Factors Associated With Acute and Chronic Wound Complications in Patients With Soft Tissue Sarcoma With Long-term Follow-up

Postoperative complications and oncologic outcomes after multimodal therapy of localized high risk soft tissue sarcoma

BACKGROUND

Standard therapy for localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma includes surgical resection and neoadjuvant or adjuvant radiation therapy (± chemotherapy and locoregional hyperthermia). No difference in oncologic outcomes for patients treated with neoadjuvant and adjuvant radiation therapy was reported, whereas side effect profiles differ. The aim of this analysis was to analyse oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications in patients treated with multimodal treatment.

METHODS

Oncologic outcomes and major wound complications (MWC, subclassified as wound healing disorder, infection, abscess, fistula, seroma and hematoma) were evaluated in 74 patients with localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma of extremities and trunk undergoing multimodal treatment, and also separately for the subgroup of lower extremity tumors. Clinical factors and treatment modalities (especially neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant radiotherapy) were evaluated regarding their prognostic value and impact on postoperative wound complications.

RESULTS

Oncologic outcomes were dependent on number of high risk features (tumor size, depth to superficial fascia and grading), but not on therapy sequencing (however with higher risk patients in the neoadjuvant group). Different risk factors influenced different subclasses of wound healing complications. Slightly higher MWC-rates were observed in patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy, compared to adjuvant radiotherapy, although only with a trend to statistical significance (31.8% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.059). However, except for wound infections, no significant difference for other subclasses of postoperative complications was observed between neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy. Diabetes was confirmed as a major risk factor for immune-related wound complications.

CONCLUSION

Rates of major wound complications in this cohort are comparable to published data, higher rates of wound infections were observed after neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Tumor localization, patient age and diabetes seem to be major risk factors. The number of risk factors for high risk soft tissue sarcoma seem to influence DMFS. Neoadjuvant treatment increases the risk only for wound infection treated with oral or intravenous antibiotic therapy and appears to be a safe option at an experienced tertiary center in absence of other risk factors.

Is the Addition of Anaerobic Coverage to Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis During Soft Tissue Sarcoma Resection Associated With a Reduction in the Proportion of Wound Complications?

BACKGROUND

Wound complications are common after resection of soft tissue sarcomas, with published infection rates ranging from 10% to 35%. Multiple studies have reported on the atypical flora comprising these infections, which are often polymicrobial and contain anaerobic bacteria, and recent studies have noted the high prevalence of anaerobic bacterial infections after soft tissue sarcoma resection [ 26, 35 ]. Based on this, our institution changed clinical practice to include an antibiotic with anaerobic coverage in addition to the standard first-generation cephalosporin for prophylaxis during soft tissue sarcoma resections. The current study was undertaken to evaluate whether this change was associated with a change in major wound complications, and if the change should therefore be adopted for future patients.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) After controlling for potentially confounding variables, was the broadening of the prophylactic antibiotic spectrum to cover anaerobic bacteria associated with a lower odds of major wound complications after soft tissue sarcoma resection? (2) Was the broadening of the prophylactic antibiotic spectrum to cover anaerobic bacteria associated with a lower odds of surgical site infections with polymicrobial or anaerobic infections after soft tissue sarcoma resection? (3) What are the factors associated with major wound complications after soft tissue sarcoma resection?

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 623 patients who underwent soft tissue sarcoma resection at a single center between January 2008 and January 2021 using procedural terminology codes. Of these, four (0.6%) pediatric patients were excluded, as were five (0.8%) patients with atypical lipomatous tumors and two (0.3%) patients with primary bone tumors; 5% (33 of 623) who were lost to follow-up, leaving 579 for final analysis. The prophylactic antibiotic regimen given at the resection and whether a wound complication occurred were recorded. Patients received the augmented regimen based on whether they underwent resection after the change in practice in July 2018. A total of 497 patients received a standard antibiotic regimen (usually a first-generation cephalosporin), and 82 patients received an augmented regimen with anaerobic coverage (most often metronidazole). Of the 579 patients, 53% (307) were male (53% [264 of 497] in the standard regimen and 52% [43 of 82] in the augmented regimen), and the mean age was 59 ± 17 years (59 ± 17 and 60 ±17 years in the standard and augmented groups, respectively). Wound complications were defined as any of the following within 120 days of the initial resection: formal wound debridement in the operating room, other interventions such as percutaneous drain placement, readmission for intravenous antibiotics, or deep wound packing for more than 120 days from the resection. Patients were considered to have a surgical site infection if positive cultures resulted from deep tissue cultures taken intraoperatively at the time of debridement. The proportion of patients with major wound complications was 26% (150 of 579); it was 27% (136 of 497) and 17% (14 of 82) in the standard and augmented antibiotic cohorts, respectively (p = 0.049). With the numbers we had, we could not document that the addition of antibiotics with anaerobic coverage was associated with lower odds of anaerobic (4% versus 6%; p = 0.51) or polymicrobial infections (9% versus 14%; p = 0.25). Patient, tumor, and treatment (surgical, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) variables were collected to evaluate factors associated with overall infection and anaerobic or polymicrobial infection. Patient follow-up was 120 days to capture early wound complications. A multivariable analysis was performed for all variables found to be significant in the univariate analysis. A p value < 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance for all analyses. No patients were found to have an adverse reaction to the augmented regimen, including allergic reactions or Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile infection.

RESULTS

After controlling for other potentially confounding factors such as neoadjuvant radiation, tumor size and anatomic location, as well as patient BMI, anaerobic coverage was associated with smaller odds of wound complications (OR 0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.68]; p = 0.003). Other factors associated with major wound complications were preoperative radiation (versus no preoperative radiation) (OR 2.66 [95% CI 1.72 to 4.15]; p < 0.001), increasing tumor size (OR 1.04 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.07]; p = 0.03), patient BMI (OR 1.07 [95% CI 1.04 to 1.11]; p < 0.001), and tumor in the distal upper extremity (versus proximal upper extremity, pelvis/groin/hip, and lower extremity) (OR 0.18 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.62]; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The addition of anaerobic coverage to the standard prophylactic regimen during soft tissue sarcoma resection demonstrated an association with smaller odds of major wound complications and no documented adverse reactions. Treating physicians should consider these findings but note that they are preliminary, and that further work is needed to replicate them in a more controlled study design such as a prospective trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Preoperative Radiation Performed at a Nonsarcoma Center May Lead to Increased Wound Complications Following Resection in Patients With Soft Tissue Sarcomas

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative radiation therapy (RT) followed by wide-local excision with or without chemotherapy is widely accepted as management for soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Although studies have demonstrated excellent local control with this technique, there can be significant morbidity with the development of wound complications. It has been shown that sarcoma resections performed at a high-volume center lead to improved survival and functional outcomes. It is unclear, however, if radiation performed in a high-volume center leads to improved outcomes especially related to morbidity. The goal of this study was to determine whether preoperative RT performed at an academic cancer center have lower rates of wound complication compared with RT performed in community cancer centers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 204 patients with STS were treated with preoperative RT±chemotherapy followed by limb-sparing resection. Of these, 150 patients had preoperative RT performed at an academic sarcoma center. wound complication were defined as those requiring secondary operations or prolonged wound care for 4 months following surgery. Predictors for wound complication were evaluated using a Fisher exact test for univariate analysis and logistic regression for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of wound complication was 28.3%. Significant predictors for wound complication include tumor location and radiation delivered at a community hospital. The postoperative incidence of wound complication was 21% when the preoperative RT was performed at an academic cancer center versus 39% when performed at a community cancer center (P=0.009). On multivariate analysis, both tumor location (P=0.0012, 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.45, odds ratio: 0.13) and RT performed at a community cancer center (P=0.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.13-4.48, odds ratio: 2.25) remained significant in correlation with postoperative wound complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative RT performed at an academic cancer center led to lower rates of postoperative wound complication. This may support the recommendation that preoperative RT and resection of STS be performed at an experienced sarcoma center.

American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) consensus statement for soft-tissue sarcoma brachytherapy

PURPOSE

Growing data supports the role of radiation therapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Brachytherapy has been used for decades in the management of STS and can be utilized as monotherapy or as a boost to external beam radiation. We present updated guidelines from the American Brachytherapy Society regarding the utilization of brachytherapy in the management of STS.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in STS and STS brachytherapy created an updated clinical practice guideline including step-by-step details for performing STS brachytherapy based on a literature review and clinical experience.

RESULTS

Brachytherapy monotherapy should be considered for lower-recurrence risk patients or after a local recurrence following previous external beam radiation; a brachytherapy boost can be considered in higher-risk patents meeting implant criteria. Multiple dose/fractionation regimens are available, with determination based on tumor location and treatment intent. Techniques to limit wound complications are based on the type of wound closure; wound complication can be mitigated with a delay in the start of brachytherapy with immediate wound closure or by utilizing a staged reconstruction technique, which allows an earlier treatment start with a delayed wound closure.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated guidelines provide clinicians with data on indications for STS brachytherapy as well as guidelines on how to perform and deliver high quality STS brachytherapy safely with minimal toxicity.

Early Outcomes of Preoperative 5-Fraction Radiation Therapy for Soft Tissue Sarcoma Followed by Immediate Surgical Resection

Purpose

There are limited data regarding the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for soft tissue sarcoma. We report early oncologic outcomes and wound complications of patients undergoing preoperative hypofractionated (5 fraction) RT followed by immediate surgical resection.

Methods and Materials

An institutional review board–approved database of patients treated with preoperative RT for soft tissue sarcoma was queried. Patients treated with a hypofractionated dosing regimen followed by immediate (within 7 days) planned wide surgical resection were identified.

Results

Between 2016 and 2019, 16 patients met eligibility criteria. The median patient age was 64 years old (range, 33-88). Ten of the sarcomas were located in the lower extremity, 4 in the upper extremity, and 2 were located in the trunk. Four patients had metastatic disease at diagnosis. The majority of the patients received a total radiation dose of 30 Gy in 5 fractions (range, 27.5-40 Gy) on consecutive days. All patients were planned with intensity modulated radiation therapy or volumetric arc therapy. The median time to surgical resection after the completion of RT was 1 day (range, 0-7 days). The median time from initial biopsy results to completion of primary oncologic therapy was 20 days (range, 16-35). Ten patients achieved R0 resection, whereas the remaining 6 patients achieved R1 resection. Of the 13 patients assessed for local control, no patients developed local failure. Within the median follow-up time of 10.7 months (range, 1.7-33.2), 5 patients developed wound healing complications (31%), of which only 3 patients (19%) required return to the operating room.

Conclusions

Treatment of soft tissue sarcoma with preoperative hypofractionated RT followed by immediate resection resulted in a median of 20 days from biopsy results to completion of oncologic therapy. Early outcomes demonstrate favorable wound healing. Further prospective data with long-term follow-up is required to determine the oncologic outcomes and toxicity of hypofractionated preoperative RT.

Use of Some Asteraceae Plants for the Treatment of Wounds: From Ethnopharmacological Studies to Scientific Evidences

Severe wounds result in large lesions and/or loss of function of the affected areas. The treatment of wounds has challenged health professionals due to its complexity, especially in patients with chronic diseases (such as diabetes), and the presence of pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Taking this into consideration, the development of new therapies for wound healing requires immediate attention. Ethnopharmacological studies performed in different countries have shown the use of several plants from the Asteraceae family as wound-healing agents. Evidences gained from the traditional medicine have opened new ways for the development of novel and more efficient therapies based on the pharmacological properties of these plants. In this article, we discuss the literature data on the use of Asteraceae plants for the treatment of wounds, based on the ethnopharmacological relevance of each plant. Special attention was given to studies showing the mechanisms of action of Asteraceae-derived compounds and clinical trials. Ageratina pichinchensis (Kunth) R.M. King and H. Rob. and Calendula officinalis L. preparations/compounds were found to show good efficacy when assessed in clinical trials of complicated wounds, including venous leg ulcers and foot ulcers of diabetic patients. The compounds silibinin [from Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn.] and jaceosidin (from Artemisia princeps Pamp.) were identified as promising compounds for the treatment of wounds. Overall, we suggest that Asteraceae plants represent important sources of compounds that may act as new and efficient healing products.