Chemoradiotherapy plus hyperthermia (CRTH) versus chemoradiotherapy (CRT) alone in neoadjuvant treatment of soft tissue sarcoma: tumor response, treatment toxicity and disease control.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for the management of soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are still preferably delivered sequentially, with or without concurrent hyperthermia. Concurrent delivery of chemo-, radio- and thermotherapy may produce synergistic effects and reduce chemotherapy-free intervals. The few available studies suggest that concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) has a greater local effect. Data on the efficacy and toxicity of adding hyperthermia to CRT (CRTH) are sparse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 101 patients with STS of the extremities and trunk who received CRT (n = 33) or CRTH (n = 68) before resection of macroscopic tumor (CRT: n = 19, CRTH: n = 49) or re-resection following a non-oncological resection, so called 'whoops procedure', (CRT: n = 14, CRTH: n = 19) were included in this retrospective study. CRT consisted of two cycles of doxorubicine (50 mg/m2 on d2) plus ifosfamide (1500 mg/m2 on d1-5, q28) plus radiation doses of up to 60 Gy. Hyperthermia was delivered in two sessions per week. RESULTS: All patients received the minimum dose of 50 Gy. Median doses of ifosfamide and doxorubicin were comparable between CRT (75%/95%) and CRTH (78%/97%). The median number of hyperthermia sessions was seven. There were no differences in acute toxicities. Major wound complications occurred in 15% (CRT) vs. 25% (CRTH) (p = 0.19). In patients with macroscopic disease, the addition of hyperthermia resulted in a tendency toward improved remission: regression ≥90% occurred in 21/48 (CRTH) vs. 4/18 (CRT) patients (p = 0.197). With a median postoperative follow-up of 72 months, 6-year local control and overall survival rates for CRTH vs. CRT alone were 85 vs. 78% (p = 0.938) and 79 vs. 71% (p = 0.215). CONCLUSIONS: Both CRT and CRTH are well tolerated with an expected rate of wound complications. The results suggest that adding hyperthermia may improve tumor response.

The Role of Plastic Reconstructive Surgery in Surgical Therapy of Soft Tissue Sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treatment is an interdisciplinary challenge. Along with radio(chemo)therapy, surgery plays the central role in STS treatment. Little is known about the impact of reconstructive surgery on STS, particularly whether reconstructive surgery enhances STS resection success with the usage of flaps. Here, we analyzed the 10-year experience at a university hospital's Comprehensive Cancer Center, focusing on the role of reconstructive surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of STS-patients over 10 years. We investigated patient demographics, diagnosis, surgical management, tissue/function reconstruction, complication rates, resection status, local recurrence and survival. RESULTS: Analysis of 290 patients showed an association between clear surgical margin (R0) resections and higher-grade sarcoma in patients with free flaps. Major complications were lower with primary wound closure than with flaps. Comparison of reconstruction techniques showed no significant differences in complication rates. Wound healing was impaired in STS recurrence. The local recurrence risk was over two times higher with primary wound closure than with flaps. CONCLUSION: Defect reconstructions in STS are reliable and safe. Plastic surgeons should have a permanent place in interdisciplinary surgical STS treatment, with the full armamentarium of reconstruction methods.

Chemoradiotherapy with and without deep regional hyperthermia for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus.

PURPOSE: To compare results after chemoradiotherapy with and without deep regional hyperthermia in patients with anal cancer. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2015, a total of 112 consecutive patients with UICC stage I-IV anal cancer received chemoradiotherapy with 5­fluororuracil and mitomycin C (CRT). In case of insufficient tumor response 4-6 weeks after chemoradiotherapy, patients received an interstitial pulsed-dose-rate brachytherapy boost. Additionally, 50/112 patients received hyperthermia treatments (HCRT). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 41 (2-165) months. After 5 years follow-up, overall (95.8 vs. 74.5%, P = 0.045), disease-free (89.1 vs. 70.4%, P = 0.027), local recurrence-free (97.7 vs. 78.7%, P = 0.006), and colostomy-free survival rates (87.7 vs. 69.0%, P = 0.016) were better for the HCRT group. Disease-specific, regional failure-free, and distant metastasis-free survival rates showed no significant differences. The adjusted hazard ratios for death were 0.25 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.036) and for local recurrence 0.14 (95% CI, 0.02 to 1.09; P = 0.06), respectively. Grades 3-4 early toxicities were comparable with the exception of hematotoxicity, which was higher in the HCRT group (66 vs. 43%, P = 0.032). Incidences of late side effects were similar with the exception of a higher telangiectasia rate in the HCRT group (38.0 vs. 16.1%, P = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Additional regional hyperthermia improved overall survival, local control, and colostomy rates. Its potential beneficial role has to be confirmed in a prospective randomized setting. Therefore, the HyCAN trial has already been established by our group and is currently recruiting patients (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02369939).

Dose adjustment of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide according to kidney function: a retrospective analysis and implications for medication safety.

Clearance of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide depends on kidney function and dosages should be adjusted in patients with renal impairment. However, there is still limited data on the adherence of physicians to dosing recommendations for these drugs in cancer patients with renal impairment. Three thousand four hundred forty-eight prescriptions to 369 patients, treated in the Comprehensive Cancer Center of a German university hospital, were retrospectively evaluated. The administered relative doses of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide were compared with relative doses recommended at the time of prescription according to the patients' creatinine clearance. Cisplatin is contraindicated according to two German summary of product characteristics (SmPC) in patients with a creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min. Nevertheless, 37 cisplatin prescriptions were made for this group of patients (i.e., 2.0% of all cisplatin prescriptions). According to one German SmPC (valid in the year of data analysis), etoposide dosage should be reduced in patients with a creatinine clearance from 15 to 50 mL/min, while it is contraindicated below 15 mL/min. Thirteen etoposide prescriptions were without dose reduction in patients with creatinine clearance from 15 to 50 mL/min (1.5% of all etoposide prescriptions); one patient received etoposide with creatinine clearance below 15 mL/min. In 8.9% of ifosfamide prescriptions, patients did not receive a reduced dose in spite of respective recommendations. Dosages of cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide are not always adjusted as recommended in patients with renal impairment. Consistent international dosing recommendations (e.g., in SmPCs), preferentially included in clinical decision support systems, should be developed to tackle this problem.