Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
Jelena Lukovic , Fatima Alfaraj , Michelle Lynn Mierzwa , Gustavo Nader Marta , Wei Xu , Jie Su , Fabio Ynoe de Moraes , Shao Hui Huang , Scott Victor Bratman , Brian O'Sullivan , John Kim , Jolie Ringash , John Waldron , John R. de Almeida , David Paul Goldstein , Andrew Rosko , Mathew E Spector , Luiz Paulo Kowalski , Andrew Hope , Ali Hosni
Background: We developed and validated a prediction-score for distant metastases (DM) in major salivary gland carcinoma (SGC). Methods: Patients with SGC treated with curative-intent surgery +/- postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) at 4 tertiary cancer centers were divided into discovery (institution A&B) and validation (institution C&D) cohorts. Multivariable analysis using competing risk regression was used to identify predictors of DM in the discovery cohort and create a prediction score. The optimal score cut-off for high vs low-DM risk was determined using a minimal p-value approach. The results were subsequently evaluated in the validation cohort. The cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meier methods were used to analyze DM and overall survival (OS), respectively. Results: Overall, 1035 patients were included (Table). In the discovery cohort, DM predictors (risk score coefficient) were: positive margin (0.6), pT3-4 (0.7), pN+ (0.7), lymphovascular invasion (LVI; 0.8), and high risk histology* (1.2). High DM-risk SGC was defined by sum of coefficients greater than 2. In the discovery cohort, the 5-year cumulative incidence of DM for high vs low risk SGC was 50% vs 8%; p < 0.01; these results were similar in the validation cohort (44% vs 4% at 5 years; p < 0.01). In the combined cohorts, this model predicted distant-only failure (40% vs 6%, p < 0.01) and late ( > 2yr post surgery) DM (22% vs 4%; p < 0.01). Patients with high DM-risk SGC had an increased incidence of DM in the subgroup receiving PORT (46% vs 8%; p < 0.01) or concurrent chemotherapy (71% vs 34%; p < 0.01). The 5-yr OS for high vs low risk SGC was 48% vs 92% (p < 0.01). Conclusions: This validated prediction score model may be used to identify SGC patients at increased risk for DM and select those who may benefit from prospective evaluation of treatment intensification and/or surveillance strategies. Baseline characteristics.
Discovery (n=619) N (%) | Validation (n=416) N (%) | p | |
---|---|---|---|
Median follow up, yrs | 5.3 | 5 | |
Median age, yrs | 56 | 57 | 0.19 |
Parotid subsite | 518(84) | 329(79) | 0.07 |
LVI | 92(15) | 47(11) | 0.11 |
Positive margin | 215(35) | 158(38) | 0.6 |
High risk histology* | 372(60) | 224(54) | 0.04 |
pT3-4 | 224(36) | 129(31) | 0.09 |
pN+ | 145(23) | 89(21) | 0.45 |
PORT | 472(76) | 285(69) | <0.01 |
5-yr DM (95% CI) | 20% (17-24%) | 14% (11-18%) | 0.03 |
*High risk histology: adenoid cystic carcinoma, salivary duct carcinoma, carcinosarcoma, undifferentiated carcinoma, grade (G) 2-3 adenocarcinoma, G2-3 mucoepidermoid carcinoma, G2-3 carcinoma ex-pleomorphic adenoma, other G3 histology.
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Badr Id Said
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Yoshiaki Nagatani
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Edward Christopher Dee
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Manja Bloem