Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Melanoma (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3) (remove)
Introduction: Combination therapy for melanoma brain metastases (MM) using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and immune checkpoint-inhibition (ICI) or targeted therapy (TT) is currently of high interest. In this collective, time evolution and incidence of imaging findings indicative of pseudoprogression is sparsely researched. We therefore investigated time-course of MRI characteristics in these patients.
Methods: Data were obtained retrospectively from 27 patients (12 female, 15 male; mean 61 years, total of 169 MMs). Single lesion volumes, total MM burden and edema volumes were analyzed at baseline and follow-up MRIs in 2 months intervals after SRS up to 24 months. The occurrence of intralesional hemorrhages was recorded.
Results: 17 patients (80 MM) received ICI, 8 (62 MM) TT and 2 (27 MM) ICI + TT concomitantly to SRS. MM-localization was frontal (n = 89), temporal (n = 23), parietal (n = 20), occipital (n = 10), basal ganglia/thalamus/insula (n = 10) and cerebellar (n = 10). A volumetric progression of MM 2–4 months after SRS was observed in combined treatment with ICI (p = 0.028) and ICI + TT (p = 0.043), whereas MMs treated with TT showed an early volumetric regression (p = 0.004). Edema volumes moderately correlated with total MM volumes (r = 0.57; p < 0.0001). Volumetric behavior did not differ significantly over time regarding lesions’ initial sizes or localizations. No significant differences between groups were observed regarding rates of post-SRS intralesional hemorrhages.
Conclusion: Reversible volumetric increases in terms of pseudoprogression are observed 2–4 months after SRS in patients with MM concomitantly treated with ICI and ICI + TT, rarely after TT. Edema volumes mirror total MM volumes. Medical treatment type does not significantly affect rates of intralesional hemorrhage.
Purpose: To compare Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) vs. non-SCC penile cancer, since survival outcomes may differ between histological subtypes. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004–2016), penile cancer patients of all stages were identified. Temporal trend analyses, cumulative incidence and Kaplan–Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression and Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses tested for CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC penile cancer patients. Results: Of 4,120 eligible penile cancer patients, 123 (3%) harbored non-SCC vs. 4,027 (97%) SCC. Of all non-SCC patients, 51 (41%) harbored melanomas, 42 (34%) basal cell carcinomas, 10 (8%) adenocarcinomas, eight (6.5%) skin appendage malignancies, six (5%) epithelial cell neoplasms, two (1.5%) neuroendocrine tumors, two (1.5%) lymphomas, two (1.5%) sarcomas. Stage at presentation differed between non-SCC vs. SCC. In temporal trend analyses, non-SCC diagnoses neither decreased nor increased over time (p > 0.05). After stratification according to localized, locally advanced, and metastatic stage, no CSM differences were observed between non-SCC vs. SCC, with 5-year survival rates of 11 vs 11% (p = 0.9) for localized, 33 vs. 37% (p = 0.4) for locally advanced, and 1-year survival rates of 37 vs. 53% (p = 0.9) for metastatic penile cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics and additional multivariable adjustment, no CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC were observed. Conclusion: Non-SCC penile cancer is rare. Although exceptions exist, on average, non-SCC penile cancer has comparable CSM as SCC penile cancer patients, after stratification for localized, locally invasive, and metastatic disease.
Purpose: To compare Cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients with Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) vs. non-SCC penile cancer, since survival outcomes may differ between histological subtypes. Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004–2016), penile cancer patients of all stages were identified. Temporal trend analyses, cumulative incidence and Kaplan–Meier plots, multivariable Cox regression and Fine and Gray competing-risks regression analyses tested for CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC penile cancer patients. Results: Of 4,120 eligible penile cancer patients, 123 (3%) harbored non-SCC vs. 4,027 (97%) SCC. Of all non-SCC patients, 51 (41%) harbored melanomas, 42 (34%) basal cell carcinomas, 10 (8%) adenocarcinomas, eight (6.5%) skin appendage malignancies, six (5%) epithelial cell neoplasms, two (1.5%) neuroendocrine tumors, two (1.5%) lymphomas, two (1.5%) sarcomas. Stage at presentation differed between non-SCC vs. SCC. In temporal trend analyses, non-SCC diagnoses neither decreased nor increased over time (p > 0.05). After stratification according to localized, locally advanced, and metastatic stage, no CSM differences were observed between non-SCC vs. SCC, with 5-year survival rates of 11 vs 11% (p = 0.9) for localized, 33 vs. 37% (p = 0.4) for locally advanced, and 1-year survival rates of 37 vs. 53% (p = 0.9) for metastatic penile cancer, respectively. After propensity score matching for patient and tumor characteristics and additional multivariable adjustment, no CSM differences between non-SCC vs. SCC were observed. Conclusion: Non-SCC penile cancer is rare. Although exceptions exist, on average, non-SCC penile cancer has comparable CSM as SCC penile cancer patients, after stratification for localized, locally invasive, and metastatic disease.