Assessment of minimum target dose as a predictor of local failure after spine SBRT.

OBJECTIVES: Metastasis-directed stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated robust clinical benefits in carefully selected patients, improving local control and even overall survival (OS). We assess a large database to determine clinical and dosimetric predictors of local failure after spine SBRT. METHODS: Spine SBRT treatments with imaging follow-up were identified. Patients were treated with a simultaneous integrated boost technique using 1 or 3 fractions, delivering 20-24 Gy in 1 fraction to the gross tumor volume (GTV) and 16 Gy to the low dose volume (or 27-36 Gy and 21-24 Gy for 3 fraction treatments). Exclusions included: lack of imaging follow-up, proton therapy, and benign primary histologies. RESULTS: 522 eligible spine SBRT treatments (68 % single fraction) were identified in 377 unique patients. Patients had a median OS of 43.7 months (95 % confidence interval: 34.3-54.4). The cumulative incidence of local failure was 10.5 % (7.4-13.4) at 1 year and 16.3 % (12.6-19.9) at 2 years. Local control was maximized at 15.3 Gy minimum dose for single-fraction treatment (HR = 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.17 - 0.56, p < 0.0001) and confirmed via multivariable analyses. Cumulative incidence of local failure was 6.1 % (2.6-9.4) vs. 14.2 % (8.3-19.8) at 1 year using this cut-off, with comparable findings for minimum 14 Gy. Additionally, epidural and soft tissue involvement were predictive of local failure (HR = 1.77 and 2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Spine SBRT offers favorable local control; however, minimum dose to the GTV has a strong association with local control. Achieving GTV minimum dose of 14-15.3 Gy with single fraction SBRT is recommended whenever possible.

A Single Arm Phase 2 Trial of Trametinib in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma.

PURPOSE: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular cancer with pathogenic TAZ-CAMTA1 operating as an oncogenic driver through activation of MAPK pathway. Trametinib is an inhibitor of MEK, a critical kinase in the MAPK pathway. We sought to evaluate the effect of trametinib in patients with EHE. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase 2 trial of trametinib was conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic EHE. Eligibility requirements included evidence of tumor progression or presence of EHE-related pain requiring opiates for management prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST1.1 in cases with TAZ-CAMTA1 confirmed by fusion-FISH. Secondary objectives were to estimate ORR for all patients, median PFS, 2-year OS rate, patient safety, and change in patient-reported global health and pain scores per PROMIS questionnaires. RESULTS: 44 patients enrolled and 42 started trametinib. TAZ-CAMTA1 was detected in 27 tumor samples. The ORR was 3.7% (95% CI: 0.094, 19.0), median PFS was 10.4 months (95% CI: 7.1, NA), and 2-year OS rate was 33.3% (95% CI: 19.1, 58.2) in the target population. Median pain intensity and interference scores improved significantly after 4 weeks of trametinib in patients using opiates. Common AEs related to trametinib were rash, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, alopecia and edema; one Grade 5 ARDS/pneumonitis was related to trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib was associated with reduction in EHE-related pain and median PFS of more than 6 months providing palliative benefit in patients with advanced EHE, but the trial did not meet the ORR goal.

Ripretinib versus sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor: ctDNA biomarker analysis of the phase 3 INTRIGUE trial.

INTRIGUE was an open-label, phase 3 study in adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib and who were randomized to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or sunitinib 50 mg. In the primary analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) with ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib. In clinical and nonclinical studies, ripretinib and sunitinib have demonstrated differential activity based on the exon location of KIT mutations. Therefore, we hypothesized that mutational analysis using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) might provide further insight. In this exploratory analysis (N = 362), baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing-based assay. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%) samples with KIT mutations in 213/362 patients (59%). Imatinib-resistant mutations were found in the KIT ATP-binding pocket (exons 13/14) and activation loop (exons 17/18). Mutational subgroup assessment showed 2 mutually exclusive populations with differential treatment effects. Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 13/14 mutations (ripretinib, n = 21; sunitinib, n = 20) had better PFS with sunitinib versus ripretinib (median, 15.0 versus 4.0 months). Patients with only KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations (ripretinib, n = 27; sunitinib, n = 25) had better PFS with ripretinib versus sunitinib (median, 14.2 versus 1.5 months). The results of this exploratory analysis suggest ctDNA sequencing may improve the prediction of the efficacy of single-drug therapies and support further evaluation of ripretinib in patients with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501.

Patient-reported outcomes and tolerability in patients receiving ripretinib versus sunitinib after treatment with imatinib in INTRIGUE, a phase 3, open-label study.

PURPOSE: In the INTRIGUE trial, ripretinib showed no significant difference versus sunitinib in progression-free survival for patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) previously treated with imatinib. We compared the impact of these treatments on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire at day (D)1, and D29 of all cycles until treatment discontinuation. Change from baseline was calculated. Time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST) was estimated as the mean number of days without progression, death, or grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events per patient over 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion at baseline was 88.1% (199/226) for ripretinib and 87.7% (199/227) for sunitinib and remained high for enrolled patients throughout treatment. Patients receiving sunitinib demonstrated within-cycle variation in self-reported HRQoL, corresponding to the on/off dosing regimen. Patients receiving ripretinib reported better HRQoL at D29 assessments than patients receiving sunitinib on all scales except constipation. HRQoL was similar between treatments at D1 assessments, following 2 weeks without treatment for sunitinib patients. TWiST was greater for ripretinib patients (173 versus 126 days). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving ripretinib experienced better HRQoL than patients receiving sunitinib during the dosing period and similar HRQoL to patients who had not received sunitinib for 2 weeks for all QLQ-C30 domains except constipation. Ripretinib may provide clinically meaningful benefit to patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib.

Trimodality Therapy Improves Disease Control in Radiation-Associated Angiosarcoma of the Breast.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of trimodality treatment versus monotherapy or dual therapy for radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast (RAASB) after prior breast cancer treatment. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: With Institutional Review Board approval, we identified patients diagnosed with RAASB and abstracted data on disease presentation, treatment, and oncologic outcomes. Trimodality therapy included (i) taxane induction, (ii) concurrent taxane/radiation, and then (iii) surgical resection with wide margins. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (median age 69 years) met inclusion criteria. Sixteen received trimodality therapy and 22 monotherapy/dual therapy. Skin involvement and disease extent were similar in both groups. All trimodality patients required reconstructive procedures for wound closure/coverage, compared with 48% of monotherapy/dual therapy patients (P < 0.001). Twelve of 16 (75%) patients receiving trimodality therapy had a pathologic complete response (pCR). With median follow-up of 5.6 years, none had local recurrence, 1 patient (6%) had distant recurrence, and no patients died. Among 22 patients in the monotherapy/dual therapy group, 10 (45%) had local recurrence, 8 (36%) had distant recurrence, and 7 (32%) died of disease. Trimodality therapy demonstrated significantly better 5-year recurrence-free survival [RFS; 93.8% vs. 42.9%; P = 0.004; HR, 7.6 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.3-44.2)]. Combining all patients with RAASB regardless of treatment, local recurrence was associated with subsequent distant recurrence (HR, 9.0; P = 0.002); distant recurrence developed in 3 of 28 (11%) patients without local recurrence compared with 6 of 10 (60%) with local recurrence. The trimodality group had more surgical complications that required reoperation or prolonged healing. CONCLUSIONS: Trimodality therapy for RAASB was more toxic but is promising, with a high rate of pCR, durable local control, and improved RFS.

Development and validation of a unifying pre-treatment decision tool for intracranial and extracranial metastasis-directed radiotherapy.

Background: Though metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) has the potential to improve overall survival (OS), appropriate patient selection remains challenging. We aimed to develop a model predictive of OS to refine patient selection for clinical trials and MDT. Patients and methods: We assembled a multi-institutional cohort of patients treated with MDT (stereotactic body radiation therapy, radiosurgery, and whole brain radiation therapy). Candidate variables for recursive partitioning analysis were selected per prior studies: ECOG performance status, time from primary diagnosis, number of additional non-target organ systems involved (NOS), and intracranial metastases. Results: A database of 1,362 patients was assembled with 424 intracranial, 352 lung, and 607 spinal treatments (n=1,383). Treatments were split into training (TC) (70%, n=968) and internal validation (IVC) (30%, n=415) cohorts. The TC had median ECOG of 0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0-1), NOS of 1 (IQR: 0-1), and OS of 18 months (IQR: 7-35). The resulting model components and weights were: ECOG = 0, 1, and > 1 (0, 1, and 2); 0, 1, and > 1 NOS (0, 1, and 2); and intracranial target (2), with lower scores indicating more favorable OS. The model demonstrated high concordance in the TC (0.72) and IVC (0.72). The score also demonstrated high concordance for each target site (spine, brain, and lung). Conclusion: This pre-treatment decision tool represents a unifying model for both intracranial and extracranial disease and identifies patients with the longest survival after MDT who may benefit most from aggressive local therapy. Carefully selected patients may benefit from MDT even in the presence of intracranial disease, and this model may help guide patient selection for MDT.

The Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership: Bridging Academic and Community Networks in a Collaborative Approach to Sarcoma.

The treatment of sarcoma necessitates a collaborative approach, given its rarity and complex management. At a single institution, multidisciplinary teams of specialists determine and execute treatment plans involving surgical, radiation, and medical management. Treatment guidelines for systemic therapies in advanced or nonresectable soft tissue sarcoma have advanced in recent years as new immunotherapies and targeted therapies become available. Collaboration between institutions is necessary to facilitate accrual to clinical trials. Here, we describe the success of the Midwest Sarcoma Trials Partnership (MWSTP) in creating a network encompassing large academic centers and local community sites. We propose a new model utilizing online platforms to expand the reach of clinical expertise for the treatment of advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

Is Bone Marrow Aspiration and Biopsy of Clinical Importance in the Initial Staging of Extraskeletal Ewing Sarcoma?

BACKGROUND: Extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma are rare tumors within the Ewing sarcoma family. Initial staging studies for extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma historically have included imaging and bone marrow aspiration and biopsy (BMAB). However, recent studies on Ewing sarcoma of bone have questioned the utility of BMAB in the initial staging of patients, but no studies of which we are aware have evaluated the role of BMAB in extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma. We suspected that BMAB was of low diagnostic yield in patients with extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma and exposed patients to potential morbidity without an impact on their clinical course. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Is BMAB a useful test in the staging of extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma? METHODS: Between January 1996 and December 2021, our institution evaluated 109 patients with a listed diagnosis of extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma. Those patients were retrospectively reviewed for this study. Of those, we considered patients with biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma. Biopsy was performed based on institutional protocols, with all diagnoses assigned by a board-certified pathologist. Based on that criteria, 96% (105 of 109) were eligible. An additional 18% (20 of 109) were excluded because records of their initial diagnostic and staging workup were not available. This left 78% (85 of 109) for analysis. Of those, 52% (44 of 85) were male. The average age was 32 ± 16 years. Primary tumor locations included extremities in 26% (22 of 85), paraspinal in 20% (17 of 85), chest in 19% (16 of 85), retroperitoneum in 13% (11 of 85), intraabdominal in 12% (10 of 85), intrapelvic in 7% (6 of 85), and head or neck in 4% (3 of 85). Initial diagnostic and staging information, including the use of PET-CT, bone scan, CT chest, and BMAB, was collected. Metastatic disease at the time of presentation or during follow-up was noted. The utility of BMAB was determined by the rate of positive tests in those undergoing BMAB during the initial staging process. Descriptive statistical analysis was sufficient to address the study question, and therefore no comparative statistics were performed. RESULTS: BMAB was obtained during the initial staging process in 64% (54 of 85) of patients. This BMAB was negative in all 54 patients, including those with known metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Diagnosing metastatic disease in extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma is important as the presence of metastases at diagnosis adversely affects prognosis. The routine use of BMAB in the staging process of extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma is of low diagnostic yield. BMAB is unlikely to diagnose metastatic involvement even in patients with known metastases to bone. We do not have enough data to suggest whether other modalities, such as PET-CT, might be more useful. Similar studies should be pursued to determine the utility of the remainder of staging modalities in patients with extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma to elucidate the most efficient and effective staging protocol. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Not All Leiomyosarcomas Are the Same: How to Best Classify LMS.

OPINION STATEMENT: Leiomyosarcoma arises from smooth muscle and represents one of the most common soft tissue sarcomas. Despite aggressive multimodality care, over half of the patients will ultimately develop metastatic and incurable disease with a median survival of 12-18 months. At present, there is no standard system to classify leiomyosarcoma, which itself is a heterogeneous disease. Classification by tumor location is the most simplistic approach and is most frequently utilized in clinical practice. Tumor location impacts diagnosis (recognition pre-operatively versus at the time of surgery) as well as treatment (ability to completely resect with clear margins with minimal morbidity). While tumor location can impact prognosis, for example, extremity tumors would generally be considered as lower risk than inferior vena cava tumors, leiomyosarcoma can exhibit a heterogeneous behavior irrespective of tumor location. Specifically, some patients have rapidly progressing disease despite aggressive chemotherapy, while others display a more indolent course even in the metastatic setting. The pathogenic drivers of the heterogeneity observed in tumor behavior are not well understood. As we learn more about the molecular composition of leiomyosarcoma, various classification groups have been proposed as discussed here. Ultimately, it is unlikely that one variable will be adequate for tumor classification, and a combination of location and molecular composition will be necessary to develop appropriate risk stratification nomograms and treatment strategies.

Treatment outcomes of extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma (EES), is a rare soft tissue sarcoma. Treatment for EES commonly involves chemotherapy and surgical resection (ST) or less commonly combined chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy (ST + RT). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate our institutional experience treating EES. METHODS: We reviewed 36 (18 males:18 females) patients (mean age 30 years) with a nonretroperitoneal/visceral EES treated with either ST (n = 24, 67%) or ST + RT (n = 12, 33%). All patients were treated with chemotherapy, most commonly vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide/ifosfamide and etoposide (VDC/IE, n = 23, 66%) Radiotherapy was mostly delivered preoperatively (n = 9). The mean follow-up was 8 years. RESULTS: The 10-year disease specific survival for patients was 78%, with no difference in the survival between patients in the ST versus the ST + RT groups (83% vs. 71%, p = 0.86). There was no difference in the 10-year local recurrence (91% vs. 100%, p = 0.29) or metastatic free survival (87% vs. 75%, p = 0.45) between the ST and ST + RT groups. CONCLUSION: The results of the current study highlight the ability to achieve excellent local control with chemotherapy and surgery for EES. We recommend for multidisciplinary management of patients with EES, including chemotherapy and surgery, with use of radiotherapy if there is concern for a potentially close margin of resection.

Primary Pancreatic Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma.

Primary pancreatic sarcomas are rare malignancies with an incidence of 0.1%. This case report is of a 48-year-old man who presented with this condition. The patient's treatment plan consisted of distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy with intraoperative immunohistochemistry and adjuvant chemotherapy. To correctly identify and treat undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, a stepwise strategy involving cross-sectional imaging and extensive histopathology analysis is necessary.

Lack of radiosensitivity predicts poor disease specific survival in myxoid liposarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Compared to other sarcomas, myxoid liposarcoma (ML) is known to be radiosensitive, with improved oncologic outcomes. Although these tumors "shrink" following radiotherapy, there is a paucity of data examining the degree of radiosensitivity and oncologic outcome. The purpose of the study was to evaluate pre- and postradiotherapy tumor volume to determine if size reduction impacts outcome. METHODS: We reviewed 62 patients with ML undergoing surgical resection combined with preoperative radiotherapy, with pre- and postradiotherapy MRI. This included 34 (55%) males, with a mean age of 47 ± 14 years. All tumors were deep to the fascia, and 12 (19%) patients had tumors with a >5% round-cell component. RESULTS: The mean volume reduction was 54% ± 29%. Compared to patients with >25% volume reduction, patients with reduction ≤25% had worse 10-year disease specific survival (86% vs. 37%, p < 0.01), in addition to an increased risk of metastatic disease (HR 4.63, p < 0.01) and death due to disease (HR 4.52, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Lack of volume reduction is a risk factor for metastatic disease and subsequent death due to disease in patients with extremity ML treated with combined preoperative radiotherapy and surgery. This data could be used to stratify patients for adjuvant therapies and follow-up intervals.

Development and validation of a recursive partitioning analysis-based pretreatment decision-making tool identifying ideal candidates for spine stereotactic body radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: This study was aimed at developing and validating a decision-making tool predictive of overall survival (OS) for patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-one patients at one institution were used for the training set, and 182 at a second institution were used for external validation. Treatments most commonly involved one or three fractions of spine SBRT. Exclusion criteria included proton therapy and benign histologies. RESULTS: The final model consisted of the following variables and scores: Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) ≥ 6 (1), time from primary diagnosis < 21 months (1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status = 1 (1) or ECOG performance status > 1 (2), and >1 organ system involved (1). Each variable was an independent predictor of OS (p < .001), and each 1-point increase in the score was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.25; p < .0001). The concordance value was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.78). The scores were discretized into three groups-favorable (score = 0-1), intermediate (score = 2), and poor survival (score = 3-5)-with 2-year OS rates of 84% (95% CI, 79%-90%), 46% (95% CI, 36%-59%), and 21% (95% CI, 14%-32%), respectively (p < .0001 for each). In the external validation set (182 patients), the score was also predictive of OS (p < .0001). Increasing SINS was predictive of decreased OS as a continuous variable (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: This novel score is proposed as a decision-making tool to help to optimize patient selection for spine SBRT. SINS may be an independent predictor of OS.

Single and Multifraction Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and the Risk of Radiation Induced Myelopathy.

Purpose: This study reports on the risk of radiation-induced myelitis (RM) of the spinal cord from a large single-institutional experience with 1 to 5 fraction stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to the spine. Methods and Materials: A retrospective review of patients who received spine SBRT to a radiation naïve level at or above the conus medullaris between 2007 and 2019 was performed. Local failure determination was based on SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. RM was defined as neurologic symptoms consistent with the segment of cord irradiated in the absence of neoplastic disease recurrence and graded by Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Rates of adverse events were estimated and dose-volume statistics from delivered treatment plans were extracted for the planning target volumes and spinal cord. Results: A total of 353 lesions in 277 patients were identified that met the specified criteria, for which 270, 70, and 13 lesions received 1-, 3-, and 5-fraction treatments, respectively, with a median follow-up of 46 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-52 months) for all surviving patients. The median overall survival was 33.0 months (95% CI, 29-43). The median D0.03cc to the spinal cord was 11.7 Gy (interquartile range [IQR], 10.5-12.4), 16.7 Gy (IQR, 12.8-20.6), and 26.0 Gy (IQR, 24.1-28.1), for 1-, 3-, 5-fractions. Using an a/b = 2Gy for the spinal cord, the median single-fraction equivalent-dose (SFED2) was 11.7 Gy (IQR, 10.2-12.5 Gy) and the normalized biological equivalent dose (nBED2/2) was 19.9 Gy (IQR, 15.4-22.8 Gy). One patient experienced grade 2 RM after a single-fraction treatment. The cumulative probability of RM was 0.3% (95% CI, 0%-2%). Conclusions: Spine SBRT is safe while limiting the spinal cord (as defined on treatment planning magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography myelogram) D0.03cc to less than 14 Gy, 21.9 Gy, and 30 Gy, for 1, 3, and 5-fractions, consistent with standard guidelines.

Development and Internal Validation of a Recursive Partitioning Analysis-Based Model Predictive of Pain Flare Incidence After Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Pain flares are a common acute toxic effect after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spine metastasis. We aimed to identify a subset of patients with the highest rate of pain flare after spine SBRT to optimize prophylactic corticosteroid administration. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The data set included 428 patients with 610 treatments. We defined pain flare as acute worsening of pain at the treatment site requiring new or higher dose therapy with corticosteroids, opiates, and/or hospitalization. Data were split into 70% training and 30% validation sets using a random number generator. After feature importance testing and generation of a correlation heatmap, feature extraction was performed via recursive partitioning analysis. RESULTS: We identified 125 total pain flares (20%). Five variables met significance (P < .02) for model inclusion: renal primary, soft tissue involvement, Bilsky >0, spinal instability neoplastic score >6, and gross tumor volume >8 cc. One point was assigned for each variable. The low-risk group (score = 0, n = 159) had pain flare rates of 7.0% and 13.6% in the training and validation sets; the intermediate-risk group (score = 1, n = 150) had rates of 14.0% and 16.3%; and the high-risk group (score >1, n = 301) had rates of 28.8% and 31.3%. Patients in the high-risk group had higher rates of flare (odds ratio, 3.50; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-5.92) and accumulated health care costs 3 and 6 months post-SBRT, relative to intermediate- and low-risk patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our internally validated model identifies a high-risk group of patients more likely to develop a pain flare after spine SBRT, for whom prophylactic steroids may be considered. Evaluation in a clinical trial is warranted.

Development and Assessment of a Predictive Score for Vertebral Compression Fracture After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Spinal Metastases.

IMPORTANCE: Vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is a potential adverse effect following treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess a risk stratification model for VCF after SBRT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study conducted at a high-volume referral center included 331 patients who had undergone 464 spine SBRT treatments from December 2007 through October 2019. Data analysis was conducted from November 1, 2020, to August 17, 2021. Exclusions included proton therapy, prior surgical intervention, vertebroplasty, or missing data. EXPOSURES: One and 3 fraction spine SBRT treatments were most commonly delivered. Single-fraction treatments generally involved prescribed doses of 16 to 24 Gy (median, 20 Gy; range, 16-30 Gy) to gross disease compared with multifraction treatment that delivered a median of 30 Gy (range, 21-50 Gy). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The VCF and radiography components of the spinal instability neoplastic score were determined by a radiologist. Recursive partitioning analysis was conducted using separate training (70%), internal validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. The log-rank test was the criterion for node splitting. RESULTS: Of the 331 participants, 88 were women (27%), and the mean (IQR) age was 63 (59-72) years. With a median follow-up of 21 months (IQR, 11-39 months), we identified 84 VCFs (18%), including 65 (77%) de novo and 19 (23%) progressive fractures. There was a median of 9 months (IQR, 3-21 months) to developing a VCF. From 15 candidate variables, 6 were identified using the backward selection method, feature importance testing, and a correlation heatmap. Four were selected via recursive partitioning analysis: epidural tumor extension, lumbar location, gross tumor volume of more than 10 cc, and a spinal instability neoplastic score of more than 6. One point was assigned to each variable, and the resulting multivariable Cox model had a concordance of 0.760. The hazard ratio per 1-point increase for VCF was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.62-2.30; P < .001). The cumulative incidence of VCF at 2 years (with death as a competing risk) was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2%-10.7%) for low-risk (score, 0-1; 273 [58.3%]), 17.0% (95% CI, 10.8%-26.7%) for intermediate-risk (score, 2; 99 [21.3%]), and 35.4% (95% CI, 26.7%-46.9%) for high-risk cases (score, 3-4; 92 [19.8%]) (P < .001). Similar results were observed for freedom from VCF using stratification. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this cohort study identify a subgroup of patients with high risk for VCF following treatment with SBRT who may potentially benefit from undergoing prophylactic spinal stabilization or vertebroplasty.

Current clinical management of primary cardiac sarcoma.

Introduction: Primary cardiac tumors are exceedingly rare, with approximately 75% representing benign lesions. Sarcoma represents the most common primary cardiac malignancy, with a wide range of sarcoma histologies represented. Symptoms at diagnosis vary based on tumor location. Multidisciplinary treatment including chemotherapy, surgery, and occasionally radiation is often warranted. Despite aggressive treatment, the overall prognosis for primary cardiac sarcoma (PCS) remains poor with a median survival of approximately 1 year.Areas covered: A PubMed search for the key terms; 'cardiac sarcoma', 'primary cardiac sarcoma', and 'treatment' were conducted. Abstracts were reviewed for reports on presentation, treatments, and outcomes in PCS. Available data was limited to single-institution series, most of which were retrospective. Patterns of symptoms at diagnosis varied with tumor location (right vs. left vs. pericardium). Multimodality therapy, including chemotherapy and surgical resection was most commonly reported. Completely negative margin (R0) resection has the greatest impact on overall survival.Expert opinion: Given the rarity of PCS, patients should be referred to a high-volume sarcoma center for multidisciplinary evaluation. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be considered to aid in surgical resection. Due to the propensity for brain metastases in cardiac tumors, brain MRI at the time of diagnosis should be considered.

Primary Cardiac Sarcoma: A Rare, Aggressive Malignancy with a High Propensity for Brain Metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Primary cardiac sarcoma (PCS) has a poor prognosis compared to other sarcomas due to late presentation, challenging resection, incidence of metastases, and limited efficacy of systemic therapies. METHODS: A medical record search engine was queried to identify patients diagnosed with PCS from 1992 to 2017 at the University of Michigan. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with PCS had a median age of 41 years (range 2-77). Common histologies were angiosarcoma (AS, 14), high-grade undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS, 10), and leiomyosarcoma (LMS, 5). Sites of origin were left atrium (18), right atrium (16), and pericardium (5). AS was the most common right-sided tumor; UPS was more common on the left. Eighteen patients presented with metastases involving lung (10), bone (7), liver (5), and brain (4). Twenty-five patients underwent resection, achieving 3 R0 resections. Patients received a median of 2 (1-6) systemic therapies. Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months (range 0-79). Median OS was 14.0 months and 8.2 months in patients who did or did not undergo resection, respectively (p=0.018). Brain metastases occurred in 12 (31%) patients, 9 (75%) of whom had left heart tumors, at a median of 8.5 months (range 0-75) from diagnosis. Median OS was 5.6 months (range 0-30) after the diagnosis of brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS: PCS portends a poor prognosis, because of difficulty in obtaining complete resection of sarcoma, advanced stage at diagnosis, and high risk of brain metastases. Providers should be aware of the increased risk of brain metastases and consider brain imaging at diagnosis and follow-up.

Differential Outcomes and Biologic Markers of Radiation-Associated vs. Sporadic Osteosarcoma: A Single-Institution Experience.

Background: Radiation-associated osteosarcoma (RAO) is a rare, life-threatening complication from radiation. Many physicians presume RAO has a worse prognosis than sporadic osteosarcoma (SO), although limited objective data exist. We conducted a retrospective study comparing these entities. Methods: We identified adults treated at our institution with osteosarcoma (1990-2016) and categorized tumors as SO or RAO based on location within a prior radiation field. We extracted data on demographics, treatment and primary malignancy and examined available tumor samples for MTA-1 and ezrin using immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Of 159 identified patients, 28 had RAO, diagnosed at a median interval from radiation of 11.5 years (1.5-28 years). Median follow-up was 2.8 years (0.1-19.6 years). Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different in the small population of patients with metastases, SO (n = 20) vs. RAO (n = 6): PFS 10.3 months vs. 4.8 months (p = 0.45) and OS 15.6 months vs. 6.1 months (p = 0.96), respectively. For the larger group with localized disease, median relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS were significantly different, NR vs. 12.2 months (p < 0.001) and NR vs. 27.6 months (p = 0.001) in SO (n = 111) vs. RAO (n = 22), respectively. On IHC, there were significant differences in distribution of high, intermediate or low MTA-1 (p = 0.015) and ezrin (p = 0.002) between RAO and SO tumors. Conclusions: Patients with metastases at diagnosis fared poorly irrespective of prior radiation. RAO patients with localized disease had worse outcomes without detectable differences in therapy rendered or treatment effect in resected specimens. Higher expression of MTA-1 in RAO patients may suggest an underlying difference in tumor biology to explain differences in outcomes.