Aim Currently, compelling evidence illustrates the significance of determining microsatellite instability (MSI) in colorectal cancer (CRC). The association of MSI with proximal CRC is well... Show moreAim Currently, compelling evidence illustrates the significance of determining microsatellite instability (MSI) in colorectal cancer (CRC). The association of MSI with proximal CRC is well established, however, its implications in patients with rectal cancer remain undefined. We therefore aimed to determine the role of MSI with respect to incidence and outcome in patients with rectal cancer. Methods and Results For this we examined patients from two prospective phase III trials: TME trial and PROCTOR-SCRIPT trial (n = 1250). In addition, we performed a literature review to evaluate the overall prevalence, the effect on survival and the response to neo-adjuvant treatment in patients with MSI rectal cancer compared with microsatellite stable (MSS) rectal cancer. Our TME and PROCTOR-SCRIPT cohort showed no differences in terms of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.47) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68-1.45) in patients with MSI compared to MSS rectal cancer. The total number of MSI cases in all included studies (including our own) was 1220 (out of 16,526 rectal cancer patients), with an overall prevalence of 6.7% (standard error 1.19%). Both for OS as for DFS there was no impact of MSI status on prognosis (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.29 and HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60-1.22, respectively). The risk ratio (RR) for downstaging and pathological complete response showed also no impact of MSI status (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86-1.55 and RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.22, respectively). Conclusion Rectal cancer patients with MSI form a distinct and rare subcategory, however, there is no prognostic effect of MSI in rectal cancer patients. Show less
Kalisvaart, G.M.; Grootjans, W.; Bovee, J.V.M.G.; Gelderblom, H.; Hage, J.A. van der; Sande, M.A.J. van de; ... ; Geus-Oei, L.F. de 2021
Background: Prognostic biomarkers are pivotal for adequate treatment decision making. The objective of this study was to determine the added prognostic value of quantitative [F-18]FDG-PET features... Show moreBackground: Prognostic biomarkers are pivotal for adequate treatment decision making. The objective of this study was to determine the added prognostic value of quantitative [F-18]FDG-PET features in patients with metastases from soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Methods: Patients with metastases from STS, detected by (re)staging [F-18]FDG-PET/CT at Leiden University Medical Centre, were retrospectively included. Clinical and histopathological patient characteristics and [F-18]FDG-PET features (SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmean, total lesion glycolysis, and metabolic tumor volume) were analyzed as prognostic factors for overall survival using a Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: A total of 31 patients were included. SUVmax and SUVpeak were significantly predictive for overall survival (OS) in a univariate analysis (p = 0.004 and p = 0.006, respectively). Hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.16 per unit increase for SUVmax and 1.20 per unit for SUVpeak. SUVmax and SUVpeak remained significant predictors for overall survival after correction for the two strongest predictive clinical characteristics (number of lesions and performance status) in a multivariate analysis (p = 0.02 for both). Median SUVmax and SUVpeak were 5.7 and 4.9 g/mL, respectively. The estimated mean overall survival in patients with SUVmax > 5.7 g/mL was 14 months; otherwise, it was 39 months (p < 0.001). For patients with SUVpeak > 4.9 g/mL, the estimated mean overall survival was 18 months; otherwise, it was 33 months (p = 0.04). Conclusions: In this study, SUVmax and SUVpeak were independent prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with metastases from STS. These results warrant further investigation of metabolic imaging with [F-18]FDG-PET/CT in patients with metastatic STS. Show less
Evenhuis, R.E.; Acem, I.; Rueten-Budde, A.J.; Karis, D.S.A.; Fiocco, M.; Dorleijn, D.M.J.; ... ; Sande, M.A.J. van de 2021
Simple SummaryAge is one of many prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with skeletal osteosarcoma. This retrospective study provides an overview of survival in patients with high... Show moreSimple SummaryAge is one of many prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with skeletal osteosarcoma. This retrospective study provides an overview of survival in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma in different age groups. It shows prognostic variables for survival and local control among the overall cohort. In this study, in which 402 patients with skeletal high-grade osteosarcoma were included, poor survival was associated with increasing age. Age groups, tumor size, poor histopathological response, distant metastasis at presentation, and local recurrence were independent prognostic factors associated to overall survival and event-free survival. Differences in outcome among different age groups can be partially explained by patient characteristics and treatment characteristics.Age is a known prognostic factor for many sarcoma subtypes, however in the literature there are limited data on the different risk profiles of different age groups for osteosarcoma survival. This study aims to provide an overview of survival in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma in different age groups and prognostic variables for survival and local control among the entire cohort. In this single center retrospective cohort study, 402 patients with skeletal high-grade osteosarcoma were diagnosed and treated with curative intent between 1978 and 2017 at the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC). Prognostic factors for survival were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazard model. In this study poor overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were associated with increasing age. Age groups, tumor size, poor histopathological response, distant metastasis (DM) at presentation and local recurrence (LR) were important independent prognostic factors influencing OS and EFS. Differences in outcome among different age groups can be partially explained by patient and treatment characteristics. Show less
