Limits...
The clinical use of biomarkers as prognostic factors in Ewing sarcoma.

van Maldegem AM, Hogendoorn PC, Hassan AB - Clin Sarcoma Res (2012)

Bottom Line: Good histological response (necrosis > 90%) after treatment appeared a significant predictor for a positive outcome.Our recommendation is that we can stratify patients according to their stage and using the phenotypic features of metastases, tumour size and histological response.For biological biomarkers, we suggest a number of validating studies including markers for 9p21 locus, heat shock proteins, telomerase related markers, interleukins, tumour necrosis factors, VEGF pathway, lymphocyte count, and a number of other markers including Ki-67.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oncology University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK. bass.hassan@path.ox.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
Ewing Sarcoma is the second most common primary bone sarcoma with 900 new diagnoses per year in Europe (EU27). It has a poor survival rate in the face of metastatic disease, with no more than 10% survival of the 35% who develop recurrence. Despite the remaining majority having localised disease, approximately 30% still relapse and die despite salvage therapies. Prognostic factors may identify patients at higher risk that might require differential therapeutic interventions. Aside from phenotypic features, quantitative biomarkers based on biological measurements may help identify tumours that are more aggressive. We audited the research which has been done to identify prognostic biomarkers for Ewing sarcoma in the past 15 years. We identified 86 articles were identified using defined search criteria. A total of 11,625 patients were reported, although this number reflects reanalysis of several cohorts. For phenotypic markers, independent reports suggest that tumour size > 8 cm and the presence of metastasis appeared strong predictors of negative outcome. Good histological response (necrosis > 90%) after treatment appeared a significant predictor for a positive outcome. However, data proposing biological biomarkers for practical clinical use remain un-validated with only one secondary report published. Our recommendation is that we can stratify patients according to their stage and using the phenotypic features of metastases, tumour size and histological response. For biological biomarkers, we suggest a number of validating studies including markers for 9p21 locus, heat shock proteins, telomerase related markers, interleukins, tumour necrosis factors, VEGF pathway, lymphocyte count, and a number of other markers including Ki-67.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Flowchart for the identification of eligible reports.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3351700&req=5

Figure 1: Flowchart for the identification of eligible reports.

Mentions: A flow-chart indicating the identification of reports for inclusion in the analysis is reported for Ewing sarcoma (Figure 1). During the search many reports had to be excluded mainly because no prognostic markers were reported in the article. When we searched the reports using full text, we had to exclude some papers because no Ewing sarcoma patients were included in these reports. We identified 86 articles which were eligible for our search criteria. In these papers a total of 11, 625 patients were reported.


The clinical use of biomarkers as prognostic factors in Ewing sarcoma.

van Maldegem AM, Hogendoorn PC, Hassan AB - Clin Sarcoma Res (2012)

Flowchart for the identification of eligible reports.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3351700&req=5

Figure 1: Flowchart for the identification of eligible reports.
Mentions: A flow-chart indicating the identification of reports for inclusion in the analysis is reported for Ewing sarcoma (Figure 1). During the search many reports had to be excluded mainly because no prognostic markers were reported in the article. When we searched the reports using full text, we had to exclude some papers because no Ewing sarcoma patients were included in these reports. We identified 86 articles which were eligible for our search criteria. In these papers a total of 11, 625 patients were reported.

Bottom Line: Good histological response (necrosis > 90%) after treatment appeared a significant predictor for a positive outcome.Our recommendation is that we can stratify patients according to their stage and using the phenotypic features of metastases, tumour size and histological response.For biological biomarkers, we suggest a number of validating studies including markers for 9p21 locus, heat shock proteins, telomerase related markers, interleukins, tumour necrosis factors, VEGF pathway, lymphocyte count, and a number of other markers including Ki-67.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oncology University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LJ, UK. bass.hassan@path.ox.ac.uk.

ABSTRACT
Ewing Sarcoma is the second most common primary bone sarcoma with 900 new diagnoses per year in Europe (EU27). It has a poor survival rate in the face of metastatic disease, with no more than 10% survival of the 35% who develop recurrence. Despite the remaining majority having localised disease, approximately 30% still relapse and die despite salvage therapies. Prognostic factors may identify patients at higher risk that might require differential therapeutic interventions. Aside from phenotypic features, quantitative biomarkers based on biological measurements may help identify tumours that are more aggressive. We audited the research which has been done to identify prognostic biomarkers for Ewing sarcoma in the past 15 years. We identified 86 articles were identified using defined search criteria. A total of 11,625 patients were reported, although this number reflects reanalysis of several cohorts. For phenotypic markers, independent reports suggest that tumour size > 8 cm and the presence of metastasis appeared strong predictors of negative outcome. Good histological response (necrosis > 90%) after treatment appeared a significant predictor for a positive outcome. However, data proposing biological biomarkers for practical clinical use remain un-validated with only one secondary report published. Our recommendation is that we can stratify patients according to their stage and using the phenotypic features of metastases, tumour size and histological response. For biological biomarkers, we suggest a number of validating studies including markers for 9p21 locus, heat shock proteins, telomerase related markers, interleukins, tumour necrosis factors, VEGF pathway, lymphocyte count, and a number of other markers including Ki-67.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus