PROMIS Function Scores Are Lower in Patients Who Underwent More Aggressive Local Treatment for Desmoid Tumors.

E. Newman, Jonathan Lans, Jason Kim, M. Ferrone, J. Ready, J. Schwab, K. Raskin, S. Calderón
{"title":"PROMIS Function Scores Are Lower in Patients Who Underwent More Aggressive Local Treatment for Desmoid Tumors.","authors":"E. Newman, Jonathan Lans, Jason Kim, M. Ferrone, J. Ready, J. Schwab, K. Raskin, S. Calderón","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000000918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nDesmoid tumors of the extremities often present with pain and functional limitation, but treatment can lead to morbidity and recurrence is common. The impact of treatment with respect to traditional \"oncologic\" metrics (such as recurrence rate) has been studied extensively, with a shift in recent years away from local therapies as first-line management; however, little is known about the association between treatment modality and long-term functional outcomes for patients with this benign disease.\n\n\nQUESTIONS/PURPOSES\nIn a retrospective review of consecutive patients treated at two institutions, we asked: (1) Is event-free survival (EFS) different between patients who undergo local treatment and those who do not for primary as well as for recurrent desmoid tumors? (2) What treatment-related factors are associated with worse Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) function scores at a minimum of 1 year after treatment?\n\n\nMETHODS\nBetween 1991 and 2017, 102 patients with desmoid tumors of the extremities (excluding those of the hands and feet) were treated at two institutions; of those, 85 patients with 90 tumors were followed clinically for at least 1 year (median [range] 59 months follow-up [12 to 293]) and were included in the present analysis. We attempted to contact all patients for administration of PROMIS function (Physical Function Short Form [SF] 10a and Upper Extremity SF v2.0 7a) and Pain Interference (SF 8a) questionnaires. Complete survey data (minimum 1 year follow-up) were available for 46% (39 of 102) of patients with 40 tumors at a median of 125 months follow-up; only these patients were included in PROMIS data analyses. Though there was no formal institutional treatment algorithm in place during the study period, surgical resection typically was the preferred modality for primary tumors; radiation therapy and systemic treatments (including cytotoxic or hormonal agents earlier in the study period, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors later) were often added for recurrent or very symptomatic disease. We coded treatment for each patient into discrete episodes, each defined by a particular treatment strategy: local treatment only (surgery and/or radiation), systemic treatment only, local plus systemic treatment, or observation; treatment episodes rendered at other institutions (that is, before referral) were not included in the analyses. Treatment failure was defined as recurrence after surgical resection, or clinically significant radiologic and/or symptomatic progression after systemic treatment, and EFS was defined as time from treatment initiation to treatment failure or final follow-up. Episodes of treatment for recurrent tumors were analyzed in a pooled fashion, wherein discrete treatment episodes for patients with multiple recurrences were included separately as independent events. We analyzed 56 primary tumors (54 patients), and 101 discrete treatment episodes for recurrent tumors (88 patients). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed separately for the primary and recurrence cohorts, both comparing EFS among patients who received any local treatment (local treatment and local plus systemic treatment groups) versus those who did not (systemic treatment and observation groups). PROMIS function data were analyzed on the bases of patient- and treatment-specific variables, including the PROMIS Pain Interference score as a potential explanatory variable.\n\n\nRESULTS\nWithin both the primary and recurrence cohorts, there were no differences between the local treatment, systemic treatment, and local plus systemic treatment groups with respect to gender, age, axillary/hip girdle location, or tumor volume. Among primary tumors, 5-year EFS was 44% (95% CI 24 to 80) for the systemic-only group versus 15% (95% CI 5 to 44) for the local treatment group (p = 0.087). Within the pooled recurrence treatment episode cohort, 5-year EFS after systemic-only treatment was 70% (95% CI 52 to 94) versus 56% among patients receiving any local treatment (95% CI 44 to 70; p = 0.46). PROMIS function scores were lowest among patients who underwent two or more resections (39 versus 51 versus 47 for ≥2, 1, and 0 resections, respectively; p = 0.025); among those who received both surgery and radiation at any point, either concurrently or in separate treatment episodes, as compared with those who did not (39 versus 46; p = 0.047); and among those with higher levels of pain interference (38 versus 47 for pain interference scores > 50 versus < 50; p = 0.006).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nPatients treated with local modalities (surgery and/or radiation, with or without additional systemic therapy) did not experience improved EFS as compared with those treated without local modalities; this was the case for both the primary and the recurrent tumor cohorts. However, PROMIS function scores were lowest among patients who underwent two or more surgical interventions and among those treated with surgery and radiation at any time, suggesting that more aggressive local treatment may be associated with poorer long-term functional outcomes. Prospective collection of patient-reported outcomes data at multiple time points will allow for more direct correlations between treatment modality and impact on function and will help to elucidate the ideal management strategy for these benign but often-symptomatic tumors.\n\n\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\nLevel III, therapeutic study.","PeriodicalId":10465,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","volume":"338 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000918","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

BACKGROUND Desmoid tumors of the extremities often present with pain and functional limitation, but treatment can lead to morbidity and recurrence is common. The impact of treatment with respect to traditional "oncologic" metrics (such as recurrence rate) has been studied extensively, with a shift in recent years away from local therapies as first-line management; however, little is known about the association between treatment modality and long-term functional outcomes for patients with this benign disease. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES In a retrospective review of consecutive patients treated at two institutions, we asked: (1) Is event-free survival (EFS) different between patients who undergo local treatment and those who do not for primary as well as for recurrent desmoid tumors? (2) What treatment-related factors are associated with worse Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) function scores at a minimum of 1 year after treatment? METHODS Between 1991 and 2017, 102 patients with desmoid tumors of the extremities (excluding those of the hands and feet) were treated at two institutions; of those, 85 patients with 90 tumors were followed clinically for at least 1 year (median [range] 59 months follow-up [12 to 293]) and were included in the present analysis. We attempted to contact all patients for administration of PROMIS function (Physical Function Short Form [SF] 10a and Upper Extremity SF v2.0 7a) and Pain Interference (SF 8a) questionnaires. Complete survey data (minimum 1 year follow-up) were available for 46% (39 of 102) of patients with 40 tumors at a median of 125 months follow-up; only these patients were included in PROMIS data analyses. Though there was no formal institutional treatment algorithm in place during the study period, surgical resection typically was the preferred modality for primary tumors; radiation therapy and systemic treatments (including cytotoxic or hormonal agents earlier in the study period, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors later) were often added for recurrent or very symptomatic disease. We coded treatment for each patient into discrete episodes, each defined by a particular treatment strategy: local treatment only (surgery and/or radiation), systemic treatment only, local plus systemic treatment, or observation; treatment episodes rendered at other institutions (that is, before referral) were not included in the analyses. Treatment failure was defined as recurrence after surgical resection, or clinically significant radiologic and/or symptomatic progression after systemic treatment, and EFS was defined as time from treatment initiation to treatment failure or final follow-up. Episodes of treatment for recurrent tumors were analyzed in a pooled fashion, wherein discrete treatment episodes for patients with multiple recurrences were included separately as independent events. We analyzed 56 primary tumors (54 patients), and 101 discrete treatment episodes for recurrent tumors (88 patients). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed separately for the primary and recurrence cohorts, both comparing EFS among patients who received any local treatment (local treatment and local plus systemic treatment groups) versus those who did not (systemic treatment and observation groups). PROMIS function data were analyzed on the bases of patient- and treatment-specific variables, including the PROMIS Pain Interference score as a potential explanatory variable. RESULTS Within both the primary and recurrence cohorts, there were no differences between the local treatment, systemic treatment, and local plus systemic treatment groups with respect to gender, age, axillary/hip girdle location, or tumor volume. Among primary tumors, 5-year EFS was 44% (95% CI 24 to 80) for the systemic-only group versus 15% (95% CI 5 to 44) for the local treatment group (p = 0.087). Within the pooled recurrence treatment episode cohort, 5-year EFS after systemic-only treatment was 70% (95% CI 52 to 94) versus 56% among patients receiving any local treatment (95% CI 44 to 70; p = 0.46). PROMIS function scores were lowest among patients who underwent two or more resections (39 versus 51 versus 47 for ≥2, 1, and 0 resections, respectively; p = 0.025); among those who received both surgery and radiation at any point, either concurrently or in separate treatment episodes, as compared with those who did not (39 versus 46; p = 0.047); and among those with higher levels of pain interference (38 versus 47 for pain interference scores > 50 versus < 50; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS Patients treated with local modalities (surgery and/or radiation, with or without additional systemic therapy) did not experience improved EFS as compared with those treated without local modalities; this was the case for both the primary and the recurrent tumor cohorts. However, PROMIS function scores were lowest among patients who underwent two or more surgical interventions and among those treated with surgery and radiation at any time, suggesting that more aggressive local treatment may be associated with poorer long-term functional outcomes. Prospective collection of patient-reported outcomes data at multiple time points will allow for more direct correlations between treatment modality and impact on function and will help to elucidate the ideal management strategy for these benign but often-symptomatic tumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, therapeutic study.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在接受更积极的局部治疗的硬纤维瘤患者中,PROMIS功能评分较低。
背景:四肢硬纤维瘤通常表现为疼痛和功能限制,但治疗可导致发病率和复发是常见的。治疗对传统“肿瘤学”指标(如复发率)的影响已被广泛研究,近年来从局部治疗转变为一线管理;然而,对于这种良性疾病患者的治疗方式和长期功能预后之间的关系,我们知之甚少。问题/目的在一项对连续在两家机构接受治疗的患者的回顾性研究中,我们问道:(1)对于原发性和复发性硬纤维瘤,接受局部治疗和不接受局部治疗的患者的无事件生存期(EFS)是否不同?(2)在治疗后至少1年,哪些治疗相关因素与患者报告的预后测量信息系统(PROMIS)功能评分较差相关?方法:1991 - 2017年,102例四肢硬纤维瘤(不包括手足)患者在两家机构接受治疗;其中85例90例肿瘤患者临床随访至少1年(中位随访[范围]59个月[12 ~ 293]),纳入本分析。我们试图联系所有患者进行PROMIS功能(身体功能简表[SF] 10a和上肢SF v2.0 7a)和疼痛干扰(SF 8a)问卷调查。在中位随访125个月的40例肿瘤患者中,46%(102例中的39例)获得了完整的调查数据(至少1年随访);只有这些患者被纳入PROMIS数据分析。虽然在研究期间没有正式的机构治疗算法,但手术切除通常是原发性肿瘤的首选方式;放射治疗和全身治疗(包括研究早期的细胞毒性或激素药物,以及后来的酪氨酸激酶抑制剂)经常用于复发或非常有症状的疾病。我们将每个患者的治疗编码为离散的发作,每个发作由特定的治疗策略定义:仅局部治疗(手术和/或放疗)、仅全身治疗、局部加全身治疗或观察;在其他机构(即转诊前)进行的治疗未包括在分析中。治疗失败定义为手术切除后复发,或全身治疗后临床显著的放射学和/或症状进展,EFS定义为从治疗开始到治疗失败或最终随访的时间。复发性肿瘤的治疗事件以汇总方式进行分析,其中多次复发患者的离散治疗事件作为独立事件单独纳入。我们分析了56例原发肿瘤(54例)和101例复发肿瘤(88例)的离散治疗。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分别为原发性和复发队列构建,两者都比较了接受任何局部治疗的患者(局部治疗组和局部加全身治疗组)与未接受任何局部治疗的患者(全身治疗组和观察组)的EFS。基于患者和治疗特异性变量分析PROMIS功能数据,包括PROMIS疼痛干扰评分作为潜在的解释变量。结果在原发组和复发组中,局部治疗组、全身治疗组和局部加全身治疗组在性别、年龄、腋窝/臀带位置或肿瘤体积方面没有差异。在原发肿瘤中,仅全身治疗组的5年EFS为44% (95% CI 24 ~ 80),而局部治疗组为15% (95% CI 5 ~ 44) (p = 0.087)。在合并复发治疗事件队列中,仅接受全身治疗后的5年EFS为70% (95% CI 52 - 94),而接受任何局部治疗的患者为56% (95% CI 44 - 70;P = 0.46)。在接受两次或两次以上手术的患者中,PROMIS功能评分最低(分别为39、51和47,分别为≥2次、1次和0次手术;P = 0.025);在任何时候接受手术和放疗的患者中,无论是同时接受还是单独接受治疗,与未接受手术和放疗的患者相比(39对46;P = 0.047);在疼痛干扰程度较高的人群中(疼痛干扰评分> 50对< 50,38对47;P = 0.006)。结论:与不接受局部治疗的患者相比,接受局部治疗(手术和/或放疗,有或没有额外的全身治疗)的患者并没有改善EFS;这是原发和复发肿瘤组的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CORR Insights®: What is the Geographic Distribution of Women Orthopaedic Surgeons Throughout the United States? What Are the Rates and Trends of Women Authors in Three High-Impact Orthopaedic Journals from 2006-2017? CORR Insights®: Chair Versus Chairman: Does Orthopaedics Use the Gendered Term More Than Other Specialties? CORR Insights®: Does the Proportion of Women in Orthopaedic Leadership Roles Reflect the Gender Composition of Specialty Societies? Women Are at Higher Risk for Concussions Due to Ball or Equipment Contact in Soccer and Lacrosse.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1