1
|
Tepper SC, Lee L, Fice MP, Jones CM, Buac N, Vijayakumar G, Wang D, Colman MW, Gitelis S, Blank AT. Radiotherapy leads to improved overall survival in patients undergoing resection for Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Surg Oncol 2024; 56:102118. [PMID: 39121675 DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2024.102118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2024] [Revised: 07/15/2024] [Accepted: 08/05/2024] [Indexed: 08/12/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) is a frequent subtype within the heterogeneous group of soft tissue sarcomas (STS). The use of radiotherapy (RT) has become an important component of a multimodal approach to treating STS. Key studies have demonstrated that the addition of RT improves rates of local control in STS, though the effect on overall survival (OS) is less clear. Furthermore, there is very limited and conflicting evidence regarding effect of RT on overall survival in UPS. The purposes of this investigation were to examine the association between RT and OS in UPS patients undergoing surgical resection and to determine independent prognostic indicators of OS in this patient population. METHODS This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent surgical treatment for primary UPS from 1993 to 2021. Associations between RT and OS were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine independent prognostic factors of OS. RESULTS One hundred and fourteen patients who underwent surgical resection of primary UPS were included in the study. Ninety-six (84.2 %) patients received RT perioperatively. Use of RT was associated with improved OS on log-rank testing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.36; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, RT was an independent predictor of improved OS (HR 0.18; 95 % CI 0.09-0.39; p < 0.001) while metastasis at presentation (HR 4.82; 95 % CI 2.26-10.27; p < 0.001) and older age (HR 1.92; 95 % CI 1.20-3.36; p = 0.02) were predictive of decreased OS. Use of RT was not significantly associated with a lower rate of local recurrence in our cohort (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS Use of RT in combination with surgery was an independent prognostic indicator of improved overall survival in UPS patients. Older age and metastasis at presentation were associated with worse overall survival. Based on this and other available studies, treatment for UPS should involve limb-sparing resection when feasible with RT to ensure optimal survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah C Tepper
- Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
| | - Linus Lee
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Orthopedic Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Michael P Fice
- Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Conor M Jones
- Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Neil Buac
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Orthopedic Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Gayathri Vijayakumar
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Orthopedic Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Dian Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Matthew W Colman
- Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Steven Gitelis
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Orthopedic Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Alan T Blank
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Orthopedic Oncology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hanslik N, Bourgier C, Thezenas S, Carrère S, Firmin N, Riou O, Azria D, Llacer-Moscardo C. [Predictive factors assessment of pathological response to neoadjuvant radiotherapy of soft tissue sarcomas]. Cancer Radiother 2023; 27:689-697. [PMID: 37813717 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2023.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2022] [Revised: 02/13/2023] [Accepted: 02/16/2023] [Indexed: 10/11/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Conserving surgery combined with radiotherapy in presence of local recurrence risk factors is standard treatment of soft tissue sarcomas, a group of rare and heterogeneous tumours. Radiotherapy is performed before or after surgery. In neoadjuvant setting, late radiation-induced toxicity is reduced and pathological response to radiotherapy could be achieved. A complete pathological response to radiotherapy has recently been shown to predict better survival. Our study aims at identifying predictive factors of pathological response to neoadjuvant radiotherapy (clinical, radiological or histological) of soft tissue sarcomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinical, imaging (MRI: perilesional oedema, necrosis, tumour heterogeneity, vasculonervous relationships) and pathological (pathological subtype, tumour grade, anticipated/obtained resection quality) data were retrospectively collected. Tumour response (imaging and pathological), patient outcome, acute and late radiation-induced toxicity, predictive factors of pathological response to neoadjuvant radiotherapy were studied. The 2-test or exact-Fisher test (qualitative variables) and by Student's t-test or Kruskal-Wallis test (quantitative variables) were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS From April 2017 to April 2021, neoadjuvant radiotherapy (50Gy in 25 fractions) followed by surgical excision was performed to 36 consecutive patients with liposarcomas (n=17/36), or undifferentiated sarcomas (n=8/36). MRI response was complete in 1 patient, partial in 9 patients (n=9/36, 25%), stable in 21 patients (n=21/36, 58%) or in progression in 5 patients (n=5/36, 14%). Pathological response was observed in 22 patients (61%). No grade 3-4 acute radiation-induced toxicity was observed. Regarding late toxicity, 28% of patients had grade 1-2 oedema (n=10/36), 39% had a grade 1 fibrosis (n=14/36), and 30% grade 1 pain (n=11/36). No predictive factors of response to radiotherapy was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Neoadjuvant radiotherapy is well-tolerated. No clinical, radiological or pathological predictive factors was identified for radiotherapy tumour response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N Hanslik
- Fédération universitaire d'oncologie radiothérapie, ICM, institut régional du cancer Montpellier, rue Croix-Verte, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France
| | - C Bourgier
- Fédération universitaire d'oncologie radiothérapie, ICM, institut régional du cancer Montpellier, rue Croix-Verte, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France; IRCM, institut de recherche en cancérologie de Montpellier, Inserm U1194, université de Montpellier, avenue des Apothicaires, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France
| | - S Thezenas
- Unité de biostatistiques, ICM, institut régional du cancer Montpellier, rue Croix-Verte, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France
| | - S Carrère
- Service de chirurgie, ICM, institut régional du cancer Montpellier, rue Croix-Verte, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France
| | - N Firmin
- Département d'oncologie, ICM, institut régional du Cancer Montpellier, rue Croix-Verte, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France
| | - O Riou
- Fédération universitaire d'oncologie radiothérapie, ICM, institut régional du cancer Montpellier, rue Croix-Verte, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France
| | - D Azria
- Fédération universitaire d'oncologie radiothérapie, ICM, institut régional du cancer Montpellier, rue Croix-Verte, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France; IRCM, institut de recherche en cancérologie de Montpellier, Inserm U1194, université de Montpellier, avenue des Apothicaires, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France
| | - C Llacer-Moscardo
- Fédération universitaire d'oncologie radiothérapie, ICM, institut régional du cancer Montpellier, rue Croix-Verte, 34298 Montpellier cedex 05, France.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Traweek RS, Martin AN, Rajkot NF, Guadagnolo BA, Bishop AJ, Lazar AJ, Keung EZ, Torres KE, Hunt KK, Feig BW, Roland CL, Scally CP. Re-excision After Unplanned Excision of Soft Tissue Sarcoma is Associated with High Morbidity and Limited Pathologic Identification of Residual Disease. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:480-489. [PMID: 36085392 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12359-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with unplanned excision (UPE) of trunk and extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) present a significant management challenge for sarcoma specialists. Oncologic re-resection has been considered standard practice after UPE with positive or uncertain margins. A strategy of active surveillance or "watch and wait" has been suggested as a safe alternative to routine re-excision. In this context, the current study sought to evaluate short-term outcomes and morbidity after re-resection to better understand the risks and benefits of this treatment strategy. METHODS A retrospective, single-institution study reviewed patients undergoing oncologic re-resection after UPE of an STS during a 5-year period (2015-2020), excluding those with evidence of gross residual disease. Short-term clinical outcomes were evaluated together with final pathologic findings. RESULTS The review identified 67 patients undergoing re-resection after UPE of an STS. Of these 67 patients, 45 (67%) were treated with a combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and surgery. Plastic surgery was involved for reconstruction in 49 cases (73%). The rate of wound complications after re-resection was 45 % (n = 30), with 15 % (n = 10) of the patients experiencing a major wound complication. Radiation therapy and plastic surgery involvement were independently associated with wound complications. Notably, 45 patients (67%) had no evidence of residual disease in the re-resection specimen, whereas 13 patients (19 %) had microscopic disease, and 9 patients (13%) had indeterminate pathology. CONCLUSION Given the morbidity of re-resection and limited identification of residual disease, treatment plans and discussions with patients should outline the expected pathologic findings and morbidity of surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raymond S Traweek
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Allison N Martin
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Nikita F Rajkot
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - B Ashleigh Guadagnolo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Andrew J Bishop
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Alexander J Lazar
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Emily Z Keung
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Keila E Torres
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kelly K Hunt
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Barry W Feig
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Christina L Roland
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Christopher P Scally
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Radiation therapy is an integral component of local management with oncologic resection for soft tissue sarcoma. Radiotherapy is indicated in patients at an increased risk of local recurrence so that improved local control may be achieved. Sequencing of radiotherapy and resection should be determined by multidisciplinary input before treatment initiation. For most patients, preoperative delivery of radiation therapy is preferred. In patients initially thought to be at low risk for local recurrence and found to have unexpected adverse pathologic features at resection, postoperative radiation therapy is indicated. The use of radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma is controversial; when used, preoperative delivery of radiation is recommended.
Collapse
|
5
|
Kungwengwe G, Clancy R, Vass J, Slade R, Sandhar S, Dobbs TD, Bragg TWH. Preoperative versus Post-operative Radiotherapy for Extremity Soft tissue Sarcoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Long-term Survival. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021; 74:2443-2457. [PMID: 34266806 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.05.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The role of perioperative radiotherapy in the management of resectable extremity soft tissue sarcoma (ESTS) is widely recognised for local tumour control, wound complications (WC) and long-term function. However, debate continues regarding its implications on long-term survival. This study aimed to determine whether the timing of perioperative radiotherapy affects long-term survival outcomes in adults with ESTS. METHODS A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane was performed. The primary outcome measure was the pooled hazard ratio (HR) at 95% confidence intervals. Secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses were presented as cumulative odds ratios (OR). A random-effects, generic inverse variance method and sensitivity analysis were performed to minimise heterogeneity. RESULTS Six studies (n = 4192 patients) were identified. Time-to-event analysis demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in post-operative radiotherapy for overall survival (HR 1.15 and p = 0.05). Combined HRs for disease-free (1.25 and p = 0.22) and disease-specific (1.06 and p = 0.43) survival also favoured post-operative radiotherapy but did not achieve statistical significance. Post-operative radiotherapy was shown to confer an overall (OR 1.19 and p = 0.01), disease-free (OR 1.19 and p = 0.01) and disease-specific (OR 1.19 and p = 0.01) survival advantage on subgroup analysis. This survival benefit was best observed at three years in the disease-free survival comparison (OR 1.55 and p = 0.003). Preoperative radiotherapy was associated with more WC (OR 2.74 and p<0.00001). CONCLUSIONS Pooled analysis of published literature suggests that post-operative radiotherapy confers a significant long-term survival advantage with fewer WC. Further large multicentre randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up are required to determine the optimal perioperative radiotherapy regime in adult ESTS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Garikai Kungwengwe
- The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
| | | | - Johanne Vass
- The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
| | | | - Simarjit Sandhar
- Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Thomas D Dobbs
- The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK; Reconstructive Surgery & Regenerative Medicine Research Group, Swansea, UK
| | - Thomas W H Bragg
- The Welsh Centre for Burns and Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Assessment of Resection Margins in Bone Tumor Surgery. Sarcoma 2020; 2020:5289547. [PMID: 33488268 PMCID: PMC7789471 DOI: 10.1155/2020/5289547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2020] [Revised: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 11/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Limb salvage surgery is now the preferred procedure for bone tumor surgery. To decrease the risk of local recurrence, it is crucial to obtain adequate resection margins. The obtained margins must be evaluated postoperatively because they influence what treatment is given subsequently when margins are not adequate (e.g., surgical revision and radiotherapy). The study aims to evaluate margin assessment of tumor specimen by MRI compared to conventional histology (to establish the viability of using MRI) and assess the accuracy of a patient-specific instrument when narrow margins were aimed. The resection margins in 12 consecutive patients that were operated on for bone tumor resection were prospectively analyzed using three methods: MRI of the resection specimen, macroscopic evaluation of specimen slices, and microscopic pathological evaluation. The assessments were qualitative (R0, R1, and R2) and quantitative (distance in mm). MRI, macroscopic, and microscopic margins generated similar results for both the qualitative (all resections were R0) and quantitative assessments. The median error in safe margins was 2 mm with a surgical guide (PSI) and 5 mm without a surgical guide. Local recurrences were not detected after a mean follow-up period of 3.7 years (range, 2.1-5 years); however, four patients died during the study. In conclusion, MRI is a valuable tool for assessing safe margins. When specimens are not available for pathological assessment (e.g., extracorporeally irradiated autograft or autoclaved autograft), MRI could be used to evaluate margins. In particular, when tumor volume is high, MRI could also help to focus the pathological examination on areas of concern.
Collapse
|
7
|
Llacer-Moscardo C, Terlizzi M, Bonvalot S, Le Loarer F, Carrère S, Tetrau R, D'ascoli A, Lerouge D, Le Péchoux C, Thariat J. Pre- or postoperative radiotherapy for soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Radiother 2020; 24:501-512. [PMID: 32807685 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2020.05.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2020] [Revised: 05/22/2020] [Accepted: 05/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Sarcomas are rare tumours arising from mesenchymal tissue. A multimodal management in an expert centre combining surgery and radiotherapy is the current standard of care for localized soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities, to enable limb-sparing strategies. The delivery of pre- radiotherapy or postoperative radiotherapy offers similar local control and survival rates but the toxicity profile is quite different: preoperative radiotherapy increases the risk of wound complications and postoperative radiotherapy affects long-term functional outcomes. While postoperative radiotherapy has long been the rule, especially in Europe, technical improvements with image-guided- and intensity-modulated radiotherapy associated with a better management of postoperative wounds has tended to change practices with more frequent preoperative radiotherapy. More recently the possibilities of a hypofractionated regimen or potentiation by nanoparticles to increase the therapeutic index plead in favour of a preoperative delivery of radiotherapy. The aim of this paper is to report pros and cons of pre- and post-operative radiotherapy for soft-tissue sarcomas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Llacer-Moscardo
- Radiation Oncology Department, institut du cancer de Montpellier (ICM), 208, avenue des Apothicaires, parc Euromédecine, 34298 Montpellier cedex 5, France.
| | - M Terlizzi
- Radiation Oncology Department, hôpital Haut-Lévêque, CHU de Bordeaux, 1, avenue Magellan, 33600 Pessac, France
| | - S Bonvalot
- Department of Surgical Oncology, institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - F Le Loarer
- Department of Pathology, institut Bergonié, 229, cours de l'Argonne, CS 61283, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France
| | - S Carrère
- Department of Surgical Oncology, institut du cancer de Montpellier (ICM), 208, avenue des Apothicaires, parc Euromédecine, 34298 Montpellier cedex 5, France
| | - R Tetrau
- Radiology Department, institut du cancer de Montpellier (ICM), 208, avenue des Apothicaires, parc Euromédecine, 34298 Montpellier cedex 5, France
| | - A D'ascoli
- Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Surgery, hôpital Pasteur 2, Institut universitaire locomoteur et sports (IULS), 30, voie Romaine, 06000 Nice, France
| | - D Lerouge
- Radiation Oncology Department, centre François-Baclesse, 3, avenue General-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Association Advance Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue General-Harris, 14000 Caen, France
| | - C Le Péchoux
- Radiation Oncology Department, Gustave-Roussy, 114, rue Édouard-Vaillant, 94805 Villejuif cedex, France
| | - J Thariat
- Radiation Oncology Department, centre François-Baclesse, 3, avenue General-Harris, 14000 Caen, France; Association Advance Resource Centre for Hadrontherapy in Europe (Archade), 3, avenue General-Harris, 14000 Caen, France
| |
Collapse
|