Clinical management of adolescents and young adults suffering from sarcoma in the French Rhône-Alpes region: A prospective exhaustive cohort with 10 years follow up

Multidisciplinary management of adolescents and young adults (AYA) sarcoma: A successful effort of an adult high-volume cancer center

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the clinicopathological characteristics of AYA sarcomas and their clinical outcomes at a high-volume single center.

METHODS

Demographic, clinicopathological data on the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of all sarcoma patients aged 16-39 years (ys) observed at our Institute between January 2010 and December 2021 were retrospectively collected, including diagnostic (TTD) and treatment delay(TTT), clinical outcomes (OS and PFS), and late-treatment effects.

RESULTS

We identified 228 AYA patients, median age 30 years, 29% ≤ 25 years, 57% males, 88% soft tissue sarcomas (STS), and 12% bone sarcomas (BS). Among STSs, 13% were small round cell tumors (SRCT), 52% intermediate-high-grade, 24% low-grade STSs. Among BS, 32% were high-grade. Median TTD and TTT were 120 (0-8255) and 7 days (0-83), respectively. Surgery was performed in 83%, radiotherapy in 29%, and systemic therapy in 27%. Median follow-up was 72.9 months(1.6-145), 5-year and 10-year OS were 78.5% and 62%, respectively. Kaplan-Meyer analysis showed a significantly better 5-year OS and PFS for patients with >92 days of TTD (OS 85.7% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.001, PFS 50.2% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.009). According to age (≤25 years vs. > 25 years), 5-year OS was 69.8% versus 82.2%, respectively (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis confirmed previous data on sarcoma AYA patients followed in a referral center. Unexpectedly, diagnostic delay was not associated with poor OS and PFS. Patients <25 years showed a poorer prognosis due to the higher incidence of SRCT.

Centralized and Interdisciplinary Therapy Management in the Treatment of Sarcomas

Sarcoma treatment requires a high level of expertise due to its rarity and heterogeneity. Sarcoma patients should, therefore, be referred to an expert centre as early as possible to ensure optimal treatment. Numerous studies have been carried out to provide evidence for this strategy. In compliance with the 2020 PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library databases. The subject of these studies was the centralised treatment of adult sarcoma patients at expert centres and the use of interdisciplinary tumour boards. Uncertainty in therapy, delays in referral to expert centres, and limited access to therapeutic modalities continue to be a challenge in sarcoma therapy. At expert centres, diagnostic procedures were more frequently and adequately performed, and treatment was associated with an improvement in outcomes in the majority of studies: patients benefited from longer survival, lower local recurrence rates and a better postoperative outcome. The implementation of an interdisciplinary tumour board was associated with discrepant results. In a greater number of studies, it was associated with a lower local relapse rate, better overall survival and surgical outcome. In two studies, however, a shorter overall survival was observed. The establishment of expert centres and the consistent use of interdisciplinary tumour boards are important structures for ensuring multidisciplinary therapy approaches. There is growing evidence that this holds great potential for optimising sarcoma therapy.

[Seeking colleagues' advice when facing complex clinical situations]

Seeking a second medical advice as a medical practitioner is a frequent situation that should be facilitated to best suit patients' expectations, while maintaining medical confidentiality. The patient and his relatives need to be involved with diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The radiation oncologist should accept and help a patient who seeks a second advice, and patients will always appreciate when the physician helps them to seek such an advice. Examples that each practitioner should know include tertiary centers tumor boards, centers with access to innovation or clinical research, or with special teams to take care of specific populations such as adolescents and young adults. In some situations, no treatment can also be the best treatment, and it takes time to explain and discuss such watchful waiting strategies to patients. In case of recurrent disease after radiotherapy, salvage reirradiation must be discussed at a tertiary tumor board and weighed against other options, especially for rare and complex cases. Radiation oncology has gained multiple options with technological advances, such as proton therapy, brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiotherapy with respiratory tracking or contact therapy. Radiation oncologists must know the benefits associated with each option in terms of survival, local control or organ preservation in order to address patients to the best practitioner.