A simple cost-effective lactate dehydrogenase level measurement can stratify patients with Ewing’s tumor into low and high risk

C. M. L. da Costa1, A. Lopes2 and B. de Camargo1

1 Pediatric Department, 2 Orthopedic and Pelvic Surgery Department, Hospital do Cancer, São Paulo, Brazil

*E-mail: cmlcosta@ig.com.br

Identification of prognostic factors is essential in the treatment of cancer to distinguish low- and high-risk patients, thereby allowing stratification of patients for standard or intensified treatment protocols. Pretreatment levels of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) might be a useful marker to identify different risk levels in Ewing’s sarcoma [1].

We reviewed the experience of a single institution over 12 years to document overall survival and prognostic factors. This was based on the records of 105 children and adolescents with Ewing’s tumor of the bone treated from June 1984 to 1996. There were 54 males and 51 females. Ages ranged from 1 to 18 years (mean 10 years; median 11 years). The most common primary tumor sites were the pelvis (25 cases) and femur (24 cases). Fifty-seven had extremity lesions and 48 axial. Thirty-four presented with detectable metastases.

Serum LDH was measured at diagnosis in 72 patients, giving a mean of 370 U/l; 23% had LDH >370 U/l. Measurements of LDH were divided into two groups: below the mean value (<370 U/l) and above or equal to the mean (>=370 U/l).

The chemotherapy schedules were not uniform. Local therapy was individualized. Surgery was used whenever possible and radiotherapy was combined with surgery when surgical margins were positive or histological response (Huvos grade [2]) was poor (grade I/II). Combined therapy was administered in 93 patients: 53 chemotherapy plus surgery; 19 chemotherapy plus radiotherapy; and 21 chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. Twelve patients received only chemotherapy. The grade of necrosis in the primary tumor was evaluated in 52 cases, and 35 had grade III or IV histological responses.

Overall survival for the whole group was 50% after 5-year follow-up. Univariate analysis showed the following prognostic factors: raised LDH [hazard ratio (HR) 4.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.25–8.62, P <0.0001]; no clinical response to chemotherapy (HR 8.40, 95% CI 0.04–0.15, P <0.0001); tumor necrosis (HUVOS grade I/II) (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.09–0.58, P = 0.008); and metastases (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.15–3.45, P = 0.014). Cox multiple regression analysis showed that raised serum LDH levels (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.43–6.26, P = 0.003) and no clinical response to chemotherapy (HR 11.30, 95% CI 4.87–26.22, P <0.0001) were independent prognostic factors.

The 5-year survival rate of 50% in our institution is comparable with many other studies. Descriptions of prognostic factors in the literature have suggested that the most important are the presence of distant metastases at diagnosis, axial primary site, older patient age and larger tumor size [36]. In our series the most powerful prognostic factor to predict death and survival was the pretreatment serum LDH level. Clinical response to chemotherapy has been shown to be strongly correlated with outcome [4]. Histological response, using the Huvos classification, was a prognostic factor but not independent.

Our data suggest that pretreatment LDH level is a simple cost-effective prognostic factor that can be considered as a criterium to treat patients in different groups.

C. M. L. da Costa1*, A. Lopes2 & B. de Camargo1

1Pediatric Department, 2Orthopedic and Pelvic Surgery Department, Hospital do Cancer, São Paulo, Brazil (*E-mail: cmlcosta{at}ig.com.br)

References

1. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Longhi A et al. Prognostic significance of serum LDH in Ewing’s sarcoma of bone. Oncol Rep 1999; 6: 807–811.[ISI][Medline]

2. Huvos AG, Bone Tumors: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prognosis. 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders 1991.

3. Ahrens S, Hoffmann C, Jabar S et al. Evaluation of prognostic factors in a tumor volume-adapted treatment strategy for localized Ewing sarcoma of bone: the CESS 86 experience. Cooperative Ewing Sarcoma Study. Med Pediatr Oncol 1999; 32: 186–195.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

4. Picci P, Bohling T, Bacci G et al. Chemotherapy-induced tumor necrosis as a prognostic factor in localized Ewing’s sarcoma of the extremities. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 1553–1559.[Abstract]

5. Wunder JS, Paulian G, Huvos AG et al. The histological response to chemotherapy as a predictor of the oncological outcome of operative treatment of Ewing sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80: 1020–1033.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

6. Cotterill SJ, Ahrens S, Paulussen M et al. Prognostic factors in Ewing’s tumor of bone: analysis of 975 patients from the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing’s Sarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3108–3114.[Abstract/Free Full Text]





This Article
Full Text (PDF)
E-letters: Submit a response
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me when E-letters are posted
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by da Costa, C. M. L.
Articles by de Camargo, B.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by da Costa, C. M. L.
Articles by de Camargo, B.