An Evaluation of the Eighth Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Staging System for Retroperitoneal Sarcomas Using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB): Does Size Matter?

Surgically treated pelvic liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma: The effect of tumor size on cancer-specific survival

INTRODUCTION

In soft tissue pelvic liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma, it is unknown whether a specific tumor size cut-off may help to better predict prognosis, defined as cancer-specific survival (CSS). We tested whether different tumor size cut-offs, could improve CSS prediction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Surgically treated non-metastatic soft tissue pelvic sarcoma patients were identified (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 2004-2019). Kaplan-Meier plots, univariable and multivariable Cox-regression models and receiver operating characteristic-derived area under the curve (AUC) estimates were used.

RESULTS

Overall, 672 (65 %) liposarcoma (median tumor size 11 cm, interquartile range [IQR] 7-16) and 367 (35 %) leiomyosarcoma (median tumor size 8 cm, IQR 5-12) patients were identified. The p-value derived ideal tumor size cut-off was 17.1 cm, in liposarcoma and 7.0 cm, in leiomyosarcoma. In liposarcoma, according to p-value derived cut-off, five-year CSS rates were 92 vs 83 % (≤17.1 vs > 17.1 cm). This cut-off represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 83.8 to 86.8 % (Δ = 3 %). Similarly, among previously established cut-offs (5 vs 10 vs 15 cm), also 15 cm represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 83.8 to 87.0 % (Δ = 3.2 %). In leiomyosarcoma, according to p-value derived cut-off, five-year CSS rates were 86 vs 55 % (≤7.0 vs > 7.0 cm). This cut-off represented an independent predictor of CSS and improved prognostic ability from 68.6 to 76.5 % (Δ = 7.9 %).

CONCLUSIONS

In liposarcoma, the p-value derived tumor size cut-off was 17.1 cm vs 7.0 cm, in leiomyosarcoma. In both histologic subtypes, these cut-offs exhibited the optimal statistical characteristics (univariable, multivariable and AUC analyses). In liposarcoma, the 15 cm cut-off represented a valuable alternative.

Extremity and Truncal Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Risk Assessment and Multidisciplinary Management

Extremity and truncal soft tissue sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of rare cancers that arise from mesenchymal tissues. Hence, the adoption of tailored risk assessment and prognostication tools plays a crucial role in optimizing the decision-making for which of the many possible treatment strategies to select. Management of these tumors requires a multidisciplinary strategy, which has seen significant development in recent decades. Surgery has emerged as the primary treatment approach, with the main goal of achieving microscopic negative tumor margins. To reduce the likelihood of local recurrence, loco-regional treatments such as radiation therapy and isolated limb perfusion are often added to the treatment regimen in combination with surgery. This approach also enables surgeons to perform limb-sparing surgery, particularly in cases where a positive tumor margin is expected. Chemotherapy may also provide a further benefit in decreasing the probability of local recurrence or reducing distant metastasis in selected patients. Selecting the optimal treatment strategy for these rare tumors is best accomplished by an experienced multi-disciplinary team.

Survival Outcome of Retroperitoneal Sarcomas Treated With a Surgery-First Approach: A Single-Center Experience

Background Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare and complex tumors originating from the retroperitoneal space, an anatomical region nestled behind the abdominal cavity and shielded by the posterior abdominal wall. Late clinical presentation is a hallmark of retroperitoneal sarcomas. The symptoms are often nonspecific, and nodal metastases are rare. Computed tomography (CT) remains the investigation of choice, and a preoperative biopsy is usually not needed. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment, along with adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy. Survival rates are in general poor, even after complete resection. In this study, we attempt to shed some light on the clinicopathological profiling of retroperitoneal sarcomas and their survival outcomes. Objective The objective of this study is to assess the demographic, clinical, and pathological profiling of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma and to study the survival of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. Methodology We conducted a hospital-based retrospective observational study in a tertiary care center in South India between January 2011 and January 2021. We included all patients with histopathologically proven retroperitoneal sarcoma. Metastatic cases and those who underwent chemotherapy or radiation prior to presentation were excluded. Their demographics, pathological reports, and survival were followed up and collected, and statistical analysis was done. Results The study included 16 cases with retroperitoneal sarcomas across the decade in which the data was collected, confirming the rarity of the tumor, out of which more than 40% of patients were above the age of 60. The most common symptom was found to be a bloating sensation in nine patients, followed by abdominal pain in three patients. Seventy-five percent of the patients were found to have a T4 (i.e., a size of more than 15 cm) tumor at presentation. Well-differentiated liposarcoma was found to be the most common pathological variant accounting for 25% of the cases. The mean survival was found to be 8.05 years, which dropped to 5.74 years in Grade 3 tumors. Conclusion Retroperitoneal sarcomas are rare tumors of which liposarcoma is the most common variant. A significant reduction in the mean survival was identified in Grade 3 sarcomas compared to the cumulative survival time of Grade 1 and Grade 2 retroperitoneal sarcomas.

Epidemiology, pathological characteristics and survival of retroperitoneal soft‑tissue sarcomas compared with non‑retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas

Retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcomas (RPS) are rare forms of mesenchymal tumors that account for ~0.15% of all malignancies. The purpose of the present study was to determine the differences between RPS and non-RPS anatomopathological and clinical features and to analyze whether the hazard ratio for short-term mortality differs between patients with RPS and non-RPS, after adjusting for differences in baseline anatomopathological and clinical features. The Veneto Cancer Registry, a high-resolution population-based dataset spanning the regional population, was used as a data source for the analysis. The current analysis focuses on all incident cases of soft-tissue sarcoma recorded by the Registry from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018. A bivariate analysis was carried out to compare demographic and clinical characteristics in RPS and non-RPS. Short-term mortality risk was analyzed by primary tumor site. The significance of variations in survival by site group was determined using Kaplan-Meier curves and the Log-rank test. Finally, Cox regression was used to assess the hazard ratio for survival by sarcoma group. RPS accounted for 22.8% of the total sample (92 out of 404 cases). The mean age at diagnosis was 67.6 years for RPS vs. 63.4 for non-RPS; 41.3% of RPS were >150 mm vs. 5.5% for non-RPS. Stages III and IV were more prevalent in RPS (53.2 vs. 35.6%), despite the fact that, in both groups, advanced stages are the most common onset at diagnosis. Regarding surgical margins, the present study showed that R0 is the most prevalent in non-RPS (48.7%), while R1-R2 is the most frequent in patients with RPS (39.1%). The 3-year mortality rate for retroperitoneum was 42.9 vs. 25.7%. Comparing RPS and non-RPS, the multivariable Cox model showed a hazard ratio of 1.58 after adjusting for all other prognostic factors. RPS clinical and anatomopathological characteristics differ from those of non-RPS. Overall, despite adjusting for other prognostic factors, the retroperitoneum site was an independent prognostic factor associated with a worse overall survival in sarcoma patients compared with other sites.

Deciding individual treatment for primary retroperitoneal sarcoma

INTRODUCTION

Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare mesenchymal tumors that account for only 0.1-0.2% of all malignancies. Management of this disease is challenging, and resection remains the cornerstone of treatment. Ongoing international collaboration has expanded our knowledge of this disease, allowing for a more personalized approach to RPS patients resulting in improved survival over time. Due to the heterogeneity of RPS, with differing recurrence patterns and sensitivities to neoadjuvant therapies based on histology and grade, management of RPS should be tailored to the individual patient.

AREAS COVERED

Our review focuses on a histology-driven approach in the management of primary RPS. We searched relevant articles from 1993 to 2023 that investigated prognostic factors and treatment of patients with RPS and summarized recent advances and future directions in the field.

EXPERT OPINION

Deeper understanding of the role of neoadjuvant radiotherapy and ongoing trials investigating the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy will potentially contribute to the development of individualized treatment pathways.

Staging Systems and Nomograms for Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Reliable tools for prognosis prediction are crucially needed by oncologists so they can tailor individual treatments. However, the wide spectrum of histologies and prognostic behaviors of sarcomas challenges their development. In this field, nomograms could definitely better account for their granularity compared to the more widely used AJCC/UICC TNM staging system. Nomograms are predictive tools that incorporate multiple risk factors and return a numerical probability of a clinical event. Since the development of the first nomogram in 2002, several other nomograms have been built, either general, site-specific, histology-specific, or both. Recently, some new “dynamic” nomograms and prognostic tools have been developed, allowing doctors to “recalculate” a patient’s prognosis by taking into account the time since primary surgery, the event history, and the potential time-dependent effect of covariates. Due to these new tools, prognosis prediction is no longer limited to the time of the first computation but can be adapted and recalculated based on the occurrence (or not) of any event as time passes from the first computation. In this review, we aimed to give an overview of the available nomograms for STS and to help clinicians in the process of selecting the best tool for each patient.

Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Definitive evidence to guide clinical practice on the principles of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPSs) is still lacking. This study aims to summarise the available evidence to assess the relative benefits and disadvantages of an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ resection in patients with RPS, the association between surgical resection margins and survival outcomes, and the role of surgery in recurrent RPS.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for relevant randomised trials and observational studies published from inception up to May 1, 2021. Prospective or retrospective studies, published in the English language, providing outcome data with surgical treatment in patients with RPS were selected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

Findings

In total, 47 articles were analysed. There were no significant differences in the rates of OS (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.83–1.03; P = 0.574) and recurrence-free survival (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.945) between the extended resection group and the tumour resection alone group. Organ resection did not increase postoperative mortality (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.55–1.81; P = 0.997) but had a relatively higher complication rate (OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.94–5.34; P = 0.068). OS was higher in R0 than in R1 resection (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.23–1.44; P < 0.001) and in R1 resection than in R2 resection (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.35–2.36; P < 0.001). OS was also higher in R2 resection than in no surgery (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07–1.45; P < 0.001), however, subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR in the trials reporting primary RPS was similar between the two groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87–1.42; P = 0.42). Surgical treatment achieves a significantly higher OS rate than does conservative treatment (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.21–3.64; P < 0.001) for recurrent RPS.

Conclusions

For primary RPS, curative-intent en bloc resection should be aimed, and adjacent organs with evidence of direct invasion must be resected to avoid R2 resection. For recurrent RPS, surgical resection should be considered as a priority. Incomplete resection remains to have a survival benefit in select patients with unresectable recurrent RPS.

Radical Versus Non-Radical Resection for Early-Stage Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Background

The appropriate surgical procedure for early-stage retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is unclear. Thus, we used a national database to compare the outcomes of radical and non-radical resection in patients with early stage RPS.

Methods

This retrospective study included 886 stage I RPS patients from 2004 to 2015 in the SEER database. Outcomes were compared using the multivariate Cox proportional hazards models and the results were presented as adjusted hazards ratio (AHR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Propensity score-matched analyses were also performed for sensitive analyses.

Results

For the 886 stage I RPS patients, 316 underwent radical resection, and 570 underwent non-radical resection, with a median follow-up of 4.58 (2.73-8.35) years. No difference was observed in overall mortality (AHR 0.84, 95%CI 0.62-1.15; P = 0.28) or RPS-specific mortality (AHR 0.88, 95%CI 0.57-1.36; P = 0.56) between groups. The results were similar in propensity score-matching analyses. However, subgroup analysis revealed that radical resection was associated with significantly decreased risks of overall mortality in male (AHR 0.61, 95%CI 0.38-0.98; P = 0.04) and in patients with radiotherapy (AHR 0.56, 95%CI 0.32-0.98; P = 0.04).

Conclusion

Radical resection did not improve midterm survival outcomes compared with non-radical resection in overall patients with early stage RPS. However, male patients or patients who received radiotherapy might benefit from radical resection with improved overall survival.

What is the standard indication of adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in localized soft-tissue sarcoma?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim is to bring latest evidence of the role of perioperative chemotherapy in localized soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) of limbs and to review the risk classification systems of retroperitoneal and extremity STS.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-risk subset of localized STS of limbs and trunk-wall, defined with classic prognostic factors, consistently obtained 5-year overall survival ranging from 69 to 76% in randomized patients treated with full-dose of anthracycline and ifosfamide. Validated nomograms accurately predict, on individual basis, the risk of death and recurrence in localized STS of retroperitoneum and limbs, enabling a better selection of high-risk patients (usually those with death risk of ≥40%) that potentially could benefit with perioperative systemic treatment. Nomograms have virtually converted a negative large perioperative trial into a positive, favouring chemotherapy arm in the high-risk selection.

SUMMARY

Perioperative three cycles of full-dose of anthracycline and ifosfamide should be proposed on an individual basis, in reference sarcoma centres, to high-risk localized STS of limbs or trunk-wall in certain histologies.

[French ccAFU guidelines - update 2020-2022: retroperitoneal sarcoma]

OBJECTIVE

- To update French urological guidelines on retroperitoneal sarcoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

- Comprehensive Medline search between 2018 and 2020 upon diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of retroperitoneal sarcoma. Level of evidence was evaluated.

RESULTS

- Chest, abdomen and pelvis CT is mandatory to evaluate any suspected retroperitoneal sarcoma. MRI sometimes helps surgical planning. Before histological confirmation through biopsy, the patient must be registered in the French sarcoma pathology reference network. The biopsy standard should be an extraperitoneal coaxial percutaneous sampling before any retroperitoneal mass therapeutic decision. Surgery is retroperitoneal sarcoma cornerstone. The main objective is grossly negative margins and can be technically challenging. Multimodal treatment risks and benefits must be discussed in multidisciplinary teams. The relapse rate is related to tumor grade and surgical margins. Reported Negative margins rate thus encourage surgery in high-volume centers.

CONCLUSION

- Retroperitoneal sarcoma prognosis is poor and closely related to the quality of initial management. Centralization through dedicated sarcoma pathology network in a high-volume center is mandatory.

Retroperitoneal tumors: Review of diagnosis and management

Retroperitoneal tumors are extremely rare tumors occurring in the retroperitoneum. Retroperitoneal tumors are divided into benign tumors and malignant tumors, including retroperitoneal sarcoma. Approximately 70-80% of primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue tumors are malignant; however, these only account for 0.1-0.2% of all malignancies. Retroperitoneal sarcoma is an orphan malignant disease with a low incidence. The information on benign retroperitoneal tumors is limited. The American Joint Committee on Cancer/TNM classification updated to the 8th edition in 2017. In 2010, three new drugs for soft tissue sarcoma were approved based on the results of phase III trials, but the histological subtypes of the patients enrolled in the trials of each drug differed. Recently, in addition to surgery for retroperitoneal sarcoma, the effectiveness of perioperative radiation therapy has become interesting. For malignant retroperitoneal tumors and retroperitoneal sarcoma, survival improvement and locoregional recurrence prevention can be undertaken by carrying out surgery to secure negative margins with wide and combined resection of some adjacent organs, and cooperation with a trained medical team comprising of radiologists, pathologists and medical oncologists in centralized hospitals. Some clinical trials aimed at further improving treatment results by adding preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy based on histological confirmation using a correct needle biopsy are in progress. In recent years, molecular profiling has been used to select eligible patients for chemotherapy. In the future, precision medicine with next-generation sequencing technology will be expected among the diverse and potential future treatments for retroperitoneal sarcoma. In this review, we summarized the current state of retroperitoneal tumors and retroperitoneal sarcoma.