Brazilian consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of extremities soft tissue sarcomas.

INTRODUCTION: Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are rare tumors and constitute only 1% of all tumors in adults. Indeed, due to their rarity, most cases in Brazil are not treated according to primary international guidelines. METHODS: This consensus addresses the treatment of STSs in the extremities. It was made by workgroups from Brazilian Societies of Surgical Oncology, Orthopaedics, Clinical Oncology, Pathology, Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, and Radiation Oncology. The workgroups based their arguments on the best level of evidence in the literature and recommendations were made according to diagnosis, staging, and treatment of STSs. A meeting was held with all the invited experts and the topics were presented individually with the definition of the degree of recommendation, based on the levels of evidence in the literature. RESULTS: Risk factors and epidemiology were described as well as the pathological aspects and imaging. All recommendations are described with the degree of recommendation and levels of evidence. CONCLUSION: Recommendations based on the best literature regional aspects were made to guide professionals who treat STS. Separate consensus on specific treatments for retroperitoneal, visceral, trunk, head and neck sarcomas, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor, are not contemplated into this consensus.

International Multicenter Validation of an Intermediate Risk Subclassification of Prostate Cancer Managed with Radical Treatment without Hormone Therapy.

PURPOSE: The NCCN Guidelines® recently endorsed a subclassification of intermediate risk prostate cancer into favorable and unfavorable subgroups. However, this subclassification was developed in a treatment heterogeneous cohort. Thus, to our knowledge the natural history of androgen deprivation treatment naïve favorable and unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer cases remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Groups at 3 academic centers pooled data on patients with intermediate risk prostate cancer treated with radical monotherapy (dose escalated external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy or radical prostatectomy) without combined androgen deprivation treatment. We used the cumulative incidence with competing risk analysis to estimate biochemical recurrence, distant metastasis and prostate cancer specific mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2,550 men at intermediate risk were included in study, of whom 1,063 and 1,487 were at favorable and unfavorable risk, respectively. Of the men 1,149 underwent radical prostatectomy, 1,143 underwent dose escalated external beam radiotherapy and 258 underwent brachytherapy. Median followup after the different treatments ranged from 60.4 to 107.4 months. The 10-year cumulative incidence of distant metastasis in the favorable vs unfavorable risk groups was 0.2% (95% CI 0.2-0.2) vs 11.6% (95% CI 7.7-15.5) for radical prostatectomy (p <0.001), 2.8% (95% CI 0.8-4.8) vs 13.5% (95% CI 9.6-17.4) for dose escalated external beam radiotherapy (p <0.001) and 3.5% (95% CI 0-7.4) vs 10.2% (95% CI 4.3-16.1) for brachytherapy (p = 0.063). The 10-year rate of prostate cancer specific mortality in the favorable vs unfavorable risk groups was 0% (95% CI 0-0) vs 3.7% (95% CI 1.7-5.7) for radical prostatectomy (p = 0.016), 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.5) vs 5.6% (95% CI 3.6-7.6) for dose escalated external beam radiotherapy (p = 0.015) and 0% (95% CI 0-0) vs 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.5) for brachytherapy (p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter international effort independently validates the prognostic value of the intermediate risk prostate cancer subclassification in androgen deprivation treatment naïve cases across all radical treatment modalities. It is unlikely that treatment intensification would meaningfully improve oncologic outcomes in men at favorable intermediate risk.

A critical evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials of breast cancer patients treated with radiation therapy.

The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which health-related quality of life (HRQOL) parameters have been reported in phase III trials with breast cancer patients (BCPs) who received radiation therapy (RT). We also examine the frequency and correlates of significant HRQOL gains. A systematic review was conducted. When HRQOL was a study endpoint, we extracted data on the instruments used for HRQOL analysis, assessing if there was formal statistical comparison between study groups and the results of such comparisons as reported by the authors of the studies. In result, 182 trials were included. HRQOL was considered as endpoint in 38 (20.8%) of the studies and it was used as primary endpoint in 10.9% of them. Of 22 trials that had a positive primary endpoint, 18 had a significant benefit in HRQOL, in favor of the experimental arm. Of 13 trials that had a negative primary endpoint, there were no differences in HRQOL among the study groups. With respect to HRQOL assessment, statistical methods and definition of timing of evaluation were described in 32 (84.2%) and 36 (94.7%) trials, respectively. In conclusion, HRQOL has been infrequently investigated in trials in BCP who received RT. Statistical methods and timing of evaluation were infrequently described with sufficient detail to be informative.

Trial sponsorship and self-reported conflicts of interest in breast cancer radiation therapy: An analysis of prospective clinical trials.

PURPOSE: We aim to assess any association between study and self-reported conflict of interest (COI) or trial sponsorship in breast cancer radiation clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for all clinical trials (CTs) published between 09/2004 and 09/2014 related to breast cancer. We included only radiotherapy CTs with primary clinical endpoints. We classified eligible trials according to the funding source, presence or absence of conflict of interest, study conclusion and impact factor (IF). RESULTS: 1,603 CTs were retrieved. 72 randomized clinical trials were included for analysis. For-profit (PO), not for profit organization (nPO), none and not reported sponsorship rates were 9/72 (12.5%), 35/72 (48.6%), 1/72 (1.4%), 27/72 (37.5%), respectively. Present, absent or not reported COI were found in 6/72 (8.3%), 43/72 (59.7%) and 23/72 (32%) of the CTs, respectively. Conclusion was positive, neutral and negative in 57/72 (79.1%), 9/72 (12.5%) and 6/72 (8.4%) of the trials, respectively. Positive conclusion was reported in 33/44 (75%) funded trials (PO and nPO) and 5/6 (83.3%) CTs with reported COI. On univariate analysis no association with funding source (P=0.178), COI (P=0.678) or trial region (P=0.567) and trial positive conclusion was found. Sponsored trials (HR 4.50, 95CI-0.1.23-16.53;P=0.0023) and positive trials (HR 4.78, 95CI- 1.16-19.63;P=0.030) were more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: nPO funding was reported in almost 50% of the evaluated CTs. No significant association between study conclusion and funding source, COI or trial region was identified. Sponsored trials and positive trials were more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals.