Long-term outcome and patterns of failure in patients with advanced head and neck cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>To access the long-time outcome and patterns of failure in patients with advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).</p> <p>Methods and materials</p> <p>Between 1992 and 2005 127 patients (median age 55 years, UICC stage III n = 6, stage IV n = 121) with primarily inoperable, advanced HNSCC were treated with definite platinum-based radiochemotherapy (median dose 66.4 Gy). Analysed end-points were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), loco-regional progression-free survival (LPFS), development of distant metastases (DM), prognostic factors and causes of death.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean follow-up time was 34 months (range, 3-156 months), the 3-, 5- and 10-year OS rates were 39%, 28% and 14%, respectively. The median OS was 23 months. Forty-seven patients achieved a complete remission and 78 patients a partial remission. The median LPFS was 17 months, the 3-, 5- and 10-year LPFS rates were 41%, 33% and 30%, respectively. The LPFS was dependent on the nodal stage (p = 0.029). The median DFS was 11 months (range, 2-156 months), the 3-, 5- and 10-year DFS rates were 30%, 24% and 22%, respectively. Prognostic factors in univariate analyses were alcohol abuse (n = 102, p = 0.015), complete remission (n = 47, p < 0.001), local recurrence (n = 71, p < 0.001), development of DM (n = 45, p < 0.001; median OS 16 months) and borderline significance in nodal stage N2 versus N3 (p = 0.06). Median OS was 26 months with lung metastases (n = 17). Nodal stage was a predictive factor for the development of DM (p = 0.025). Cause of death was most commonly tumor progression.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In stage IV HNSCC long-term survival is rare and DM is a significant predictor for mortality. If patients developed DM, lung metastases had the most favourable prognosis, so intensified palliative treatment might be justified in DM limited to the lungs.</p

Effects of patient selection on the applicability of results from a randomised clinical trial (EORTC 10853) investigating breast-conserving therapy for DCIS

Selection of patients for randomised clinical trials may have a large impact on the applicability of the study results to the general population presenting the same disorder. However, clinical characteristics and outcome data on non-entered patients are usually not available. The effects of patient selection for the EORTC 10853 trial investigating the role of radiotherapy in breast conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ have been studied, in an analysis of all patients treated for ductal carcinoma in situ in five participating institutes. The reasons for not entering patients were evaluated and treatment results of the randomised patients were compared to those not entered. A total of 910 patients were treated for ductal carcinoma in situ. Of these, 477 (52%) were ineligible, with the size of the lesion being the main reason for ineligibility (30% of all ductal carcinoma in situ). Of the 433 eligible patients, 278 (64%) were randomised into the trial. The main reasons for non-entry of eligible patients were either physicians' preference for one of the treatment arms (26%) or patients' refusal (9%). These percentages showed significant variation among the institutes. At 4 years follow-up, those patients not entered in the trial and treated with local excision and radiotherapy, had higher local recurrence rates than the patients randomised in the trial and treated with the same approach, (17 vs 2%, P=0.03). The patients treated with local excision alone had equal local recurrence rates (11% in both groups). Selection of patients may explain the differences in outcome of the randomised patients, and those not-entered. Thus, the results of this trial may not be applicable to all patients with ductal carcinoma in situ

Predictors of patients’ choices for breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: a prospective study

A study was undertaken to describe the treatment preferences and choices of patients with breast cancer, and to identify predictors of undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy (MT). Consecutive patients with stage I/II breast cancer were eligible. Information about predictor variables, including socio-demographics, quality of life, patients' concerns, decision style, decisional conflict and perceived preference of the surgeon was collected at baseline, before decision making and surgery. Patients received standard information (n = 88) or a decision aid (n = 92) as a supplement to support decision making. A total of 180 patients participated in the study. In all, 72% decided to have BCT (n = 123); 28% chose MT (n = 49). Multivariate analysis showed that what patients perceived to be their surgeons' preference and the patients' concerns regarding breast loss and local tumour recurrence were the strongest predictors of treatment preference. Treatment preferences in itself were highly predictive of the treatment decision. The decision aid did riot influence treatment choice. The results of this study demonstrate that patients' concerns and their perceptions of the treatment preferences of the physicians are important factors in patients' decision making. Adequate information and communication are essential to base treatment decisions on realistic concerns, and the treatment preferences of patients, (C) 2004 Cancer Research U

Standardized and reproducible methodology for the comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The primary goal of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to completely excise the tumor and achieve "adequate" or "negative" surgical resection margins while maintaining an acceptable level of postoperative cosmetic outcome. Nevertheless, precise determination of the adequacy of BCS has long been debated. In this regard, the aim of the current paper was to describe a standardized and reproducible methodology for comprehensive and systematic assessment of surgical resection margins during BCS.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Retrospective analysis of 204 BCS procedures performed for invasive breast cancer from August 2003 to June 2007, in which patients underwent a standard BCS resection and systematic sampling of nine standardized re-resection margins (superior, superior-medial, superior-lateral, medial, lateral, inferior, inferior-medial, inferior-lateral, and deep-posterior). Multiple variables (including patient, tumor, specimen, and follow-up variables) were evaluated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>6.4% (13/204) of patients had positive BCS specimen margins (defined as tumor at inked edge of BCS specimen) and 4.4% (9/204) of patients had close margins (defined as tumor within 1 mm or less of inked edge but not at inked edge of BCS specimen). 11.8% (24/204) of patients had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease, independent of the status of the BCS specimen margins. 7.1% (13/182) of patients with negative BCS specimen margins (defined as no tumor cells seen within 1 mm or less of inked edge of BCS specimen) had at least one re-resection margin containing additional disease. Thus, 54.2% (13/24) of patients with additional disease in a re-resection margin would not have been recognized by a standard BCS procedure alone (P < 0.001). The nine standardized resection margins represented only 26.8% of the volume of the BCS specimen and 32.6% of the surface area of the BCS specimen.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our methodology accurately assesses the adequacy of surgical resection margins for determination of which individuals may need further resection to the affected breast in order to minimize the potential risk of local recurrence while attempting to limit the volume of additional breast tissue excised, as well as to determine which individuals are not realistically amendable to BCS and instead need a completion mastectomy to successfully remove multifocal disease.</p