Purpose: Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of malignant neoplasms with a wide range of histological types and occur in almost any anatomic site and side. This study evaluated the prognostic factors in sarcoma patients based on German clinical cancer registry data. Methods: The German clinical cancer register of Saxony-Anhalt was used for all data analyses. Sarcoma cases of all clinical or pathological T-stages (T1a–T4c), all N-stages (N0-3) and M-stages (0–1b) corresponding to the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stages I to IVB were considered. In our analyses, 787 cases diagnosed between 2005 and 2022 were included. Further, we assessed the association of cancer-related parameters with mortality and hazard ratios (HR) from the Cox proportional hazard models. We included sex, age at diagnosis, histological grade, T-, N- and M-stages, tumor size, tumor localization and tumor side as parameters in our regression models. Results: The majority of sarcoma patients were diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma (12%), liposarcoma (11%), angiosarcoma (5.3%) and myxofibrosarcoma (2.7%). In our univariate regression models, tumors localized in more than one location, head, face and neck region as well as the pelvis and lower extremity were associated with increased mortality risk (more than one location: HR 7.10, 95% CI 2.20–22.9; head, face and neck: HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.89–2.06; pelvis: HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.86–1.89; lower extremity: HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.05–1.96). Higher histological grades, UICC-grades and TNM-stages were related to a higher mortality risk. Differing histological subtypes had significant influence on overall survival and progression-free survival. Patients diagnosed with fibromyxoid sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma and angiosarcoma were related to higher mortality risk compared to other histological subtypes (fibromyxoid sarcoma: HR 5.2, 95% CI 0.71–38.1; rhabdomyosarcoma: HR 2.93, 95% CI 1.44–6.00; angiosarcoma: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.53–2.18). Conclusions: Histological grade, tumor size, nodal and distant metastasis, tumor localization and histological subtype were determined as prognostic factors in terms of survival.

Cumulative cisplatin doses of ≥ 200 mg/m² improve survival in adults with head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) undergoing chemoradiation, but many older adults with HNSCC cannot receive this prognostically relevant dose due to toxicities. This study aims to develop predictive models to assess the likelihood of older adults with HNSCC receiving ≥ 200 mg/m² cisplatin during chemoradiation. 366 patients from the SENIOR database, an international cohort of adults ≥ 65 years with HNSCC, received definitive chemoradiation with single-agent cisplatin and were analyzed. A Generalized Linear Model (GLM), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Random Forest Model (RFM) were trained and compared for their performance in predicting a cumulative cisplatin dose of ≥ 200 mg/m². 195 (53 %) patients achieved a cumulative cisplatin dose of ≥ 200 mg/m². In the GLM, laryngeal carcinoma (β = 1.37, p = 0.01), tumoral p16 positivity (β = 0.69, p = 0.04), higher hemoglobin levels (β = 0.26, p = 0.002), elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration (β = 0.02, p = 0.003), and increased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (β = 0.02, p = 0.008) were associated with a higher probability of reaching ≥ 200 mg/m² cisplatin. Hemoglobin, CRP, eGFR, and p16 status constituted the most important features in the SVM and RFM. AUC values for the GLM, SVM, and RFM were 0.70 (95 % CI, 0.67-0.73), 0.71 (95 % CI, 0.68-0.73), and 0.73 (95 % CI, 0.71-0.75), respectively. We developed predictive models to support clinicians in identifying older adults with HNSCC capable of tolerating ≥ 200 mg/m² cumulative cisplatin during chemoradiation. Once validated, these models could improve personalized treatments and enhance shared decision-making in older adults with HNSCC.

Background: Consolidation therapy with durvalumab after definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has become the standard care for patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following the PACIFIC trial. However, real-world data evaluating outcomes under routine clinical conditions remain limited, particularly in European cohorts. Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, we analyzed clinical data from 72 patients with stage III NSCLC treated with definitive CRT between 2017 and 2022. The patients were stratified by receipt of durvalumab consolidation. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Stepwise variable selection based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used to construct an optimized multivariable model. A sensitivity analysis with adjustment for treatment period (2017–2018 vs. 2019–2022) was conducted to account for the introduction of durvalumab into routine clinical practice. Results: Among 72 patients, 35 received durvalumab and 37 did not. The median OS was 2.08 years; the 3- and 5-year OS rates were 38.6% and 30.3%, respectively. Multivariable regression revealed significantly improved OS associated with Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > 80% (HR 0.29, p = 0.003), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≤ 2 (HR 0.39, p = 0.009), and durvalumab treatment (HR 3.99, p = 0.008). PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% showed a trend toward improved OS (HR 3.72, p = 0.063). The median progression-free survival (PFS) for the total cohort was 1.17 years. The estimated 3- and 5-year PFS rates were 31.1% and 26.3%, respectively. Patients treated with durvalumab had a longer median PFS (20.5 months) compared to those without durvalumab (12.0 months). In the multivariable analysis, KPS > 80% (HR 0.29, p < 0.001), CCI ≤ 2 (HR 0.53, p = 0.048), and durvalumab treatment (HR 2.81, p = 0.023) were significantly associated with improved PFS. A sensitivity analysis adjusting for treatment period—reflecting the introduction of durvalumab into routine clinical practice from 2019—confirmed the robustness of these findings. Conclusions: Our findings support the clinical benefit of durvalumab consolidation following CRT in a real-world population, especially in patients with good performance status and low comorbidity burden. These results confirm and extend the PACIFIC trial findings into routine clinical practice, highlighting the prognostic value of functional status and comorbidity alongside PD-L1 expression.

The importance of metastasis-directed radiotherapy is increasing in the management of oligometastatic prostate cancer. We evaluated different target volume and dose concepts for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of spine bone metastases (BoM) from prostate cancer in a large European cohort. Data of prostate cancer patients receiving SBRT for spine BoM between 2010 and 2024 at 19 European cancer centers were retrospectively collected. Treatment volumes and dose concepts were analyzed regarding their impact on overall survival (OS), freedom from local recurrence (FFLR), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS), and progression-free survival (PFS). With a median follow-up of 25.1 months (range: 1.4-77.2), 213 patients with 283 spine BoM were evaluated. 1-/3-year PFS with simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) were 85.7 %/73.9 % (BED₄ [Biologically effective dose with α/β-ratio = 4 Gy] ≥ 100 Gy) and for non-SIB concepts 81.2 %/45.5 % (BED₄ ≥ 100 Gy), respectively. 1-/3-year BRFS for SIB-treated BoM amounted to 81.7 %/68.4 % (BED₄ ≥ 100 Gy) and for non-SIB 78.3 %/43.6 % (BED₄ ≥ 100 Gy). OS was not significantly different for the evaluated dose and target volume concepts. For FFLR a significant difference was observed favoring BED₄ ≥ 100 Gy. In multivariable analysis, following factors were positively associated with both PFS and BRFS: BED₄ for GTV_mean dose and SIB concept. Adverse events were very low, with fracture rates of 2.2 %. This multicenter cohort analysis showed that SBRT of spine BoM from prostate cancer is an effective and well-tolerated treatment. Both BED and usage of a SIB concept were associated with improved PFS and BRFS. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and further standardize SBRT concepts.

Low-dose radiotherapy (LDRT) is widely used in German-speaking countries for painful degenerative and inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders, but recent sham-controlled trials using non-standard dose concepts reported no superiority over placebo. Methodologically robust trials using established LDRT regimens and guideline-based conservative care are needed. KORT aims to evaluate feasibility and inform a definitive sham-controlled efficacy trial of LDRT in knee osteoarthritis (OA). KORT is a two-stage research program at University Hospital Halle (Saale). Stage 1 is a prospective, non-randomized Phase II external pilot comparing (i) standard LDRT alone versus (ii) structured orthopaedic assessment with optimization of guideline-based conservative therapy prior to LDRT. Key feasibility outcomes include recruitment, adherence, data completeness, and follow-up rates. Clinical outcomes include OARSI–OMERACT responder status at 3 months, WOMAC, SF-36, and movement pain (NRS), assessed at baseline, end of treatment, and 3 months; follow-up at 12 and 24 months is planned. Stage 2 is a planned multicenter Phase III randomized, single-blind, sham-controlled superiority trial in which all participants will undergo standardized orthopaedic optimization prior to randomization to LDRT (6 × 0.5 Gy) or sham irradiation. This protocol specifies eligibility criteria, interventions, outcomes, data management, and the statistical framework. Phase II will provide empirically grounded estimates for workflow refinement and Phase III sample size assumptions. KORT integrates radiation oncology and orthopedics within a structured multidisciplinary framework and will enable a clinically relevant, adequately powered sham-controlled trial to determine the incremental therapeutic effect of LDRT in knee OA.

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an established treatment method with favorable toxicity for inoperable early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. This paper aims to evaluate the importance of SBRT in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer patients compared to surgery as standard of care. Methods: The German clinical cancer register of Berlin-Brandenburg was assessed. Cases of lung cancer were considered if they had a TNM stage (clinical or pathological) of T1-T2a and N0/x and M0/x, corresponding to UICC stages I and II. In our analyses, cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2015 were included. We adjusted our models with propensity score matching. We compared patients treated with SBRT or surgery regarding age, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), sex, histological grade, and TNM classification. Further, we assessed the association of cancer-related parameters with mortality; hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models were computed. Results: A total of 558 patients with UICC stages I and II NSCLC were analyzed. In univariate survival models, we found similar survival rates in patients who underwent radiotherapy compared with surgery (HR 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92–1.56; p = 0.2). Our univariate subgroup analyses of patients > 75 years showed a statistically nonsignificant survival benefit for patients treated with SBRT (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54–1.35; p = 0.5). Likewise, in our T1 subanalysis, survival rates were similar between the two treatment groups regarding overall survival (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.57–2.19; p = 0.7). The availability of histological data might be slightly beneficial in terms of survival (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68–1.15; p = 0.4). This effect was also not significant. Regarding the availability of histological status in our subgroup analyses of elderly patients, we could show similar survival rates as well (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44–1.23; p = 0.14). T1-staged patients also had a statistically nonsignificant survival benefit if histological grading was available (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39–1.44; p = 0.4). Concerning adjusted covariates, better KPS scores were associated with better survival in our matched univariate Cox regression models. Further, higher histological grades and TNM stages were related to a higher mortality risk. Conclusion: Using population-based data, we observed an almost equal survival of patients treated with SBRT compared to surgery in stage I and II lung cancer. The availability of histological status might not be decisive in treatment planning. SBRT is comparable to surgery in terms of survival.