Factors associated with recurrence and survival length following relapse in patients with neuroblastoma

Background: Despite therapeutic advances, survival following relapse for neuroblastoma patients remains poor. We investigated clinical and biological factors associated with length of progression-free and overall survival following relapse in UK neuroblastoma patients. Methods: All cases of relapsed neuroblastoma, diagnosed during 1990-2010, were identified from four Paediatric Oncology principal treatment centres. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to calculate post-relapse overall survival (PROS), post-relapse progression-free survival (PRPFS) between relapse and further progression, and to investigate influencing factors. Results: One hundred eighty-nine cases were identified from case notes, 159 (84.0%) high risk and 17 (9.0%), unresectable, MYCN non-amplified (non-MNA) intermediate risk (IR). For high-risk patients diagnosed >2000, median PROS was 8.4 months (interquartile range (IQR)=3.0-17.4) and median PRPFS was 4.7 months (IQR=2.1-7.1). For IR, unresectable non-MNA patients, median PROS was 11.8 months (IQR 9.0-51.6) and 5-year PROS was 24% (95% CI 7-45%). MYCN amplified (MNA) disease and bone marrow metastases at diagnosis were independently associated with worse PROS for high-risk cases. Eighty percent of high-risk relapses occurred within 2 years of diagnosis compared with 50% of unresectable non-MNA IR disease. Conclusions: Patients with relapsed HR neuroblastomas should be treatment stratified according to MYCN status and PRPFS should be the primary endpoint in early phase clinical trials. The failure to salvage the majority of IR neuroblastoma is concerning, supporting investigation of intensification of upfront treatment regimens in this group to determine whether their use would diminish likelihood of relapse

Targeted antiangiogenic agents in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy in preclinical and clinical studies in sarcoma

Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of mesenchymal malignancies. In recent years, studies have demonstrated that inhibition of angiogenic pathways or disruption of established vasculature can attenuate the growth of sarcomas. However, when used as monotherapy in the clinical setting, these targeted antiangiogenic agents have only provided modest survival benefits in some sarcoma subtypes, and have not been efficacious in others. Preclinical and early clinical data suggest that the addition of conventional chemotherapy to antiangiogenic agents may lead to more effective therapies for patients with these tumors. In the current review, the authors summarize the available evidence and possible mechanisms supporting this approach

The role of Gliadel wafers in the treatment of high-grade gliomas

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most aggressive brain tumor. Standard treatment includes surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Prognosis is dismal with an average survival of approximately 1 year. Gliadel wafers are one treatment option, working as a source for local chemotherapy delivery. Their use is controversial with questionable survival benefit and potential side effects. We reviewed the literature in an effort to clarify their role in the treatment of high-grade gliomas. A systematic PubMed search was performed using the keywords 'Gliadel', 'carmustine' or 'BCNU wafers' in newly diagnosed high-grade glioma patients. Treatment regimen, and median survival were analyzed. Adverse event ratio was calculated by computing the number of adverse events in a study per patient receiving carmustine wafers. Nineteen studies with 795 patients were included in our review. Survival was 8.7-22.6 months with a mean overall survival (OS) of 16.2 months (control survival is approximately 14 months with surgery and adjuvant chemoradiotherapy). Adverse event ratio using Gliadel wafersin control group. Complication rate was 42.7%. Gliadel wafers may marginally increase survival and local control in newly diagnosed GBM patients but are associated with a high complication rate; therefore, we do not recommend using Gliadel wafers in patients with GBM. Further research may be warranted once a safer alternative to Gliadel wafers has been introduced