Metachronous cardiac and cerebral sarcomas: case report with focus on molecular findings and review of the literature

Primary and secondary gliosarcoma: differences in treatment and outcome

INTRODUCTION

There are only few studies comparing differences in the outcome of primary versus secondary gliosarcoma. This study aimed to review the outcome and survival of patients with primary or secondary gliosarcoma following surgical resection and adjuvant treatment. The data were also matched with data of patients with primary and secondary glioblastoma (GBM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment histories of 10 patients with primary gliosarcoma and 10 patients with secondary gliosarcoma were analysed and compared. Additionally, data of 20 patients with primary and 20 patients with secondary GBM were analysed and compared. All patients underwent surgical resection of the tumour in our department. Follow-up data, progression-free survival (PFS), and median overall survival (mOS) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The median PFS in patients with primary gliosarcoma was significantly higher than in patients with secondary gliosarcoma (p = 0.037). The 6-month PFS rates were 80.0% in patients with primary and 30.0% in patients with secondary gliosarcoma. Upon recurrence, five patients with primary gliosarcoma and four patients with secondary gliosarcoma underwent repeat surgical resection. The mOS of patients with primary gliosarcoma was significantly higher than that of patients with secondary gliosarcoma (p = 0.031). The percentage of patients surviving at 1-year/2-year follow-up in primary gliosarcoma was 70%/20%, while it was only 10%/10% in secondary gliosarcoma. When PFS and mOS of primary gliosarcoma was compared to primary GBM, there were no statistically differences (p = 0.509; p = 0.435). The PFS and mOS of secondary gliosarcoma and secondary GBM were also comparable (p = 0.290 and p = 0.390).

CONCLUSION

Patients with primary gliosarcoma have a higher PFS and mOS compared to those with secondary gliosarcoma. In the case of tumour recurrence, patients with secondary gliosarcoma harbour an unfavourable prognosis with limited further options. The outcome of patients with primary or secondary gliosarcoma is comparable to that of patients with primary or secondary GBM.

Optimizing the risk stratification of astrocytic tumors by applying the cIMPACT-NOW Update 3 signature: real-word single center experience

Our work reports implementation of a useful genetic diagnosis for the clinical managment of patients with astrocytic tumors. We investigated 313 prospectively recruited diffuse astrocytic tumours by applying the cIMPACT-NOW Update 3 signature. The cIMPACT-NOW Update 3 (cIMPACT-NOW 3) markers, i.e., alterations of TERT promoter, EGFR, and/or chromosome 7 and 10, characterized 96.4% of IDHwt cases. Interestingly, it was also found in 48,5% of IDHmut cases. According to the genomic profile, four genetic subgroups could be distinguished: (1) IDwt/cIMPACT-NOW 3 (n = 270); (2) IDHwt/cIMPACT-NOW 3 negative (= 10); (3) IDHmut/cIMPACT-NOW 3 (n = 16); and 4) IDHmut/cIMPACT-NOW 3 negative (n = 17). Multivariate analysis confirmed that IDH1/2 mutations confer a favorable prognosis (IDHwt, HR 2.91 95% CI 1.39-6.06), and validated the prognostic value of the cIMPACT-NOW 3 signature (cIMPACT-NOW 3, HR 2.15 95% CI 1.15-4.03). To accurately identify relevant prognostic categories, overcoming the limitations of histopathology and immunohistochemistry, molecular-cytogenetic analyses must be fully integrated into the diagnostic work-up of astrocytic tumors.