Open Access

The clinical use of biomarkers as prognostic factors in Ewing sarcoma

  • Annmeik M van Maldegem1,
  • Pancras CW Hogendoorn3 and
  • Andrew B Hassan1, 2Email author
Clinical Sarcoma Research20122:7

https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-3329-2-7

Received: 25 June 2011

Accepted: 8 February 2012

Published: 8 February 2012

Abstract

Ewing Sarcoma is the second most common primary bone sarcoma with 900 new diagnoses per year in Europe (EU27). It has a poor survival rate in the face of metastatic disease, with no more than 10% survival of the 35% who develop recurrence. Despite the remaining majority having localised disease, approximately 30% still relapse and die despite salvage therapies. Prognostic factors may identify patients at higher risk that might require differential therapeutic interventions. Aside from phenotypic features, quantitative biomarkers based on biological measurements may help identify tumours that are more aggressive. We audited the research which has been done to identify prognostic biomarkers for Ewing sarcoma in the past 15 years. We identified 86 articles were identified using defined search criteria. A total of 11,625 patients were reported, although this number reflects reanalysis of several cohorts. For phenotypic markers, independent reports suggest that tumour size > 8 cm and the presence of metastasis appeared strong predictors of negative outcome. Good histological response (necrosis > 90%) after treatment appeared a significant predictor for a positive outcome. However, data proposing biological biomarkers for practical clinical use remain un-validated with only one secondary report published. Our recommendation is that we can stratify patients according to their stage and using the phenotypic features of metastases, tumour size and histological response. For biological biomarkers, we suggest a number of validating studies including markers for 9p21 locus, heat shock proteins, telomerase related markers, interleukins, tumour necrosis factors, VEGF pathway, lymphocyte count, and a number of other markers including Ki-67.

Keywords

Ewing sarcoma prognostic biomarkers

Introduction

Ewing sarcoma is the second most common primary bone sarcoma. It is an orphan state disease with approximately 900 new diagnoses a year in Europe [1]. It is also called the Ewing Sarcoma Family of Tumours (ESFT) and includes Ewing sarcoma of bone, extra-osseous Ewing sarcoma, Primitive Neuroectodermal (PNET) and Askin's tumours. Ewing sarcoma is diagnostically defined by a Ewing sarcoma EWS (chromosome 22) translocation resulting in fusion with an ETS transcription factor, the commonest abnormality (85%) being EWS-FLI1 (chromosome 11). Ewing sarcoma is a disease affecting children and young adults with a peak incidence at age fifteen. With current treatment options the 5 year survival for non-metastatic disease is 60-70%. However, survival for the 25% of patients that present with metastatic disease is approximately 20% [2], and for those who develop relapsed and/or refractory disease, the survival is no more than 10%.

Current patients are subdivided by disease stage, namely non-metastatic, metastatic and recurrence, and patients in each group are treated the same. But apparently this subdivision is not always related to clinical outcome, because of the patients who present with non-metastatic disease, approximately 30% die within 5 years. This group may be currently undertreated while the 70% who survive may be over-treated. It may therefore be important to separate the high risk patients from the low risk patients and to be able to detect chemotherapy resistance and metastases early.

A way of predicting patients' outcome is by using prognostic factors. The most commonly used are clinical features, eg age, gender, metastases. Biomarker is a synonym for biological markers and is defined as "a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processor or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention" [3]. Biomarkers are currently already being used for screening, diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of cancer patients. In 2005 the Reporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) guidelines were published [4]. The goal of these guidelines is to make the results from clinical prognostic studies transparent and to improve the level of comparison that is possible between studies.

We report an overview of the research which has been done to identify reliable biomarkers for Ewing sarcoma in the past 15 years, where we detail the kind of markers that have been tested, the number of patients involved and the p-value showing the significance of the marker. The results highlight some interesting biomarkers, but they have yet to be validated.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

We report data available in the public domain only. Papers were identified from PubMed searches and from references in the found articles. The search algorithm was: (Ewing sarcoma) AND (prognostic factors) OR (biomarker). Only papers published between 1995 and 2010 are included. The latest search was done in June 2010. Whenever multiple reports from the same study were published, we used only the report with the latest published date to avoid any duplication of information. Papers were eligible if they: (1) described (or cited a paper that described) a Ewing sarcoma study of prognostic factors or biomarkers; (2) were published in English; and (3) came from industrialized countries. All types of evaluation were accepted (full papers, conference abstracts, reports) as long as results (including data) were presented.

Data extraction

Data extraction was conducted independently by the first author (A.M. v. M.). We used a systematic method for the search normally used for meta-analysis [5]. Differences in data extraction were resolved by consensus with a second author (A.B.H). From each eligible trial we recorded authors' names, journal and year of publication and the results from the study.

Results and Discussion

Eligible trials

A flow-chart indicating the identification of reports for inclusion in the analysis is reported for Ewing sarcoma (Figure 1). During the search many reports had to be excluded mainly because no prognostic markers were reported in the article. When we searched the reports using full text, we had to exclude some papers because no Ewing sarcoma patients were included in these reports. We identified 86 articles which were eligible for our search criteria. In these papers a total of 11, 625 patients were reported.
Figure 1

Flowchart for the identification of eligible reports.

In this report we looked at the published data on the use of biomarkers for the last 15 years. Biomarkers were grouped into phenotypic markers and biological markers. Markers were taken as statistically significant if p < 0.05. For phenotypic markers we reported the outcome for gender, tumour size, presence of metastases and histological response after treatment (Tables 1, 2, 3 & 4). We showed the p-value reported in the eligible articles and the distribution of p correlated to the number of patients (Figures 2). There doesn't seem to be a relationship between the number of patients and the p-value. For example, the distribution of histological response shows that the studies with small patient numbers have the same statistical significance as these with large patient numbers. Throughout this report, the assumption is that the biomarker has a linear relationship to outcome. We know that for many biomarkers, this is not the case. For example, data transformation using either bicubic splines or fractional polynomials is often required to correlate continuous relationships between biomarkers and outcome, as opposed to predefined cutpoints [6]. We can only have limited extrapolation of the reported data to outcome as in most instances these questions have not been addressed.
Table 1

Outcome for phenotypic marker: gender

Author

Year

Pt number

P

Craft et al, Eur J Cancer 33 (7), 1061-9[8]

1997

142

0.3

Aparicio et al, Oncology 55, 20-6 [9]

1998

116

NS

Ahrens et al, Med Pediatr Oncol 32, 186-95 [10]

1999

177

0.92

Ginsberg et al, J Clin Oncol 17, 1809-14[11]

1999

85

0.79

Givens et al, Int J Oncol 14 (6), 1039-43[12]

1999

85

NS

Bacci et al, J Clin Oncol 18, 4-11[13]

2000

359

0.02

Jenkin et al, Med Pediatr Oncol 37, 383-9[14]

2001

93

0.73

Krasin et al, Cancer 104, 367-73[15]

2005

33

0.25

Bacci et al, Acta Oncol 45, 469-75[16]

2006

579

0.03

De Angulo et al, J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 29 (1), 48-52[17]

2007

24

NS

Leavey et al, Pediatr Blood Cancer 51 (3), 334-8[18]

2008

262

0.05

Jawad et al, Cancer 115, 3526-36[19]

2009

1631

0.004

Kikuta et al, Clin Cancer Res 15 (8), 2885-94[20]

2009

8

0.53

Sari et al, Pediatr Blood Cancer 54, 19-24[21]

2010

87

0.04

Xie et al, Chin J Cancer 29 (4), 420-4

2010

18

0.36

NS: not significant

Table 2

Outcome for phenotypic marker: tumour size

Author

Year

Pt number

P

Aparicio et al, Oncology 55, 20-6[9]

1998

116

0.0016

Kawai et al, Cancer 82, 851-9[22]

1998

20

0.0038

Ahmad et al, Cancer 85, 725-31[23]

1999

24

0.277

Givens et al Int J Oncol 14 (6), 1039-43[12]

1999

85

NS

Cotterill et al, J Clin Oncol 18, 3108-14[24]

2000

975

0.001

De Alava et al, Cancer 89, 783-92[25]

2000

55

0.02

Jenkin et al, Med Pediatr Oncol 37, 383-9[14]

2001

93

0.0001

Oberlin et al, B J Cancer 85 (11), 1646-54[26]

2001

141

0.002

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

13

0.05

Krasin et al, Pediatr Blood Cancer 43, 229-36[28]

2004

37

S

Matsunobu et al, Clin Cancer Res 10, 1003-12[29]

2004

21

0.05

Krasin et al, Cancer 104, 367-73[28]

2005

33

0.25

Aksnes et al, Acta Oncol 45, 38-46[30]

2006

56

0.001

Bacci et al, Acta Oncol 45, 469-75[16]

2006

579

0.0004

Mikulic et al, J Pediatr Surg 41, 524-9[31]

2006

27

0.031

Cheung et al, Clin Cancer Res 13 (23), 6978-83[32]

2007

28

NS

Rodriguez-Galindo et al, Ann Oncol 19, 814-20[33]

2008

220

0.018

Yonemori et al, J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134, 389-95[34]

2008

79

S

Jawad et al, Cancer 115, 3526-36[19]

2009

1631

0.001

Kikuta et al, Clin Cancer Res 15 (8), 2885-94[20]

2009

8

0.018

Lee et al, Cancer 116, 1964-73[35]

2010

725

0.001

Xie et al, Chin J Cancer 29 (4), 420-4

2010

18

0.44

NS: not significant, S: significant

Table 3

Outcome for phenotypic marker: metastases

Author

Year

Pt number

P

Terrier et al, Eur J Cancer 31 (3), 307-14[36]

1995

315

0.003

Terrier et al, Semin Diagn Pathol 13 (3), 250-7[37]

1996

315

S

Aparicio et al, Oncology 55, 20-6[9]

1998

116

0.03

De Alava et al, J Clin Oncol 16 (4), 1248-55[38]

1998

99

0.008

Paulussen et al, J Clin oncol 16 99), 3044-52[39]

1998

114

S

Ahmad et al, Cancer 85, 725-31[23]

1999

24

0.219

Baldini et al, Ann Surg 230 (1), 79-86[40]

1999

37

0.002

Ginsberg et al, J Clin Oncol 17, 1809-14[11]

1999

85

0.33

Luksch et al, Tumori 85 (2), 101-7[41]

1999

73

S

Cotterill et al, J Clin Oncol 18, 3108-14[24]

2000

975

0.0001

De Alava et al, Cancer 89, 783-92[25]

2000

55

0.02

Wei et al, Cancer 89, 793-9[42]

2000

39

0.001

Jenkin et al, Med Pediatr Oncol 37, 383-9[14]

2001

93

0.04

Zielenska et al, Cancer 91, 2156-64[43]

2001

26

0.0137

Martin et al, Arch Surg 138, 281-5[44]

2003

59

0.02

Fuchs et al, Clin Cancer Res 10, 1344-53[45]

2004

31

0.022

Matsunobu et al, Clin Cancer Res 10, 1003-12[29]

2004

21

NS

Weston et al, B J Cancer 91, 225-32[46]

2004

385

0.001

Aksnes et al, Acta Oncol 45, 38-46[30]

2006

56

0.001

Kreuter, Eur J Cancer 45, 1904-11[47]

2006

40

S

La et al, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 64 (2), 544-50[48]

2006

60

0.036

Cheung et al, Clin Cancer Res 13 (23), 6978-83[32]

2007

28

0.04

Leavey et al, Pediatr blood Cancer 51 (3), 334-8[18]

2008

262

0.02

Yonemori et al, J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134, 389-95[34]

2008

79

0.02

Jawad et al, Cancer 115, 3526-36[19]

2009

385

0.001

Sari et al, Pediatr Blood Cancer 54, 19-24[21]

2010

87

0.001

Xie et al, Chin J Cancer 29 (4), 420-4

2010

18

0.01

NS: not significant, S: significant

Table 4

Outcome for phenotypic marker: histological response

Author

Year

Pt number

P

Delepine et al, J Chemother 9 (5), 352-63[49]

1997

39

0.05

Picci et al, J Clin Oncol 15 (4), 1553-9[50]

1997

118

0.0001

Aparicio et al, Oncology 55, 20-6[9]

1998

116

0.018

Paulussen et al, J Clin Oncol 16 (9), 3044-52[39]

1998

114

S

Abudu et al, J Bone Joint Surg 81 (2), 317-22[51]

1999

50

0.03

Ahrens et al, Med Pediatr Oncol 32, 186-95[10]

1999

177

0.27

Baldini et al, Ann Surg 230 (1), 79-86[40]

1999

37

0.01

Bacci et al, J Clin Oncol 18, 4-11[13]

2000

359

0.001

De Alava et al, Cancer 89, 783-92[25]

2000

55

0.001

Ohali et al, J Clin Oncol 21, 3836-43[52]

2003

31

0.0001

Scotlandi et al, Eur J Cancer 41, 1349-61[53]

2005

113

0.05

Bacci et al, Acta Oncol 45, 469-75[16]

2006

579

0.0005

Mikulic et al, J Pediatr Surg 41, 524-9[31]

2006

27

0.047

Avigad et al, Clin Cancer Res 13 (19), 5777-83[54]

2007

32

0.13

Yonemori, J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 134, 389-95v [34]

2008

79

0.04

Meynet et al, Cancer Res 70 (9), 3730-8[55]

2010

97

0.02

S: significant

Figure 2

Distribution of p related to patient number for the phenotypic markers: gender, tumour size, metastases and histological response. The red line shows the cut-off point of p = 0.05.

Primary outcome

The investigated biomarkers are subdivided in two groups, phenotypic markers and biological markers. For the phenotypic markers gender, tumour size, metastases and histological response are reported in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. For all these phenotypic markers we compared the patient number and p-value, in which p < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. However we weren't able to retrieve the p-value in all articles, sometimes it was only mentioned as being significant or non-significant. For each phenotypic marker we looked at the differences in overall survival between: for gender, men vs women; for tumour size, < 8-10 cm vs > 8- 10 cm; for metastasis presence at initial presentation vs absence and for histological response, > 90% necrosis vs < 90% necrosis. Distributions of p related to patient numbers in these four phenotypic markers are shown in Figures 2. For these four phenotypic markers we show that there is no correlation between the number of patients and the statistical significance of the outcome. More phenotypic markers were reported: fusion type, ethnicity, performance status and margins. However because of the low number of studies which reported these outcomes these results are not shown in detail. In 26 articles the impact of tumour site on the overall survival is shown, but because sites are compared in different ways it is difficult to summarize these findings.

Currently clinical stage is being used to determine whether a patient has a high or low risk for developing metastases or recurrence. However, it seems that clinical stage is not always related to outcome, because of the patients who present with non-metastatic disease, only 70% of them survive for 5-years. Therefore, what is the difference between the 70% of the patients who survive and the 30% who don't? Can one somehow foretell chemotherapy resistance and detect metastases early? One way to predict the outcome of patients apart from clinical stage is to use biomarkers. These are objective measurements which reflect biological processes. The biomarkers currently being used are tumour size and the presence of metastases. Biological markers are not being used, even though they may provide a way to predict a patient's outcome more accurately than phenotypic markers. From the results for phenotypic markers we can see that gender is probably not significant important for patient outcome. In 15 articles we found 11 reports that gender is non-significant. Tumour size > 8 cm seems to be important, with 15 out of 22 articles finding it to be a predictor and significantly related to negative outcome. The presence of metastasis is a strong predictor of negative outcome with 24 articles reporting it as significantly relevant compared to only 3 reporting it as non-significant. For histological response, 12 out of 16 articles found that necrosis > 90% after treatment is a significant predictor for positive outcome.

For some phenotypic markers it is unclear how the cut-off point between predictor of positive or negative outcomes is determined. For tumour size the cut-off point for negative outcome is > 8 cm, but it is undefined how this is selected. It seems more logical that tumour size is a continuous variable with an increasingly negative outcome with increasing size. The same can probably be said for age and surgical margins.

Biological markers are more difficult to compare, because for most of these markers only one or two reports are published. We grouped the biological markers according to their function and we ended up with 5 groups, namely cell cycle, karyotype, immunological, blood products and the remaining biological markers which couldn't be classified in one of the other groups. The results from the biological markers are shown in Tables 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The correlation between patient number and statistical significance of the outcome for the five groups is shown in Figures 3. We show that there is no correlation between the patient number and the statistical significance of the outcome. It appears that ki67, an S-phase cell cycle biomarker, may be a biomarker of cell activity in the tumour that significantly correlates with outcome. The mechanism for the activation of cell cycle appears unclear, but is presumably driven by other factors other that EWS-FLI1 translocation. Loss of function of cell cycle dependent kinases (p16, p14, p21) and other regulators of the cell cycle through the p53 pathway (MDM2, p53), also appear deregulate in a proportion of tumours and potentially are useful prognostic markers. Importantly, activity of telomerase appears significantly correlated with outcome as occurs in many other tumours. There appears much interest in secondary copy number changes and mutations in Ewing sarcoma, and in particular, chromosome 1 (Table 6). For example, recent evidence points to gain of 1q and alteration in abundance of a gene product called CDt2 involved in ubiquitination [7]. It is however difficult to objectively say anything about the other reported markers because they may influence each other. This appears most clear for tumour size and metastases, where bigger tumours may correlate with a higher chance of having metastases. For biological markers it is probably the same issue, but less clear because we don't really know their true experimental influence on tumour genesis. For example, LDH levels are probably a reflection of cell turnover in larger tumours, and may be an indirect measure of bulk of disease (comparing Table 2 versus Table 9). It is also more difficult to say anything about biological markers because they haven't been tested as extensively as phenotypic markers, and certainly they have not often been validated independently. Results for most of these markers are only reported in 1 or 2 articles with sometimes small numbers of patients and no statistical validation. To improve this situation it would important to capture high quality clinical material and clinical outcome to develop a bio-bank. We may be able to test the most promising biomarkers from previously run studies and so define their significance. Either a multivariate analysis or data mining analysis should be done to evaluate the way biomarkers affect each other. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by collecting material and outcome data from large phase III trials. It is also important to standardize the way material is collected and how the biomarkers are compared. For example, the phenotypic marker tumour site is the most often tested marker with results published in 26 articles (data not shown). However it is not possible to say anything about these results since different tumour sites are compared in the reports. This is also true for the marker age in which different age groups are compared with each other, for example some articles compare patients < 18 years vs > 18 years, others < 30 years vs > 30 years (data not shown).
Table 5

Outcome for biological markers: cell cycle

Author

Year

Biomarker

Pt number

P

Landanyi et al, J Pathol 175 (2), 211-7

1995

MDM-2

30

0.005

Luksch et al, Tumori 85 (2), 101-7[41]

1999

Mitose presence

73

S

Sollazzo et al, tumori 85 (3), 167-73[56]

1999

Ki-67

38

0.01

De Alava et al, Cancer 89, 783-92[25]

2000

Ki-67

55

0.005

Abudu et al, Br J Cancer 79(7-8), 1185-9[57]

1999

P53

50

0.02

Huang et al, J Clin Oncol 23, 548-58[58]

2005

P53

60

0.001

Matsunobu et al, C;in Cancer Res 10, 1003-12[29]

2004

P27

21

0.01

Wei et al, Cancer 89, 793-9[42]

2000

INK4a

39

0.001

Maitra et al, Arch Pathol Lab Med 125, 1207-12[59]

2001

P16INK4a

20

0.41

Maitra et al, Arch Pathol Lab Med 125, 1207-12[59]

2001

P14ARF

20

NS

Huang et al, J Clin Oncol 23, 548-58[58]

2005

P16/p14ARF

60

0.03

Maitra et al, Arch Pathol Lab Med 125, 1207-12[59]

2001

P21WAF1

20

0.61

Ohali et al, Oncogene 23, 8997-9006[60]

2004

Cadherin-11

20

0.024

Cheung et al, Clin Cancer Res 13 (23), 6978-83[32]

2007

STEAP1

28

0.0012

Cheung et al, Clin Cancer Res 13 (23), 6978-83[32]

2007

CCND1

28

0.0077

Martins et al, Cancer Res 68 (15), 6260-70[61]

2008

Heat shock 90

54

S

Zanini et al, Virchows Arch 452, 157-67[62]

2008

Heat shock 27

unknown

NS

S: significant, NS: not significant

Table 6

Outcome for biological markers: karyotype

Author

Year

Biomarker

Pt number

P

Tarkannen et al, Cancer Genet Cytogenet 114, 35-41

1999

1q

28

NS

Hattinger et al, Br J Cancer 86, 1763-9[63]

2002

1q

134

0.046

Tarkannen et al, Cancer Genet Cytogenet 114, 35-41

1999

6p2.1

28

0.004

Lopez-Guerrero et al, Lab Invest 81 (6), 803-14[64]

2001

9p21 locus

19

0.005

Hattinger et al, Br J Cancer 86, 1763-9[63]

2002

16q

134

0.008

Hattinger et al, Genes Chromosomes Cancer 24 (3), 243-54[65]

1999

Chr 1

58

0.004

Tarkannen et al, Cancer Genet Cytogenet 114, 35-41

1999

Chr 8

28

NS

Hattinger et al, Genes Chromosomes Cancer 24 (3), 243-54[65]

1999

Chr 8

58

0.17

Hattinger et al, Br J Cancer 86, 1763-9[63]

2002

Chr 8

134

NS

Tarkannen et al, Cancer Genet Cytogenet 114, 35-41

1999

Chr 12

28

NS

Hattinger et al, Genes Chromosomes Cancer 24 (3), 243-54 [65]

1999

Chr 12

58

0.63

Hattinger et al, Br J Cancer 86, 1763-9[63]

2002

Chr 12

134

0.009

Ohali et al, J Clin Oncol 21, 3836-43[52]

2003

Telomerase activity

31

0.0001

Avigad et al, Clin Cancer Res 13 (19), 5777-83[54]

2007

Telomerase length

32

0.015

NS: not significant, Chr: Chromosome

Table 7

Outcome for biological markers: immunological

Author

Year

Biomarker

Pt number

P

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

IL-1ra

13

0.0001

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

sIL-2ra

13

0.005

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

IL-6

13

0.001

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

IL-8

13

0.0001

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

IL-10

13

0.01

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

TNF RI

13

0.001

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

TNF RII

13

0.01

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

M-CSF

13

0.01

Berghuis et al, J Pathol 218, 222-31[66]

2009

HLA class I

67

NS

NS: not significant

Table 8

Outcome for biological markers: blood products

Author

Year

Biomarker

Pt number

P

Holzer et al, Med Pediatr Oncol 36 (6), 601-4[67]

2001

VEGF

6

NS

Pavlakovic et al, Int J Cancer 92, 756-60 [68]

2001

VEGF

4

0.017

Rutkowski et al, J Surg Oncol 84, 151-9[27]

2003

VEGF

13

NS

Fuchs et al, Clin Cancer Res 10, 1344-53[45]

2004

VEGF

31

0.0047

Jimeno et al, Pediatr Blood Cancer 49, 352-7[69]

2007

VEGF

16

NS

Kreuter et al, Eur J Cancer 42, 1904-11[47]

2006

VEGF-A

40

0.013

Kreuter et al, Eur J Cancer 42, 1904-11[47]

2006

VEGFR-1

40

0.946

Kreuter et al, Eur J Cancer 42, 1904-11[47]

2006

VEGFR-2

40

0.946

Aparicio et al, Oncology 55, 20-6[9]

1998

Lymphocyte count

116

0.0044

De Angulo et al, J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 29 (1), 48-52[17]

2007

Lymphocyte count

24

0.001

De Angulo et al, J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 29 (1), 48-52 [17]

2007

Platelet count

24

NS

De Angulo et al, J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 29 (1), 48-52[17]

2007

Neutrophil count

24

NS

Aparicio et al, Oncology 55, 20-6[9]

1998

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

116

0.02

Oberlin et al, B J Cancer 85 (11), 1646-54[26]

2001

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

141

0.04

Yabe et al, Oncol Rep 19 (1), 129-34[70]

2008

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

20

NS

NS: not significant

Table 9

Outcome for biological markers: remaining

Author

Year

Biomarker

Pt number

P

Craft et al, Eur J Cancer 33 (7), 1061-9[8]

1997

LDH

142

NS

Aparicio et al, Oncology 55, 20-6[9]

1998

LDH

116

0.001

Givens et al, Int J Oncol 14 (6), 1039-43[12]

1999

LDH

85

NS

Bacci et al, Oncol Rep 6 (4), 807-11[71]

1999

LDH

618

S

Luksch et al, Tumori 85 (2), 101-7[41]

1999

LDH

73

S

Bacci et al, J Clin Oncol 18, 4-11[13]

2000

LDH

359

0.0003

Matsunobu et al, Clin Cancer Res 10, 1003-12[29]

2004

LDH

21

NS

Bacci et al, Acta Oncol 45, 469-75[16]

2006

LDH

579

0.0005

Cheung et al, Clin Cancer Res 13 (23), 6978-83[32]

2007

LDH

28

0.99

Yabe et al, Oncol Rep 19 (1), 129-34[70]

2008

LDH

20

NS

Leavey et al, Pediatr Blood Cancer 51 (3), 334-8[18]

2008

LDH

262

0.0016

Xie et al, Chin J Cancer 29 (4), 420-4

2010

LDH

18

NS

Terrier et al, Eur J Cancer 31 (3), 307-14[36]

1995

Filigree pattern

315

0.044

Terrier et al, Eur J Cancer 31 (3), 307-14[36]

1995

Dark cells

315

0.043

Aparicio et al, Oncology 55, 20-6[9]

1998

Albumine levels

116

0.0006

Sollazzo et al, Tumori 85 (3), 167-73[56]

1999

c-myc

38

S

Ohali et al, Oncogene 23, 8997-9006[60]

2004

MTA1

20

0.003

Cheung et al, Clin Cancer Res 13 (23), 6978-83[32]

2007

NKX2-2

28

0.0017

Kikuta et al, Clin Cancer Res 15 (8), 2885-94[20]

2009

Nucleophosmin positivity

8

0.01

Meynet et al, Cancer Res 70 (9), 3730-8[55]

2010

Xg expression

97

0.047

S: significant, NS: not significant

Figure 3

Distribution of p related to patient number for the biological markers related to cell cycle, karyotype, immunological, blood products and remaining markers. The red line shows the cut-off point of p = 0.05. Note, there is no line for immunological phenotypic markers because for all the results p < 0.05.

For markers of tumour growth, angiogenesis if often quantified, but so far biomarker analysis has been predominantly limited to measurement of VEGF pathway (Table 8). The immunological biological markers interleukins and tumour necrosis factors seem very promising (Table 7). However these have all been tested in one institute, with very small patient numbers and the data doesn't seem to be validated. Most of the biological markers mentioned in the blood products group (Table 8) are probably surrogates for tumour size and they should be validated in either a multivariate analysis or machine learning to see if they can be used as an objective biological marker.

At the present time it is no possible to make a definite list of biological biomarkers able to predict patient outcome, mainly because these markers also have to be stratified with respect to the major staging phenotypic features, e.g. presence of metastasis and degree of histological response. It is also unclear what quality control measure were used in the limited patient cohorts. Our recommendation would be continue divide patients according to their disease stage and also to use the phenotypic biomarkers metastasis, tumour size and histological response. For biological biomarkers we would like to validate previous work done on the markers for 9p21 locus and the involved genes and proteins, heat shock proteins, telomerase related markers, interleukins, tumour necrosis factors, VEGF pathway, lymphocyte count, MTA1, STEAP1, CCND1, MDM-2, Ki-67, p53, p27 and cadherin-11. At this time, neither phenotypic (clinical) or biological biomarkers are utilised in stratification of patients in clinical trials.

Lists of abbreviations

LDH: 

Lactate dehydrogenase

REMARK: 

Reporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies

ESFT: 

Sarcoma Family of Tumours

PNET: 

Primitive Neuroectodermal.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank EuroBoNeT FP6 ROK for funding and the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre for support.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Oncology, University of Oxford
(2)
Sir William Dunn School of Pathology, University of Oxford
(3)
Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre

References

  1. Gatta G, van der Zwan JM, Casali PG, Siesling S, Dei Tos AP, Kunkler I, Otter R, Licitra L, Mallone S, Tavilla A: Rare cancers are not so rare: The rare cancer burden in Europe. Eur J Cancer. 2011, 47: 2493-2511. 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.08.008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Rodriguez-Galindo C, Navid F, Liu T, Billups CA, Rao BN, Krasin MJ: Prognostic factors for local and distant control in Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. Ann Oncol. 2008, 19: 814-820.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001, 69: 89-95.Google Scholar
  4. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM: REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Br J Cancer. 2005, 93: 387-391. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602678PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hamada C: The role of meta-analysis in cancer clinical trials. Int J Clin Oncol. 2009, 14: 90-94. 10.1007/s10147-008-0876-xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Stocken DD, Hassan AB, Altman DG, Billingham LJ, Bramhall SR, Johnson PJ, Freemantle N: Modelling prognostic factors in advanced pancreatic cancer. Br J Cancer. 2008, 99: 883-893. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604568PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Mackintosh C, Ordonez JL, Garcia-Dominguez DJ, Sevillano V, Llombart-Bosch A, Szuhai K, Scotlandi K, Alberghini M, Sciot R, Sinnaeve F: 1q gain and CDT2 overexpression underlie an aggressive and highly proliferative form of Ewing sarcoma. Oncogene. 2011,Google Scholar
  8. Craft AW, Cotterill SJ, Bullimore JA, Pearson D: Long-term results from the first UKCCSG Ewing's Tumour Study (ET-1). United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group (UKCCSG) and the Medical Research Council Bone Sarcoma Working Party. Eur J Cancer. 1997, 33: 1061-1069. 10.1016/S0959-8049(97)00043-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Aparicio J, Munarriz B, Pastor M, Vera FJ, Castel V, Aparisi F, Montalar J, Badal MD, Gomez-Codina J, Herranz C: Long-term follow-up and prognostic factors in Ewing's sarcoma. A multivariate analysis of 116 patients from a single institution. Oncology. 1998, 55: 20-26. 10.1159/000011841View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ahrens S, Hoffmann C, Jabar S, Braun-Munzinger G, Paulussen M, Dunst J, Rube C, Winkelmann W, Heinecke A, Gobel U: 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. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-911X(199903)32:3<186::AID-MPO5>3.0.CO;2-DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ginsberg JP, de Alava E, Ladanyi M, Wexler LH, Kovar H, Paulussen M, Zoubek A, Dockhorn-Dworniczak B, Juergens H, Wunder JS: EWS-FLI1 and EWS-ERG gene fusions are associated with similar clinical phenotypes in Ewing's sarcoma. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1999, 17: 1809-1814.Google Scholar
  12. Givens SS, Woo SY, Huang LY, Rich TA, Maor MH, Cangir A, Murray JA, Oswald MJ, Peters LJ, Jaffe N: Non-metastatic Ewing's sarcoma: twenty years of experience suggests that surgery is a prime factor for successful multimodality therapy. International journal of oncology. 1999, 14: 1039-1043.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Bertoni F, Rimondini S, Longhi A, Bacchini P, Forni C, Manfrini M, Donati D, Picci P: Prognostic factors in nonmetastatic Ewing's sarcoma of bone treated with adjuvant chemotherapy: analysis of 359 patients at the Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2000, 18: 4-11.Google Scholar
  14. Jenkin RD, Al-Fawaz I, Al-Shabanah MO, Allam A, Ayas M, Memon M, Rifai S, Schultz HP: Metastatic Ewing sarcoma/PNET of bone at diagnosis: prognostic factors--a report from Saudi Arabia. Medical and pediatric oncology. 2001, 37: 383-389. 10.1002/mpo.1214View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Krasin MJ, Davidoff AM, Rodriguez-Galindo C, Billups CA, Fuller CE, Neel MD, Merchant TE: Definitive surgery and multiagent systemic therapy for patients with localized Ewing sarcoma family of tumors: local outcome and prognostic factors. Cancer. 2005, 104: 367-373. 10.1002/cncr.21160View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bacci G, Longhi A, Ferrari S, Mercuri M, Versari M, Bertoni F: Prognostic factors in non-metastatic Ewing's sarcoma tumor of bone: an analysis of 579 patients treated at a single institution with adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy between 1972 and 1998. Acta oncologica. 2006, 45: 469-475. 10.1080/02841860500519760View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. De Angulo G, Hernandez M, Morales-Arias J, Herzog CE, Anderson P, Wolff J, Kleinerman ES: Early lymphocyte recovery as a prognostic indicator for high-risk Ewing sarcoma. Journal of pediatric hematology/oncology. 2007, 29: 48-52. 10.1097/MPH.0b013e31802d3e3eView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Leavey PJ, Mascarenhas L, Marina N, Chen Z, Krailo M, Miser J, Brown K, Tarbell N, Bernstein ML, Granowetter L: Prognostic factors for patients with Ewing sarcoma (EWS) at first recurrence following multi-modality therapy: A report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatric blood & cancer. 2008, 51: 334-338. 10.1002/pbc.21618View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Jawad MU, Cheung MC, Min ES, Schneiderbauer MM, Koniaris LG, Scully SP: Ewing sarcoma demonstrates racial disparities in incidence-related and sex-related differences in outcome: an analysis of 1631 cases from the SEER database, 1973-2005. Cancer. 2009, 115: 3526-3536. 10.1002/cncr.24388View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kikuta K, Tochigi N, Shimoda T, Yabe H, Morioka H, Toyama Y, Hosono A, Beppu Y, Kawai A, Hirohashi S, Kondo T: Nucleophosmin as a candidate prognostic biomarker of Ewing's sarcoma revealed by proteomics. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2009, 15: 2885-2894. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1913.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Sari N, Togral G, Cetindag MF, Gungor BS, Ilhan IE: Treatment results of the Ewing sarcoma of bone and prognostic factors. Pediatric blood & cancer. 2010, 54: 19-24. 10.1002/pbc.22278View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Kawai A, Healey JH, Boland PJ, Lin PP, Huvos AG, Meyers PA: Prognostic factors for patients with sarcomas of the pelvic bones. Cancer. 1998, 82: 851-859. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980301)82:5<851::AID-CNCR8>3.0.CO;2-MView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ahmad R, Mayol BR, Davis M, Rougraff BT: Extraskeletal Ewing's sarcoma. Cancer. 1999, 85: 725-731. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990201)85:3<725::AID-CNCR23>3.0.CO;2-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Cotterill SJ, Ahrens S, Paulussen M, Jurgens HF, Voute PA, Gadner H, Craft AW: Prognostic factors in Ewing's tumor of bone: analysis of 975 patients from the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing's Sarcoma Study Group. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2000, 18: 3108-3114.Google Scholar
  25. de Alava E, Antonescu CR, Panizo A, Leung D, Meyers PA, Huvos AG, Pardo-Mindan FJ, Healey JH, Ladanyi M: Prognostic impact of P53 status in Ewing sarcoma. Cancer. 2000, 89: 783-792. 10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:4<783::AID-CNCR10>3.0.CO;2-QView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Oberlin O, Deley MC, Bui BN, Gentet JC, Philip T, Terrier P, Carrie C, Mechinaud F, Schmitt C, Babin-Boillettot A, Michon J: Prognostic factors in localized Ewing's tumours and peripheral neuroectodermal tumours: the third study of the French Society of Paediatric Oncology (EW88 study). British journal of cancer. 2001, 85: 1646-1654. 10.1054/bjoc.2001.2150PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rutkowski P, Kaminska J, Kowalska M, Ruka W, Steffen J: Cytokine and cytokine receptor serum levels in adult bone sarcoma patients: correlations with local tumor extent and prognosis. Journal of surgical oncology. 2003, 84: 151-159. 10.1002/jso.10305View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Krasin MJ, Rodriguez-Galindo C, Davidoff AM, Billups CA, Fuller CE, Neel MD, Kun LE, Merchant TE: Efficacy of combined surgery and irradiation for localized Ewings sarcoma family of tumors. Pediatric blood & cancer. 2004, 43: 229-236. 10.1002/pbc.20095View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Matsunobu T, Tanaka K, Matsumoto Y, Nakatani F, Sakimura R, Hanada M, Li X, Oda Y, Naruse I, Hoshino H: The prognostic and therapeutic relevance of p27kip1 in Ewing's family tumors. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2004, 10: 1003-1012. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-0788-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Aksnes LH, Hall KS, Folleraas G, Stenwig AE, Bjerkehagen B, Taksdal I, Winderen M, Bruland OS, Saeter G: Management of high-grade bone sarcomas over two decades: the Norwegian Radium Hospital experience. Acta oncologica. 2006, 45: 38-46. 10.1080/02841860500466624View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mikulic D, Ilic I, Cepulic M, Giljevic JS, Orlic D, Zupancic B, Fattorini I, Seiwerth S: Angiogenesis and Ewing sarcoma--relationship to pulmonary metastasis and survival. Journal of pediatric surgery. 2006, 41: 524-529. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.11.058View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Cheung IY, Feng Y, Danis K, Shukla N, Meyers P, Ladanyi M, Cheung NK: Novel markers of subclinical disease for Ewing family tumors from gene expression profiling. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2007, 13: 6978-6983. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1417.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodriguez-Galindo C, Navid F, Liu T, Billups CA, Rao BN, Krasin MJ: Prognostic factors for local and distant control in Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology/ESMO. 2008, 19: 814-820.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Yonemori K, Yamaguchi U, Kaneko M, Uno H, Takeuchi M, Ando M, Fujiwara Y, Hosono A, Makimoto A, Hasegawa T: Prediction of response and prognostic factors for Ewing family of tumors in a low incidence population. Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology. 2008, 134: 389-395. 10.1007/s00432-007-0295-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee J, Hoang BH, Ziogas A, Zell JA: Analysis of prognostic factors in Ewing sarcoma using a population-based cancer registry. Cancer. 2010, 116: 1964-1973. 10.1002/cncr.24937View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Terrier P, Henry-Amar M, Triche TJ, Horowitz ME, Terrier-Lacombe MJ, Miser JS, Kinsella TJ, Contesso G, Llombart-Bosch A: Is neuro-ectodermal differentiation of Ewing's sarcoma of bone associated with an unfavourable prognosis?. European journal of cancer. 1995, 31A: 307-314.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Terrier P, Llombart-Bosch A, Contesso G: Small round blue cell tumors in bone: prognostic factors correlated to Ewing's sarcoma and neuroectodermal tumors. Seminars in diagnostic pathology. 1996, 13: 250-257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. de Alava E, Kawai A, Healey JH, Fligman I, Meyers PA, Huvos AG, Gerald WL, Jhanwar SC, Argani P, Antonescu CR: EWS-FLI1 fusion transcript structure is an independent determinant of prognosis in Ewing's sarcoma. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1998, 16: 1248-1255.Google Scholar
  39. Paulussen M, Ahrens S, Craft AW, Dunst J, Frohlich B, Jabar S, Rube C, Winkelmann W, Wissing S, Zoubek A, Jurgens H: Ewing's tumors with primary lung metastases: survival analysis of 114 (European Intergroup) Cooperative Ewing's Sarcoma Studies patients. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1998, 16: 3044-3052.Google Scholar
  40. Baldini EH, Demetri GD, Fletcher CD, Foran J, Marcus KC, Singer S: Adults with Ewing's sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor: adverse effect of older age and primary extraosseous disease on outcome. Annals of surgery. 1999, 230: 79-86. 10.1097/00000658-199907000-00012PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Luksch R, Sampietro G, Collini P, Boracchi P, Massimino M, Lombardi F, Gandola L, Giardini R, Fossati-Bellani F, Migliorini L: Prognostic value of clinicopathologic characteristics including neuroectodermal differentiation in osseous Ewing's sarcoma family of tumors in children. Tumori. 1999, 85: 101-107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wei G, Antonescu CR, de Alava E, Leung D, Huvos AG, Meyers PA, Healey JH, Ladanyi M: Prognostic impact of INK4A deletion in Ewing sarcoma. Cancer. 2000, 89: 793-799. 10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:4<793::AID-CNCR11>3.0.CO;2-MView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Zielenska M, Zhang ZM, Ng K, Marrano P, Bayani J, Ramirez OC, Sorensen P, Thorner P, Greenberg M, Squire JA: Acquisition of secondary structural chromosomal changes in pediatric ewing sarcoma is a probable prognostic factor for tumor response and clinical outcome. Cancer. 2001, 91: 2156-2164. 10.1002/1097-0142(20010601)91:11<2156::AID-CNCR1244>3.0.CO;2-IView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin RC, Brennan MF: Adult soft tissue Ewing sarcoma or primitive neuroectodermal tumors: predictors of survival?. Archives of surgery. 2003, 138: 281-285. 10.1001/archsurg.138.3.281View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Fuchs B, Inwards CY, Janknecht R: Vascular endothelial growth factor expression is up-regulated by EWS-ETS oncoproteins and Sp1 and may represent an independent predictor of survival in Ewing's sarcoma. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2004, 10: 1344-1353. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-03-0038.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Weston CL, Douglas C, Craft AW, Lewis IJ, Machin D: Establishing long-term survival and cure in young patients with Ewing's sarcoma. British journal of cancer. 2004, 91: 225-232.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kreuter M, Paulussen M, Boeckeler J, Gerss J, Buerger H, Liebscher C, Kessler T, Jurgens H, Berdel WE, Mesters RM: Clinical significance of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A expression in Ewing's sarcoma. European journal of cancer. 2006, 42: 1904-1911. 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.063View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. La TH, Meyers PA, Wexler LH, Alektiar KM, Healey JH, Laquaglia MP, Boland PJ, Wolden SL: Radiation therapy for Ewing's sarcoma: results from Memorial Sloan-Kettering in the modern era. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2006, 64: 544-550. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2005.07.299View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Delepine N, Delepine G, Cornille H, Voisin MC, Brun B, Desbois JC: Prognostic factors in patients with localized Ewing's sarcoma: the effect on survival of actual received drug dose intensity and of histologic response to induction therapy. Journal of chemotherapy. 1997, 9: 352-363.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Picci P, Bohling T, Bacci G, Ferrari S, Sangiorgi L, Mercuri M, Ruggieri P, Manfrini M, Ferraro A, Casadei R: Chemotherapy-induced tumor necrosis as a prognostic factor in localized Ewing's sarcoma of the extremities. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 1997, 15: 1553-1559.Google Scholar
  51. Abudu A, Davies AM, Pynsent PB, Mangham DC, Tillman RM, Carter SR, Grimer RJ: Tumour volume as a predictor of necrosis after chemotherapy in Ewing's sarcoma. The Journal of bone and joint surgery British volume. 1999, 81: 317-322. 10.1302/0301-620X.81B2.8979View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Ohali A, Avigad S, Cohen IJ, Meller I, Kollender Y, Issakov J, Gelernter I, Goshen Y, Yaniv I, Zaizov R: Association between telomerase activity and outcome in patients with nonmetastatic Ewing family of tumors. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2003, 21: 3836-3843. 10.1200/JCO.2003.05.059.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Scotlandi K, Manara MC, Hattinger CM, Benini S, Perdichizzi S, Pasello M, Bacci G, Zanella L, Bertoni F, Picci P, Serra M: Prognostic and therapeutic relevance of HER2 expression in osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma. European journal of cancer. 2005, 41: 1349-1361. 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.03.015View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Avigad S, Naumov I, Ohali A, Jeison M, Berco GH, Mardoukh J, Stark B, Ash S, Cohen IJ, Meller I: Short telomeres: a novel potential predictor of relapse in Ewing sarcoma. Clinical cancer research: an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2007, 13: 5777-5783. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0308.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Meynet O, Scotlandi K, Pradelli E, Manara MC, Colombo MP, Schmid-Antomarchi H, Picci P, Bernard A, Bernard G: Xg expression in Ewing's sarcoma is of prognostic value and contributes to tumor invasiveness. Cancer research. 2010, 70: 3730-3738. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-2837View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sollazzo MR, Benassi MS, Magagnoli G, Gamberi G, Molendini L, Ragazzini P, Merli M, Ferrari C, Balladelli A, Picci P: Increased c-myc oncogene expression in Ewing's sarcoma: correlation with Ki67 proliferation index. Tumori. 1999, 85: 167-173.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Abudu A, Mangham DC, Reynolds GM, Pynsent PB, Tillman RM, Carter SR, Grimer RJ: Overexpression of p53 protein in primary Ewing's sarcoma of bone: relationship to tumour stage, response and prognosis. British journal of cancer. 1999, 79: 1185-1189. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690190PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Huang HY, Illei PB, Zhao Z, Mazumdar M, Huvos AG, Healey JH, Wexler LH, Gorlick R, Meyers P, Ladanyi M: Ewing sarcomas with p53 mutation or p16/p14ARF homozygous deletion: a highly lethal subset associated with poor chemoresponse. Journal of clinical oncology: official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2005, 23: 548-558.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Maitra A, Roberts H, Weinberg AG, Geradts J: Aberrant expression of tumor suppressor proteins in the Ewing family of tumors. Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2001, 125: 1207-1212.Google Scholar
  60. Ohali A, Avigad S, Zaizov R, Ophir R, Horn-Saban S, Cohen IJ, Meller I, Kollender Y, Issakov J, Yaniv I: Prediction of high risk Ewing's sarcoma by gene expression profiling. Oncogene. 2004, 23: 8997-9006. 10.1038/sj.onc.1208060View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Martins AS, Ordonez JL, Garcia-Sanchez A, Herrero D, Sevillano V, Osuna D, Mackintosh C, Caballero G, Otero AP, Poremba C: A pivotal role for heat shock protein 90 in Ewing sarcoma resistance to anti-insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor treatment: in vitro and in vivo study. Cancer research. 2008, 68: 6260-6270. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-3074View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Zanini C, Pulera F, Carta F, Giribaldi G, Mandili G, Maule MM, Forni M, Turrini F: Proteomic identification of heat shock protein 27 as a differentiation and prognostic marker in neuroblastoma but not in Ewing's sarcoma. Virchows Archiv: an international journal of pathology. 2008, 452: 157-167. 10.1007/s00428-007-0549-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Hattinger CM, Potschger U, Tarkkanen M, Squire J, Zielenska M, Kiuru-Kuhlefelt S, Kager L, Thorner P, Knuutila S, Niggli FK: Prognostic impact of chromosomal aberrations in Ewing tumours. British journal of cancer. 2002, 86: 1763-1769. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600332PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Lopez-Guerrero JA, Pellin A, Noguera R, Carda C, Llombart-Bosch A: Molecular analysis of the 9p21 locus and p53 genes in Ewing family tumors. Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology. 2001, 81: 803-814.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Hattinger CM, Rumpler S, Strehl S, Ambros IM, Zoubek A, Potschger U, Gadner H, Ambros PF: Prognostic impact of deletions at 1p36 and numerical aberrations in Ewing tumors. Genes, chromosomes & cancer. 1999, 24: 243-254. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2264(199903)24:3<243::AID-GCC10>3.0.CO;2-AView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Berghuis D, de Hooge AS, Santos SJ, Horst D, Wiertz EJ, van Eggermond MC, van den Elsen PJ, Taminiau AH, Ottaviano L, Schaefer KL: Reduced human leukocyte antigen expression in advanced-stage Ewing sarcoma: implications for immune recognition. The Journal of pathology. 2009, 218: 222-231. 10.1002/path.2537View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Holzer G, Obermair A, Koschat M, Preyer O, Kotz R, Trieb K: Concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the serum of patients with malignant bone tumors. Medical and pediatric oncology. 2001, 36: 601-604. 10.1002/mpo.1136View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Pavlakovic H, Von Schutz V, Rossler J, Koscielniak E, Havers W, Schweigerer L: Quantification of angiogenesis stimulators in children with solid malignancies. International journal of cancer Journal international du cancer. 2001, 92: 756-760.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Jimeno A, Daw NC, Amador ML, Cusatis G, Kulesza P, Krailo M, Ingle AM, Blaney SM, Adamson P, Hidalgo M: Analysis of biologic surrogate markers from a Children's Oncology Group Phase I trial of gefitinib in pediatric patients with solid tumors. Pediatric blood & cancer. 2007, 49: 352-357. 10.1002/pbc.20753View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Yabe H, Tsukahara T, Kawaguchi S, Wada T, Sato N, Morioka H: Overexpression of papillomavirus binding factor in Ewing's sarcoma family of tumors conferring poor prognosis. Oncology reports. 2008, 19: 129-134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Longhi A, Rimondini S, Versari M, Zanone A, Forni C: Prognostic significance of serum LDH in Ewing's sarcoma of bone. Oncology reports. 1999, 6: 807-811.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© van Maldegem et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.