reirradiation. Pulsed reduced dose rate radiation therapy (pRDR) is a promising technique that exploits low-dose hyper-radiosensitivity of proliferating tumor cells while sparing adjacent nonproliferating normal brain tissue. Large radiation treatment volumes can thus be used to target both contrast-enhancing and FLAIR abnormalities thought to harbor recurrent gross and microscopic disease, respectively. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether the addition of pRDR to bevacizumab improves survival over bevacizumab alone for recurrent high-grade glioma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighty patients with recurrent high-grade glioma were included in this study; 47 patients received bevacizumab monotherapy (BEV), and 33 patients received pRDR with bevacizumab (BEV/pRDR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were compared between the BEV and BEV/pRDR groups. Regression analysis was performed to identify and control for confounding influences on survival analyses. RESULTS: Significant (P < .05) advantages in PFS (12 vs 4 months; hazard ratio = 2.37) and OS (16 vs. 9 months; hazard ratio = 1.68) were observed with BEV/pRDR compared with BEV alone. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis suggests that treatment with pRDR in addition to bevacizumab could significantly prolong PFS and overall survival compared with bevacizumab alone for recurrent high-grade glioma.

Assessment of Familiarity With Work-up Guidelines for Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Among Primary Care Practitioners in Minnesota.

OBJECTIVE: To assess familiarity with sarcoma guidelines among primary care practitioners (PCPs) in Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Surveys were distributed at 2 educational conferences held in Minnesota on April 16-17, 2015, and October 24, 2015. The PCPs were asked a series of questions about their current practice, past experience with sarcoma, and familiarity with sarcoma guidelines. They were then given a series of case presentations and asked to indicate if they would pursue a sarcoma work-up given the information provided. RESULTS: The study group included 80 physicians and 32 nurse practitioners (NPs). Over their careers (median, 14 years), physicians reported seeing a mean of 2.2 cases of soft tissue sarcoma and 0.7 cases of bone sarcoma. The NPs reported seeing a mean of 0.7 and 0.2 cases, respectfully, over their careers (median, 8 years). Both physicians and NPs reported low familiarity with sarcoma guidelines. When challenged with case presentations for which urgent referral to a sarcoma specialist is recommended, more than 50% of PCPs did not indicate that they would refer patients. The PCPs who had previous experience with soft tissue sarcoma and bone sarcoma estimated that only 17% and 23% of their patients, respectively, were diagnosed within 1 month of presentation. The most reported reason for a delayed diagnosis was the PCP advising the patient to "watch and wait." CONCLUSION: Minnesota PCPs have seen very few cases of sarcoma and report low familiarity with sarcoma guidelines. When challenged with case presentations, PCPs made decisions inconsistent with established guidelines. This study supports ongoing efforts to increase sarcoma awareness.

Intravascular Papillary Endothelial Hyperplasia of the Pineal Region: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular papillary endothelial hyperplasia (IPEH) is a benign vascular lesion that is uncommon in the central nervous system. To our knowledge, there has been only one previous report of occurrence in the pineal region. We present a second case and a review of the literature. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 28-year-old woman presented with 1 month of headaches and visual auras. Brain magnetic resonance imaging scan demonstrated a 2.6- × 1.8- × 1.3-cm nonenhancing T1-hypointense, T2-/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery-hyperintense pineal region mass with cerebral aqueduct obstruction and hydrocephalus. She underwent placement of a right extraventricular drain followed by complete surgical resection. Histologic analysis was consistent with IPEH. CONCLUSIONS: Although rare, IPEH is an entity that should be considered in the differential diagnosis for intracranial masses with radiographic features characteristic of vascular lesions. Tissue sampling is imperative for distinction from more malignant entities. Complete resection is curative and is the standard of care when feasible. Given the risk of local progression and neurologic compromise with subtotal resection of central nervous system lesions, further study regarding adjuvant treatment options is warranted.