Key result
Phenotypic markers including tumor size > 8 cm, presence of metastasis, and histological response are strong predictors of outcome in Ewing sarcoma, while biological biomarkers remain unvalidated.
Why the study?
Do phenotypic and biological biomarkers predict clinical outcome in patients with Ewing sarcoma?
Systematic Review (n=11,625)
Do phenotypic and biological biomarkers predict clinical outcome in patients with Ewing sarcoma?
Phenotypic markers such as tumor size, metastasis, and histological response are reliable prognostic factors in Ewing sarcoma, whereas biological biomarkers require further validation.
Supports routine use of phenotypic markers for Ewing sarcoma prognostication; reinforces their role while leaving biological biomarkers open for validation.
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 takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maldegem et al. (2012) conducted a systematic review in Ewing sarcoma (n=11,625). Prognostic biomarkers (phenotypic and biological) was evaluated on Prognostic value for clinical outcome. Phenotypic markers including tumor size > 8 cm, presence of metastasis, and histological response are strong predictors of outcome in Ewing sarcoma, while biological biomarkers remain unvalidated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: