Discordance Between the Initial Diagnosis of Sarcomas and Subsequent Histopathological Revision and Molecular Analyses in a Sarcoma Reference Center in Brazil.

PURPOSE: To investigate the discordance in sarcoma diagnoses between nonspecialized institutions following revision by dedicated sarcoma pathologists at a reference center in Brazil and the relevance of molecular pathology in this context. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of sarcoma samples initially analyzed at outside laboratories and subsequently reviewed by two specialized pathologists between January 2014 and December 2020. After obtaining demographic and tumor characteristics, pathology results were matched and classified as complete discordance (CD; benign v malignant, sarcoma v other malignancies), partial concordance (similar diagnosis of connective tumor, but different grade/histological subtype/differentiation), and complete concordance (CC). The concordance for histology or grade, and the role of molecular assessments supporting the diagnosis were also independently determined. Statistical analyses were conducted through the kappa coefficient of agreement and adherence by χ2 test, χ2 test by Person, and Fisher exact test. RESULTS: In total, 197 cases were included, with samples obtained predominately from male patients (57.9%) and localized/primary tumors (86.8%). Following revision, the most frequent final diagnoses were undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (17.8%), well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma (8.6%), and leiomyosarcoma (7.6%). CD was found in 13.2%, partial discordance in 45.2%, and CC in 41.6% of reviews (P < .001). We found a concordance for histology or grade of 53.5% (P < .001) and 51.8% (P < .001), respectively. Molecular assessments, comprising next-generation sequencing panels (79.5%) and fluorescent in situ hybridization (20.5%), were performed in 44 (22.3%) cases, with findings classified as of diagnostic relevance in 31.8%. CONCLUSION: In nearly 60% of the cases, the initial sarcoma diagnosis was modified when revised by a reference center and dedicated pathologists, assisted by molecular pathology techniques. These results justify the assembly of referral networks in countries with limited health care resources.

Stereotactic ablative radiation therapy for spinal metastases: experience at a single Brazilian institution.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the clinical outcomes of patients with spine metastases who underwent stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) as part of their treatment. SABR has arisen as a contemporary treatment option for spinal metastasis patients with good prognoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between November 2010 and September 2018, Spinal SABR was performed in patients with metastatic disease in different settings: radical (SABR only), postoperative (after decompression and/or fixation surgery), and reirradiation. Local control (LC), pain control, overall survival (OS) and toxicities were reported. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (corresponding to 96 treatments) with spine metastases were included. The median age was 59 years (range, 23-91). In most SA BR (82.3%, n = 79) was performed as the first local spine treatment, while in 12 settings (12.5%), fixation and/or decompression surgery was performed prior to SABR. Two-year overall survival rate was 74.1%, and median survival was 19 months. The LC rate at 2 years was 72.3%. With regard to pain control, among 67 patients presenting with pain before SA BR, 83.3% had a complete response, 12.1% had a partial response, and 4.6% had progression. Vertebral compression fractures occurred in 10 patients (11.7%), of which 5 cases occurred in the reirradiation setting. Radiculopathy and myelopathy were not observed. No grade III or IV toxicities were seen. CONCLUSION: This is the first study presenting a Brazilian experience with spinal SA BR, and the results confirm its feasibility and safety. SABR was shown to produce good local and pain control rates with low rates of adverse events.

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.