Home            Past Issues            About IP            About IAP           Author Information            Subscription            Advertisement              Search  

   
research paper

Indian Pediatr 2017;54: 735-738

Pediatric Rhabdomyosarcoma in India: A Single-center Experience

 

Deepak Bansal, Anirban Das, Amita Trehan, *Rakesh Kapoor, #Naresh K Panda, $Radhika Srinivasan, Nandita Kakkar, ^Kushaljit S Sodhi, ^Akshay K Saxena and **Katragadda Lakshmi Narasimha Rao

From Pediatric Hematology/Oncology unit, Advanced Pediatrics Center, *Department of Radiotherapy, #Otolaryngology, $Cytology, Histopathology, ^Radiodiagnosis, and **Pediatric Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Correspondence to: Dr Deepak Bansal. Professor, Hematology-Oncology unit, Department of Pediatrics, Advanced Pediatrics Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Email: [email protected]

Received: October 01, 2016;
Initial review: December 27, 2016;
Accepted: July 07, 2017.



Objective:
Analyze the profile and outcome of children with rhabdomyosarcoma from a pediatric-oncology unit.

Design: Retrospective analysis of case records over 23 years (1990-2012).

Setting: Government-run, tertiary-care, university hospital in Northern India.

Participants: 159 children (<12-years) with a diagnosis of rhabdomyosarcoma were enrolled. The median age was 4 years; 13% were infants.

Main outcome measure: Five-year event free survival.

Results: The median symptom interval was 2-months. Head and neck region was the most frequent site (44%), followed by tumors in the extremity (15.7%). The majority (67%) of the tumors were located at ‘unfavorable’ sites; 68% were >5 cm in size. The most frequent (58%) pathological subtype was embryonal. Treatment was based on the ‘Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) Group’ risk-stratification. 33% were ‘low-risk’ children, 11% were ‘high-risk’. Treatment-refusal (18%) and abandonment (33%) were major impediments. The median ± SE five-year event free survival of those taking treatment was 43.6 ± 6%.

Conclusions: Large sized tumors, tumors at unfavorable locations, and treatment refusal/abandonment contributed to inferior outcome in children with rhabdomyosarcoma.

Keywords: Outcome, Sarcoma, Survival, Treatment refusal.


R
habdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most common soft-tissue sarcoma in children, with an annual incidence of 4.3/million below the age of 20 years [1]. Multimodality treatment has resulted in a 5-year survival of approximately 67% [2]. The current focus is on reduction of treatment-related toxicity, improving cure-rates for relapsed disease by inclusion of novel agents, and identification of newer prognostic factors for risk-adapted therapy [3].

There is limited data on the outcome of this disease from developing countries, including India [4-6]. The multidisciplinary approach mandated for managing RMS is often a hindrance for orchestrated treatment, as well as data collection in pediatric oncology units in developing countries. Selected studies from India have reported sub-optimal survival (13-25%) [4,5]. The factors contributing to poor survival include, treatment abandonment, infection related mortality, lack of surgical expertise for local disease-control, and failure to deliver chemotherapy in a timely manner due to poor compliance [4-6]. The aim was to analyze the profile and outcome of children with RMS from a pediatric oncology unit. The purpose was to characterize the disease profile in our population and to identify hindrances for improving survival.

Methods

The study was performed in a government-run, tertiary-care, university hospital in Northern India. A retrospective analysis of case-records of children (age <12 years at diagnosis) with RMS presenting to the pediatric-oncology clinic over a 23-year (1990-2012) period was performed after Institutional Ethical Clearance. The patients were classified by the ‘Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) Group’ staging and grouping system as low, intermediate or high-risk [7]. The IRS ‘group’ was determined after the initial surgical procedure, prior to systemic therapy and was based on the extent of residual tumor after surgery with consideration of regional lymph node involvement. The IRS ‘stage’ was based on tumor size, invasiveness, nodal status, and the site of primary tumor. The group and stage were both taken into consideration for the final risk stratification. The favorable sites included orbit, superficial head and neck, biliary tree, vagina, and para-testis; the remaining sites are considered unfavorable [7,8]. The tumor size was based on the largest dimension of the primary tumor reported in the pretreatment imaging. Nodal involvement was based on physical examination, imaging studies and/or node sampling at surgery. Pathology was classified as ‘embryonal,’ ‘alveolar,’ ‘pleomorphic’ or ‘not otherwise specified (NOS).’ Molecular tests were not available. Staging investigations included a computed tomography (CT) of the chest and a bone scan. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was examined for para-meningeal tumors. A bone marrow examination was performed for noticeable hematological abnormality, or in the presence of other sites of metastasis. Congenital RMS was defined as presentation within the first month of life with history of onset of symptoms since birth [9].

Treatment included neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, followed by surgical excision (wherever feasible), radiotherapy (for residual disease, if any, and, for inoperable tumors), and adjuvant chemotherapy, based on the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) protocols [7]. Low-risk patients received vincristine and actinomycin-D for 22 weeks, while intermediate and high-risk groups were treated with vincristine, actinomycin-D, and cyclophos-phamide for the duration of 43-weeks. The specific high-risk protocol was not administered due to apprehension regarding toxicity. The response was evaluated by radiological imaging (CT/Magnetic Resonance Imaging) following week 9-12 of chemotherapy. Survival estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Analysis was performed with SPSS v20.0 (IBM).

Results

The data of 159 patients was collected. The median age at presentation was 4 years (Interquartile range, IQR 2;7). There were 20 (13%) infants; 5 (3%) had congenital rhabdomyosarcoma. Nine (6%) children were >10 years at presentation. The male:female ratio was 2.7:1. The median symptom interval was 2 months (IQR 1;5). Head and neck region was the most frequent site (44%), followed by tumors in the extremity (15.7%) (Table I). Majority (67%) of the tumors were located at unfavorable sites. Size was documented in 101 patients; 69 (68%) were >5 cm. Nodal status was documented in 76 and was positive in 36 (47%). Thirteen (8%) had evidence of metastasis at diagnosis. The most frequent (58%) pathological subtype was embryonal. Information required for risk-stratification was available for 126; low-risk: 42 (33%), intermediate-risk: 70 (56%) and high-risk: 14 (11%) [7]. Of the 129 patients in whom treatment was initiated, surgery was performed in 63 (49%), while 54 (42%) received radiotherapy; 31 (24%) received both.

TABLE I	Details of Patients (N=159) with Rhabdomyosarcoma 
Characteristic No. (%)
Site
Para-meningeal 33 (20.8)
Extremity 25 (15.7)
Orbit 20 (12.6)
Head and neck: Others 17 (10.8)
Bladder 16 (10)
Pelvic/Abdomino-pelvic 15 (9.4)
Genitourinary(non-bladder/prostate) 13 (8.2)
Trunk 11 (6.9)
Retroperitoneal 3 (1.8)
Biliary 2 (1.3)
Others 5 (3.1)
Histological subtypes
Embryonal 92 (57.9)
Botryoid variant 6 (3.8)
Alveolar 8 (5)
Pleomorphic 6 (3.8)
Not otherwise specified 47 (29.6)

 

Caregivers of 28 (18%) patients refused treatment at the outset. In addition, 52 (33%) abandoned treatment at various phases of therapy. The remaining had a mean (SD) follow-up duration of 4.4 (2.6) years (range: 0.5-10), including two patients with ongoing treatment.

Among the 77 patients who completed treatment, there were 36 survivors, 7 with progressive disease, 5 deaths due to febrile neutropenia, and 29 relapses at a median duration of 11 months (IQR 7;15) following diagnosis. The latter received palliative care. Median ± SE five-year event-free survival (EFS) after excluding patients with treatment refusal/abandonment was 43.6 ± 6%. When abandonment/refusal were included as events, the 5-year EFS dropped to 21.3 ± 3.4% (Fig. 1). The last two years (2011-12) demonstrated a similar rate of refusal/abandonment (54% for 2011-12 versus 50% for 1990-2010). The survival was site-dependent; favorable sites, including orbit (EFS 57.1 ± 1.8%) demonstrated superior survival as compared to the following primary sites: parameningeal (35.2 ± 1.5%) extremities (36 ± 1.6%) and bladder-prostate (22.2 ± 1.2 %) (P=0.03).

Fig. 1 Five-year event-free survival in childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: (a) Excluding treatment refusal/abandonment; (b) Including treatment refusal/abandonment as events.

Discussion

The study reports 159 children with RMS over a 23-year (1990-2012) period. Several tumors were >5 cm in size at presentation. The majority were located at unfavorable sites. Treatment refusal and abandonment were major concerns. Overall, a 5-year EFS of 43.6 ± 6% was documented. Orbit as the primary site demonstrated superior survival as compared to parameningeal, extremities and bladder-prostrate primaries.

The limitations of the study include the extended duration of enrollment, precluding uniformity in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. In addition, high-risk protocol was not administered for likelihood of increasing treatment related mortality. Treatment refusal and abandonment were major predicaments.

The clinical and investigational profile of our patients was comparable to that reported from the West. Prevalence in infants (13%) was similar to previous reports (5-10%) [9]. The median age was consistent with prior SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-results Program) data, as well as previous reports from India [4-6, 10]. A size exceeding 5 cm has been demonstrated to be predictive of mortality [11]. This could plausibly imply a delayed referral. However, the impact of a delayed diagnosis on the outcome in RMS is ambiguous, plausibly due to the intrinsic biology of the tumor [12]. It is hypothesized that early presentation might signify a more aggressive biology. The proportion of tumors at unfavorable sites (67%) in this study was akin to that reported in a multi-institutional study (55%) [13]. The pathology was embryonal in 58% [14]. Pleomorphic RMS, rarely reported in children (1%), was described in 4% [13]. RMS-NOS was reported in 30%; previous reports noted a lower frequency (13%). This could plausibly be attributed to the pathologists’ inability at accurate characterization [13].

Earlier studies from India have reported inferior remission (25%) and cure-rates (13%) [4,5]. Survival in other developing countries, including Nigeria were sub-optimal (28%) [15]. More recent studies have reported encouraging results. Salman, et al. [16] from Lebanon reported a 5-year disease-free survival of 64%. A multi-centric study from China reported 10-year EFS of 53.4 ± 5.1% [17]. In 2012, Dua, et al. [6] from India reported an improved 5-year EFS of 57.1 ± 13.2% in a limited numbers of patients. The survival is superior in the more developed Asian countries, including Korea (5-year EFS: 59%) and Singapore (5-year EFS: 75%) [18,19]. Non-adherence to treatment has been previously reported from the two studies from India (30% and 60%) [4,5], and has been a major cause of inferior outcome in the developing world [20,21]. A complex interplay of biological, socio-economic and treatment-related factors underlie the challenge [21].

In conclusion, in comparison to the West, children with RMS from India had an inferior survival despite similar disease characteristics. Treatment refusal/abandonment were recognized as major impediments to improving outcome. The measures incorporated in the unit in the recent years to reduce abandonment include, repetitive counseling sessions with the extended family as stakeholders, active collection of government funds with the help of social workers provided by non-government organizations, support for nutrition, as well as tracking of defaulters. Incorporation of measures to improve survival need to be studied by future researchers.

Funding: None. Competing interests: None stated.


What is Already Known?

Five-year survival for pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma is sub-optimal in Indian centers.

What This Study Adds?

5-year Event-free Survival of 43.6 ± 6% was observed in Indian patients who received complete treatment.

Large sized tumors (68%), tumors at unfavorable location (67%), treatment-refusal (18%) and abandonment (33%) were identified as reasons for the sub-optimal outcome.


References

1. Wexler LH, Meyer WH, Helman LJ. Rhabdomyosarcoma. In: Pizzo PA, Poplack DG. Principles and practice of pediatric oncology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2011. p.923.

2. Gatta G, Botta L, Rossi S, Aareleid T, Bielska-Lasota M, Clavel J, et al; EUROCARE Working Group. Childhood cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007: results of EUROCARE-5 – a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:35-47.

3. Raney RB, Anderson JR, Barr FG, Donaldson SS, Pappo AS, Qualman SJ, et al. Rhabdomyosarcoma and undifferen-tiated sarcoma in the first two decades of life: A selective review of intergroup rhabdomyosarcoma study group experience and rationale for intergroup rhabdomyosarcoma study V. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2001;23:215-20.

4. Thavaraj V, Kumar R, Dawar R, Gupta DK, Mohanti BK, Singh R, et al. Treatment outcome and survival of rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) in children. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2001;37:286.

5. Mehta P, Swami A, Chaphekar M, Currimbhoy Z, Agarwal B. Soft tissue sarcoma (STS): Perspective from a paediatric cancer unit (PCU) at a trust hospital in Mumbai, India. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2004;43:475.

6. Dua V, Yadav SP, Prakash A, Sachdeva A. Encouraging treatment outcomes of pediatric rhabdomyo-sarcoma: a developing world experience. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2012;29:677-8.

7. Malempati S, Hawkins DS. Rhabdomyosarcoma: review of the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) Soft-Tissue Sarcoma Committee experience and rationale for current COG studies. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2012;59:5-10.

8. Womer RB, Barr FG, Linardic CM. Rhabdomyosarcoma. In: Orkin SH, Fisher DE, Ginsburg D, Thomas Look A, Lux SE, Nathan DG. Nathan and Oski’s Hematology and Oncology of Infancy and Childhood. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2015. p.1929.

9. Ferrari A, Casanova M, Bisogno G, Zanetti I, Cecchetto G, De Bernardi B, et al. Rhabdomyosarcoma in infants younger than one year old: a report from the Italian Cooperative Group. Cancer. 2003;97:2597-604.

10. Ognjanovic S, Linabery AM, Charbonneau B, Ross JA. Trends in childhood rhabdomyosarcoma incidence and survival in the United States, 1975-2005. Cancer. 2009;115:4218-26.

11. Ferrari A, Miceli R, Casanova M, Meazza C, Favini F, Luksch R, et al. The symptom interval in children and adolescents with soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer. 2010;116:177-83.

12. Ferrari A, Lo Vullo S, Giardiello D, Veneroni L, Magni C, Clerici CA, et al. The Sooner the better? How symptom interval correlates with outcome in children and adolescents with solid tumors: Regression Tree analysis of the findings of a prospective study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2016;63: 479-85.

13. Sultan I, Qaddoumi I, Yaser S, Rodriguez-Galindo C, Ferrari A. Comparing adult and pediatric rhabdomyosarcoma in the surveillance, epidemiology and end results program, 1973 to 2005: an analysis of 2,600 patients. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3391-7.

14. Maurer HM, Gehan EA, Beltangady M, Veneroni L, Magni C, Clerici CA, et al. The Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study-II. Cancer. 1993;71:1904-22

15. Uba FA, Chirdan LB. Clinical characteristics and outcome of surgical treatment of childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: A 7-year experience. Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2008;5:19-23.

16. Salman M, Tamim H, Medlej F, El-Ariss T, Saad F, Boulos F, et al. Rhabdomyosarcoma treatment and outcome at a multidisciplinary pediatric cancer center in Lebanon. Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2012;29:322-34.

17. Ma X, Huang D, Zhao W, Sun L, Xiong H, Zhang Y, et al. Clinical characteristics and prognosis of childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: A ten-year retrospective multicenter study. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8:17196-205.

18. Park JA, Kim EK, Kang HJ, Shin HY, Kim IH, Ahn HS. Initial response to treatment was highly associated with the prognosis of childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: a retrospective analysis of a single center experience in Korea. Cancer Res Treat. 2008;40:111-5.

19. Aung L, Soe TA, Chang KT, Quah TC. Singapore rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) experience: Shall we change our practice? Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2014;43:86-95.

20. Arora RS, Pizer B, Eden T. Understanding refusal and abandonment in the treatment of childhood cancer. Indian Pediatr. 2010;47:1005-10.

21. Arora RS, Eden T, Pizer B. The problem of treatment abandonment in children from developing countries with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;49:941-6.

 

Copyright © 1999-2017 Indian Pediatrics