Locoregional Control and Survival in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults With Localized Head and Neck Alveolar Rhabdomyosarcoma-The French Experience

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma in children and adolescents: results of two consecutive protocols

Background

Parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma (PM-RMS) accounts for about 20% of all rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) cases. At present, most research on PM-RMS has been conducted in Europe and the United States of America, and research in China has been very limited. This study sought to analyze the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of PM-RMS in children and adolescents from two consecutive protocols at Beijing Children's Hospital (BCH).

Methods

A total of 80 patients aged up to 18 years with previously untreated PM-RMS who had received treatment under two consecutive protocols [i.e., either the BCH-RMS-2006 protocol or the Chinese Children Cancer Group (CCCG)-RMS-2016 protocol] were included in the statistical analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for the survival analysis, and Cox regression was used for the univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Of the 80 patients enrolled in the study, 69 (86.2%) had meningeal invasion (MI). Of these 69 MI patients, 18 (22.5%) had cranial nerve palsy (CNP), 64 (80.0%) had cranial base bone erosion (CBBE), 25 (31.3%) had intracranial extension (ICE), and 2 (2.5%) had positive cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tumor cells. The median follow-up time was 20.5 months (range, 5-100 months). The 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rates for the entire cohort were 51.7% and 45.6%, respectively. The 5-year OS rates of the patients who received the BCH-RMS-2006 protocol (18/80, 22.5%) and the CCCG-RMS-2016 protocol (62/80, 77.5%) were 33.3% and 57.0%, respectively (P<0.05), while the PFS rates of these patients were 22.2% and 53.6%, respectively (P<0.05). In relation to the PM-RMS patients with MI, the 5-year OS rates were 21.4% and 52.7%, and the 5-year PFS rates were 14.3% and 51.1% for the patients who received the old and new regimens, respectively (P<0.05). The extent of surgical resection had no significant effect on survival. The multivariate analysis showed that the coexistence of CBBE and ICE, no radiotherapy, a poor response to induction chemotherapy, and the BCH-RMS-2006 protocol were risk factors affecting PFS and OS.

Conclusions

Of the patients examined in this study, those with PM-RMS with CBBE accompanied by ICE had the worst prognosis. The patients with MI benefited from intensive chemotherapy combined with radiation therapy, but the effect of surgery was very limited.

Treatment of nasolabial fold rhabdomyosarcoma in children: A single-institution experience

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the clinical characteristics and prognosis of children with nasolabial fold rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS).

METHODS

Retrospective review of children treated for nasolabial fold RMS from January 2014 to September 2019.

RESULTS

Of 21 patients with nasolabial fold RMS, 90.48% were alveolar subtype, in which PAX3/7-FOXO1 fusion positive accounted for 87.5%. Ten patients (47.62%) had nodals invasion. Almost all patients received comprehensive treatment (chemotherapy [100%], radiation therapy [100%], and surgery [95.24%]). The median follow-up time was 34.3 months. The 3-year overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) was 67.7% ± 14.1% and 42.1% ± 13.5%, respectively. Four patients had regional lymph node relapse (NR), all in the ipsilateral submandibular lymph node region.

CONCLUSION

Majority of the patients with RMS in the nasolabial fold area were alveolar subtype and had positive PAX3/7-FOXO1 gene fusion. In addition, the nasolabial fold RMS had a high probability of regional lymph node metastasis in the submandibular area. To maintain the facial aesthetics and functions, the surgical area for nasolabial fold RMS is often very conservative and restricted. This could be one of the contributors for the poor prognosis of nasolabial fold RMS beside its worse pathological subtype and gene fusion.

Non-inferior efficacy of non-surgical treatment to surgical treatment in patients with nonmetastatic head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma: a SEER-based study

PURPOSE

Head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma (HNRMS) is a rare but aggressive malignant neoplasm. Given the young patient age and critical anatomy of the head and neck, performing surgery on the primary tumor still remains debatable. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the non-surgery-based treatment versus surgery-based treatment on patients with nonmetastatic HNRMS.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic HNRMS between 2004 and 2015 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database were enrolled in our study. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method was employed to balance confounding factors between surgery and non-surgery groups. Kaplan-Meier methods and COX regression analyses were used to analyze survival outcomes of overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Prognostic nomogram was established to predict survival.

RESULTS

A total of 260 eligible patients were extracted from the SEER database. Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed that there was no significant difference in OS and CSS between the surgery and non-surgery groups both before and after IPTW (p > 0.05). Cox regression analyses and IPTW-adjusted Cox regression analyses for both OS and CSS showed similar survival between the two groups. Prognostic factors were explored and a nomogram for patients in the surgery group was constructed. Risk stratification based on the nomogram indicated that patients in surgery-high-risk group did not benefit from primary surgery. While those in surgery-low-risk group had an equal survival outcome to those in non-surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed that compared to patients receiving surgery, those not receiving surgery had similar survival outcomes for nonmetastatic HNRMS. Our established nomogram may serve as a practical tool for individual prognostic evaluations.