Relevance of Reference Centers in Sarcoma Care and Quality Item Evaluation: Results from the Prospective Registry of the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcoma (GEIS)

Improved nationwide survival of sarcoma patients with a network of reference centers

BACKGROUND

We investigated the impact of the implementation of a network of reference centers for sarcomas (NETSARC) on the care and survival of sarcoma patients in France since 2010.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs), funded by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) since 2010. Its aims are to improve the quality of diagnosis and care of sarcoma patients. Patients' characteristics, treatments, and outcomes are collected in a nationwide database. The objective of this analysis was to compare the survival of patients in three periods: 2010-2012 (non-exhaustive), 2013-2015, and 2016-2020.

RESULTS

A total of 43 975 patients with sarcomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), or connective tissue tumors of intermediate malignancy were included in the NETSARC+ database since 2010 (n = 9266 before 2013, n = 12 274 between 2013 and 2015, n = 22 435 in 2016-2020). Median age was 56 years, 50.5% were women, and 13.2% had metastasis at diagnosis. Overall survival was significantly superior in the period 2016-2020 versus 2013-2015 versus 2010-2012 for the entire population, for patients >18 years of age, and for both metastatic and non-metastatic patients in univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.0001). Over the three periods, we observed a significantly improved compliance to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) nationwide: the proportion of patients biopsied before surgery increased from 62.9% to 72.6%; the percentage of patients presented to NETSARC MDTBs before first surgery increased from 31.7% to 44.4% (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients with R0 resection on first surgery increased (from 36.1% to 46.6%), while R2 resection rate decreased (from 10.9% to 7.9%), with a better compliance and improvement in NETSARC centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the national reference network for sarcoma was associated with an improvement of overall survival and compliance to guidelines nationwide in sarcoma patients. Referral to expert networks for sarcoma patients should be encouraged, though a better compliance to CPGs can still be achieved.

Management of patients with rare adult solid cancers: objectives and evaluation of European reference networks (ERN) EURACAN

About 500,000 patients with rare adult solid cancers (RASC) are diagnosed yearly in Europe. Delays and unequal quality of management impact negatively their survival. Since 2017, European reference networks (ERN) aim to improve the quality of care of patients with rare disease. The steering committee of EURACAN, including physicians, researchers and patients review here the previous actions, present objectives of the ERN EURACAN dedicated to RASC. EURACAN promoted management in reference centres, and equal implementation of excellence and innovation in Europe and developed 22 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Additionally, fourteen information brochures translated in 24 EU languages were developed in collaboration with patient advocacy groups (ePAGs) and seventeen training session were organized. Nevertheless, connections to national networks in the 26 participating countries (106 centres), simplification of cross-border healthcare, international multidisciplinary tumour boards, registries and monitoring of the quality of care are still required. In this Health Policy, evaluation criteria of the performances of the network and of health care providers are proposed.

Epidemiology, Management, and Survival Outcomes of Germ Cell Cancer in Southern Portugal: A Population-Based Study (2008-2012)

INTRODUCTION

Building on previous suboptimal survival results, we aimed to perform a study of the epidemiological status, management, and outcomes of germ cell tumors (GCT) in the Portuguese population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective populational study of GCT cases diagnosed between 2008 and 2012 in southern Portugal. Joinpoint regression was used to compute average annual percentage change (AAPC) in incidence rate. ESMO/EAU guidelines served as references to evaluate compliance. Association between compliance with guidelines and hospital GCT case load was performed by generalized estimating equation. Survival was calculated by Kaplan-Meier and prognostic factors by Cox models.

RESULTS

The study included 401 GCT male cases. The AAPC was 5.4% (IC 95% 3.3-7.4, P < .001) from 1999 (an earlier cohort published) to 2012. The median time to diagnosis was 63 days (Q25 = 33 days; Q75 = 114 days; IQR = 81 days). For stage II/III the median time to start chemotherapy was 34 days (Q25 = 22 days; Q75 = 56 days; IQR = 22 days). In 86% cases there was noncompliance with guidelines for the orchiectomy report, 6% for staging, 38% for tumor markers evaluation, 20% for treatment and 25% for chemotherapy dose intensity. The 5-year overall survival was 93.8% (95% CI, 91.3%-96.4%). Hospitals that managed ≤ 3 GCT cases/ year had higher odds for noncompliance with guidelines of blood markers, treatment and dose intensity. None of GCT healthcare access and management factors studied were associated with prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of GCT is rising in Portugal. Although survival has improved, efforts must be made to nationally enhance training and expertise in GCT and support region adapted models of centralization of care.

Unplanned Sarcoma Excisions: Understanding How They Happen

BACKGROUND

Soft-tissue sarcomas present as a mass with nonspecific symptoms, and unplanned excisions commonly occur. The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence of unplanned excisions performed by orthopaedic surgeons and to conduct a root cause analysis (RCA) of the steps that led to unplanned excisions in all the cases.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was conducted. Two cohorts were identified, one including patients who underwent an unplanned excision of a soft-tissue sarcoma (n = 107) and a second cohort with patients whose entire care was performed at our sarcoma center (n = 102). A RCA was conducted with the whole sample to identify the preventable causes that led to sarcoma unplanned excisions.

RESULTS

Orthopedic surgeons were the second group of physicians to perform the most unplanned excisions, only behind general surgeons. Inadequate imaging was encountered in 76.6% of the patients (n = 82, 95% confidence interval, 67.8 to 83.6). Forty-five patients (42.1%) had no imaging studies before the unplanned procedure. In the RCA, the most notable obstacles found were (1) incorrect assumption of a benign diagnosis, (2) failure to obtain the appropriate imaging study, (3) incorrectly reported imaging studies, (4) failure to order a biopsy, and (5) incorrect reporting of the biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite educational efforts, unplanned excisions and the devastating consequences that sometimes follow continue to occur. Orthopaedic surgeons persist in playing a role in the unplanned procedure burden.

Mesenchymal Chondrosarcoma from Diagnosis to Clinical Trials

Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma (MCS) is a rare subtype of chondrosarcoma with a poor prognosis. Although these tumors are sensitive to radiotherapy/chemotherapy, the standard treatment for localized MCS is only surgical resection, and there are no established treatment guidelines for patients with advanced and metastatic MCS. Due to the low incidence of MCS, the pathology of these tumors is still unknown, and other therapeutic options are lacking. Some studies show the potential role of the PDGF/PPI3K/AKT, PKC/RAF/MEK/ERK, and pRB pathways, and BCL2 overexpression in the pathogenesis of MCS. These findings provide an opportunity to use protein kinases and BCL2 inhibitors as potential therapy in MCS. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge about MCS diagnosis and treatment options. We show the immunological and molecular biomarkers used in the diagnosis of MCS. In addition, we discuss the known prognostic and predictive factors in MCS. Finally, we present the novel trends, including targeted therapies and ongoing clinical trials using protein kinase inhibitors and the death receptor 5 (DR5) agonist, which may be the focus of future MCS treatment studies.

2023 GEIS Guidelines for gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common malignant neoplasm of mesenchymal origin. GIST spans a wide clinical spectrum that ranges from tumors with essentially no metastatic potential to malignant and life-threatening spread diseases. Gain-of-function mutations in KIT or PDGFRA receptor tyrosine kinases are the crucial drivers of most GISTs, responsible for tumor initiation and evolution throughout the entire course of the disease. The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting these receptors has substantially improved the outcomes in this formerly chemoresistant cancer. As of today, five agents hold regulatory approval for the treatment of GIST: imatinib, sunitinib, regorafenib, ripretinib, and avapritinib. This, in turn, represents a success for a rare neoplasm. During the past two decades, GIST has become a paradigmatic model in cancer for multidisciplinary work, given the disease-specific particularities regarding tumor biology and tumor evolution. Herein, we review currently available evidence for the management of GIST. This clinical practice guideline has been developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel (oncologist, pathologist, surgeon, molecular biologist, radiologist, and representative of patients' advocacy groups) from the Spanish Group for Sarcoma Research, and it is conceived to provide, from a critical perspective, the standard approach for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.

The rare entity of gastrointestinal leiomyosarcomas: An Italian multicenter retrospective study in high-volume referral centers

BACKGROUND

After a huge efficacy of imatinib in treating patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) was proven, a maximum effort was made to make a differential diagnosis between GISTs and gastrointestinal leiomyosarcomas (GI-LMS), showing the latter to be an extremely rare tumor entity. Limited data on GI-LMS biology, clinical behavior and drug-sensibility are available, and the clinical decision-making in this subgroup of patients is usually challenging.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective observational study on patients with diagnosed GI-LMS from 2004 to 2020 within six high-volume referral centers in Italy.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients had diagnosis of KIT-negative GI-LMS confirmed by sarcoma-expert pathologist. The most common site of origin was the intestine. Twenty-two patients had localized disease and underwent surgery: with a median follow-up of 72 months, median disease-free survival was 42 months. Overall survival (OS)-rate at 5 years was 73% and median OS was 193 months. Five out of 10 patients with local relapse received a salvage surgery, and 2/5 remained with no evidence of disease. Thirteen patients received neoadjuvant (6) or adjuvant (7) chemotherapy, and 2/13 patients remained free from relapse. The median OS for patients with metastatic LMS was 16.4 months.

CONCLUSION

GI-LMS is very rare and extremely aggressive subgroup of sarcomas with a high tendency to systemic spread. Localized GI-LMS at diagnosis may be cured if treated with adequate surgery with or without (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy, while de-novo metastatic disease appeared to have a poor prognosis. Clinical effort to understand GI-LMS biology and clinical behavior and to develop active treatment strategy, especially for metastatic-disease, is warranted.

Survival Outcomes of Ewing Sarcoma and Rhabdomyosarcoma by High- versus Low-Volume Cancer Centres in British Columbia, Canada

Due to the rarity and complexity of treatment for Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma, studies demonstrate improved patient outcomes when managed by a multidisciplinary team at high-volume centres (HVCs). Our study explores the difference in outcomes of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patients based on the centre of initial consultation in British Columbia, Canada. This retrospective study assessed adults diagnosed with Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2020 undergoing curative intent therapy in one of five cancer centres across the province. Seventy-seven patients were included, 46 seen at HVCs and 31 at low-volume centres (LVCs). Patients at HVCs were younger (32.1 vs. 40.8 years, p = 0.020) and more likely to receive curative intent radiation (88% vs. 67%, p = 0.047). The time from diagnosis to first chemotherapy was 24 days shorter at HVCs (26 vs. 50 days, p = 0.120). There was no significant difference in overall survival by treatment centre (HR 0.850, 95% CI 0.448-1.614). Variations in care exist amongst patients treated at HVCs vs. LVCs, which may reflect differences in access to resources, clinical specialists, and varying practice patterns across centres. This study can be used to inform decisions regarding triaging and centralization of Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma patient treatment.

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.

Survival analysis of cancer patients in Portugal following the reference centre model implementation

Cancer has affected around eighteen million people all over the world in 2018. In Portugal, cancer was diagnosed in sixty thousand individuals during 2018, being the second leading cause of death (one in every four deaths). Following the European Directive 2011/24/EU, the Portuguese Health System has been recognizing oncology Reference Centres (RCs), which are focused on delivering best-in-class treatment for cancer patients. This paper performs a survival analysis of cancer patients in Portugal, having hospital episodes with discharge date after the official recognition, in 2016, of the first RCs for hepatobiliary, pancreatic, sarcomas and oesophageal cancer. The aim is to assess the impact of RCs on the survival probability of these patients. For each cancer type, survival curves are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier methodology, and hazard ratios are estimated for different covariates, using multivariate Extended Cox models. The results obtained support the implementation and encourage the further extension of the RC model for oncology in Portugal, as cancer patients treated in an oncology RC, overall, have a better survival probability when compared to patients who had no episode in an RC. These results are clearer for hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancer, but also visible for sarcomas and oesophageal cancer.

Trabectedin use in soft-tissue sarcoma patients in a real-world setting: Data from an Italian national drug-access registry

Trabectedin is a marine-derived anticancer drug approved for the treatment of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). Here, we aimed to analyze its use in a large cohort of STS patients treated in Italy in a real-world setting. Data on STS patients treated with trabectedin in Italy were prospectively collected from January 2013 to December 2019 by the national drug regulator, the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). Time-to-off-treatment (TToT) was defined as the time between the initial prescription of trabectedin and the date of treatment discontinuation for any cause. The impact of the different baseline covariates, including the initial prescribed dose of trabectedin, on TToT was evaluated using an accelerated failure time (AFT) models with log-logistic distribution. In total, we analyzed data from 2633 sarcoma patients and 14 950 individual cycles of trabectedin. The median number of cycles of trabectedin received per patient was 3 (interquartile range 2-7). The labeled 1.5 mg/sqm dose was used in 27.3% of all first prescriptions. Overall, the median TToT was 93 days. In the final AFT model, the variables significantly associated to longer TToT were female gender (+13% increase in TToT); ECOG performance status 0 (+50%); histological diagnosis of leiomyosarcoma (+22%), well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma (+72%) or myxoid liposarcoma (+61%); receiving treatment in a high-volume center (+23%). In this large real-world cohort of STS patients treated with trabectedin, our findings support the use of trabectedin in STS patients, in particular in leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma patients, and highlight the role of treatment center volume in their management.

The benefit for radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres: A systematic review and clinical practice guidelines from the Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association

Patients with sarcoma are best managed at specialised sarcoma centres as supported by published literature. Optimal management requires multidisciplinary team input to formulate the diagnosis and treatment sequencing taking into consideration multiple clinical and pathologic factors. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact on outcomes of radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres. A systematic review was conducted using the population, intervention, comparison and outcome model. A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central databases for publications from 1990 to February 2022 that evaluated the local control, survival and toxicity of radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres. A total of 21 studies were included (17 cancer registry studies, four retrospective comparative studies). Four studies reported the local recurrence endpoint when radiotherapy was part of limb conservation treatment and showed better conformity to clinical practice guidelines and an improved local recurrence free rate when radiotherapy treatment is supported through, but may not be necessarily delivered at a specialised sarcoma centres. Only one retrospective study analysed toxicity specifically and demonstrated that patients who received preoperative radiotherapy at community centres compared to radiotherapy at a specialised sarcoma centre were more likely to develop a major wound complication. Fourteen studies reported overall survival, and 12 of these showed significantly better 5-year overall survival for patients managed at specialised sarcoma centres, however the specific impact of radiotherapy delivered at sarcoma centres could not be determined. In conclusion, patients with sarcoma should be managed through specialised sarcoma centres for better oncological outcomes. Radiotherapy in specialised sarcoma centre is associated with a lower rate of wound complications and may contribute to improved oncological outcomes as part of the limb conservation treatment at a specialised sarcoma centre.

Role of Radiation Therapy in Retroperitoneal Sarcoma

Retroperitoneal sarcoma comprises a small subset of all soft tissue sarcoma and includes various histopathologic subtypes, each with unique patterns of behavior and differential risks for local recurrence and hematogenous metastatic spread. The primary treatment modality is surgery, although even with complete macroscopic resection, recurrence is common. The rationale for the addition of radiotherapy to resection is to improve local control; however, the use of radiation therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma is controversial, and existing data are suboptimal to guide management. Treatment decisions should be determined with multidisciplinary input and shared decision-making. When used in selected patients, radiation therapy should be delivered preoperatively; postoperative treatment is not recommended.

Treatment Outcomes for Primary Hepatic Angiosarcoma: National Cancer Database Analysis 2004-2014

Background: To determine the risk of mortality and factors associated with survival amongst patients diagnosed with primary hepatic angiosarcoma (PHA). Methods: All patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or PHA from 2004 to 2014 were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Further analysis was performed within the cohort of patients with PHA to assess the impact of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and facility type on overall survival (OS). A multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional methods and a survival analysis using the Kaplan−Meier method were used. Results: A total of 117,633 patients with HCC were identified, out of whom 346 patients had PHA. Patients with PHA had a mean age of 62.9 years (SD 13.7), the majority were men (64.7%), white (85.8%), and had a Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of zero (66.2%). A third of the patients with PHA (35.7%) received chemotherapy, and 14.6% underwent a surgical resection. The median survival was 1.9 months (1.8−2.4 months) compared to patients with HCC (10.4 months, 10.2−10.5) (aHR-2.41, 95% CI: 2.10−2.77, p < 0.0001). Surgical resection was associated with a higher median survival (7.7 versus 1.8 months, aHR-0.23, 95% CI: 0.15−0.37, p < 0.0001). A receipt of chemotherapy was associated with a higher median survival than no chemotherapy (5.1 versus 1.2 months, aHR-0.44, 95% CI: 0.32−0.60, p < 0.0001), although the survival benefit did not persist long term. Conclusion: PHA is associated with poor outcomes. A surgical resection and chemotherapy are associated with improved survival outcomes; however, the long-term benefits of chemotherapy are limited.

National survey on the treatment of sarcomas in Spain

Surgical units attending sarcomas in Spain are poor studied. The aim is to know the management of this pathology to identify areas of improvement through multicenter study based on a voluntary survey. The survey was completed by 74 surgeons of different hospitals, which 32,4% is exclusively dedicated to sarcomas. Only 24.3% declared to receive specific training in sarcomas. The most frequent type of hospital was the third level (56.8%), where 38,1% of the surgeons belong to societies or working-groups in sarcoma fields vs. 9,4% in first-second levels. The number of surgeons with specific theoretical training and papers published in this field are higher in third level hospitals. 55,4% belonged to a multidisciplinary unit. A multidisciplinary team was available in 57% of third level hospital vs 28% in others. Most services in charge of this patients are characterized by deficient specialization, low workload and the absence of a multidisciplinary team.

Overview of Adult Sarcoma Burden and Clinical Pathways in Brazil

Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of cancers classified as rare cancers and are often poorly characterized. In Brazil, little is known about the adult sarcoma burden and patients' clinical pathways.

A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Adult and Pediatric Patients with Osteosarcoma

Osteosarcoma is the most common primary bone malignancy in both children and adults. Despite introduction of intensive multimodal treatment with chemotherapy and surgery, outcomes are still poor, especially for patients with metastatic disease and adults. Hence, there is an ongoing need for better prognostic markers and outcome data to inform management decisions in both the adult and pediatric setting. Here, we retrospectively analyzed 112 patients with bone osteosarcoma treated at two large adult and pediatric tertiary academic centers between 1989 and 2019. Patients were divided into an adult (≥18 years) and pediatric (<18 years) cohort for comparison. Our aim was to evaluate predictors of outcomes in pediatric and adult patients, with a specific focus on the role of methotrexate when added to a combination of doxorubicin-cisplatin; the prognostic value of tumor necrosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and outlining any differences in outcomes between adults and pediatric patients that could inform clinical management. Adult patients treated with methotrexate-doxorubicin-cisplatin and those treated with doxorubicin-cisplatin had similar 5-year PFS (26%, 95%CI: 45.5%–10% vs. 50%, 95%CI: 69.6%–26.2%, p = 0.1) and 5-year OS (63%, 95%CI: 82%–34%, vs. 78%, 95%CI: 90.6%–52.6%, p = 0.5). In the adult cohort, there was no difference between patients with ≥90% necrosis and <90% necrosis in either 5-year PFS (42%, 95%CI: 71.1%–11.3% vs. 38%, 95%CI: 57.7%–18.2%, p = 0.4) or 5-year OS (85%, 95%CI: 97.8%–33.4% vs. 56%, 95%CI: 76.8%–27.6%, p = 0.4). In the pediatric cohort, compared to patients with <90% necrosis, those with ≥90% necrosis had significantly better 5-year PFS (30%, 95%CI: 49.3%–14.1% vs. 55%, 95%CI: 73.9%–38.5%, p = 0.003) and 5-year OS (64%, 95%CI: 80.8%–41.1% vs. 78%, 95%CI: 92%–60.9%, p = 0.04). Adult and pediatric patients had similar 5-year OS (69%, 95%CI: 83.2%–49.8% vs. 73%, 95%CI: 83.2%–59.3%, p = 0.8) and 5-year PFS (37%, 95%CI: 52.4%–22.9% vs. 43%, 95%CI: 56.2%–30.4% p = 0.3) even though the proportion of patients with ≥90% necrosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was higher for children compared to adults (60.3% vs. 30%, OR: 3.54, 95%CI: 1.38–8.46, p = 0.006). In conclusion, in adult patients, the addition of methotrexate to doxorubicin and cisplatin did not correlate with a significant survival benefit, questioning the therapeutic value of methotrexate overall. Our study confirms the prognostic utility of percent tumor necrosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in pediatric patients but not in adult patients. Lastly, this is one of the few reported studies where patients with osteosarcoma younger and older than 18 years had similar PFS and OS.

Role of centers with different patient volumes in the management of rhabdomyosarcoma. An analysis by the Italian Pediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee

PROCEDURE

The survival of children with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) has gradually improved as a result of the adoption of multidisciplinary treatments. Dedicated skills and facilities are indispensable and more readily available at reference centers. In this study, we examined the role of centers' experience (based on the number of patients treated) in their management of patients with RMS.

METHODS

We analyzed 342 patients with localized RMS enrolled in the European RMS 2005 protocol from October 2005 to December 2016 at 31 Italian centers that are part of the Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee (STSC). We grouped the centers by the number of patients each one enrolled (Group 1: >40; Group 2: <40 and >10; and Group 3: <10), and compared a number of indicators to assess the appropriateness of patients' diagnostic workup and treatment and their survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 74.6% of patients were treated at 10 centers, and only three of them classifiable as high-volume centers. Only minor differences emerged between the three patient groups in terms of diagnostic investigations and treatment modalities. Survival was similar in the three groups. Approximately, one in four children treated at the centers in Groups 2 and 3 traveled to another center for surgery or radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated at STSC centers with different amounts of experience had similar results in terms of survival. This is attributable to all centers in the network adhering to protocol recommendations and receiving the STSC's support on diagnostics and multidisciplinary treatments for RMS.

Pleomorphic dermal sarcoma: Clinicopathological features and outcomes from a 5-year tertiary referral centre experience

BACKGROUND

Pleomorphic dermal sarcoma (PDS) describes rare dermal-based malignant tumours that are morphologically similar to atypical fibroxanthoma (AFX). PDS may be differentiated from AFX by the presence of one or more of the following histologic features: subcutaneous invasion, tumour necrosis, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), and/or perineural infiltration (PNI).

AIMS

To further define the clinicopathological features, surgical management, and outcomes of PDS primary tumours.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a retrospective observational case series using a database search from 2012 to 2017. Inclusion criteria required all cases to meet the histopathologic criteria for PDS as confirmed by a specialist soft-tissue histopathologist. A total of n = 17 cases were included with a median age of 78 years (range 66-85). All tumours were located on the head and neck, with 13/17 located on the scalp. Primary treatment was with wide local excision (WLE) in all cases. Median follow-up was 48 months. Local recurrence occurred in 4/17 cases (24%) and distant metastasis in 2/17 cases (12%).

CONCLUSION

PDS behaves more aggressively than atypical fibroxanthoma with which it shares a biologic continuum. The optimal surgical management approach is yet to be determined.

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.

National survey on the treatment of sarcomas in Spain

Surgical units attending sarcomas in Spain are poor studied. The aim is to know the management of this pathology to identify areas of improvement through multicenter study based on a voluntary survey. The survey was completed by 74 surgeons of different hospitals, which 32.4% is exclusively dedicated to sarcomas. Only 24.3% declared to receive specific training in sarcomas. The most frequent type of hospital was the third level (56.8%), where 38.1% of the surgeons belong to societies or working-groups in sarcoma fields vs. 9.4% in first-second levels. The number of surgeons with specific theoretical training and papers published in this field are higher in third level hospitals. 55.4% belonged to a multidisciplinary unit. A multidisciplinary team was available in 57% of third level hospital vs. 28% in others. Most services in charge of these patients are characterized by deficient specialization, low workload and the absence of a multidisciplinary team.

Keeping the balance, the true major goal in advanced sarcoma

Achieving a balance between long-term efficacy and good quality of life (QoL) is the main goal of treatment for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, some of whom experience prolonged survival without progression. An awareness of the challenges particular to this complex set of diseases can help preserve patient QoL during treatment. Histology is among the main factors to consider when selecting treatment in advanced disease. Close attention to the toxicity profiles of available regimens is of particular importance, especially in more advanced lines where the population is usually more vulnerable. Surgical outcomes are significantly better in patients managed with expert care, and early referral to sarcoma reference centers is key to improving survival and QoL.

Current Reality of Treating Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma as Illustrated by Case Studies

In the first-line setting of advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STS), the treatment aim generally drives decision-making. Anthracycline combinations with ifosfamide or dacarbazine are more appropriate when the aim is tumour shrinkage, and doxorubicin monotherapy is suitable for tumour control. In patients who progress on anthracycline-based regimens, scope exists for tumour shrinkage with trabectedin and concurrent low-dose radiotherapy. Selecting systemic treatment for patients with advanced STS unsuited to receive standard anthracycline-based therapy often involves complex decision-making as clinical trial evidence comparing alternative options is lacking. Key factors to consider are patient characteristics (e.g., age, medical history, performance status), disease characteristics (e.g., stage, histology), and treatment requirements such as the drug's safety profile, evidence of efficacy by subtype, and approved indication as an alternative first-line treatment option. Real-world data for elderly STS patients derived from retrospective studies and post hoc analyses of clinical trials have particular value in guiding treatment selection and improving the management of this populous but undertreated segment of the STS population.

Nationwide incidence of sarcomas and connective tissue tumors of intermediate malignancy over four years using an expert pathology review network

BACKGROUND

Since 2010, nationwide networks of reference centers for sarcomas (RREPS/NETSARC/RESOS) collected and prospectively reviewed all cases of sarcomas and connective tumors of intermediate malignancy (TIM) in France.

METHODS

The nationwide incidence of sarcoma or TIM (2013-2016) was measured using the 2013 WHO classification and confirmed by a second independent review by expert pathologists. Simple clinical characteristics, yearly variations and correlation of incidence with published clinical trials are presented and analyzed.

RESULTS

Over 150 different histological subtypes are reported from the 25172 patients with sarcomas (n = 18712, 74,3%) or TIM (n = 6460, 25.7%), with n = 5838, n = 6153, n = 6654, and n = 6527 yearly cases from 2013 to 2016. Over these 4 years, the yearly incidence of sarcomas and TIM was therefore 70.7 and 24.4 respectively, with a combined incidence of 95.1/106/year, higher than previously reported. GIST, liposarcoma, leiomyosarcomas, undifferentiated sarcomas represented 13%, 13%, 11% and 11% of tumors. Only GIST, as a single entity had a yearly incidence above 10/106/year. There were respectively 30, 64 and 66 different histological subtypes of sarcomas or TIM with an incidence ranging from 10 to 1/106, 1-0.1/106, or < 0.1/106/year respectively. The 2 latter incidence groups represented 21% of the patients with 130 histotypes. Published phase III and phase II clinical trials (p<10-6) are significantly higher with sarcomas subtypes with an incidence above 1/106 per.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide registry of sarcoma patients, with exhaustive histology review by sarcoma experts, shows that the incidence of sarcoma and TIM is higher than reported, and that tumors with a very low incidence (1<106/year) are less likely to be included in clinical trials.

Strategies for care of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor or soft tissue sarcoma during COVID-19 pandemic: A guide for surgical oncologists

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is deeply impacting the accessibility of cancer patients to surgery. In resource-limited conditions, the standard of care might not be deliverable, but evidence to support alternative management strategies often exists. By revisiting available treatment options, this review provides surgical oncologists with an evidence-based framework for treating patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor, extremity/truncal soft tissue sarcoma, and retroperitoneal sarcoma to rapidly adapt their decision-making to the constant evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Real-world evidence of the efficacy and tolerability of trabectedin in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and tolerability of trabectedin in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have been confirmed by various clinical studies involving lipo- and leiomyosarcomas as well as many other subtypes including translocation-related sarcomas. These data have been obtained from randomized phase II and III clinical trials. Studies in real-world clinical practice are necessary to bridge the efficacy-effectiveness gap and complete the body of evidence. Furthermore, reinforcing clinical experience with data from routine clinical practice allows drug management to be optimized and clinical benefits to be maximized.

AREAS COVERED

The present review provides the most significant data on the efficacy of trabectedin in real-world studies, and the interpretation of real-world experience with trabectedin, in patients with advanced STS.

EXPERT OPINION

Trabectedin has demonstrated durable disease control and an adequate safety profile, indicating it to be a suitable long-term treatment drug associated with a good quality of life. Personalized strategies and individualized objectives are the way forward in the management of STS.

Sarcoma European and Latin American Network (SELNET) Recommendations on Prioritization in Sarcoma Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

The COVID‐19 outbreak has resulted in collision between patients infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 and those with cancer on different fronts. Patients with cancer have been impacted by deferral, modification, and even cessation of therapy. Adaptive measures to minimize hospital exposure, following the precautionary principle, have been proposed for cancer care during COVID‐19 era. We present here a consensus on prioritizing recommendations across the continuum of sarcoma patient care.

Material and Methods

A total of 125 recommendations were proposed in soft‐tissue, bone, and visceral sarcoma care. Recommendations were assigned as higher or lower priority if they cannot or can be postponed at least 2–3 months, respectively. The consensus level for each recommendation was classified as “strongly recommended” (SR) if more than 90% of experts agreed, “recommended” (R) if 75%–90% of experts agreed and “no consensus” (NC) if fewer than 75% agreed. Sarcoma experts from 11 countries within the Sarcoma European‐Latin American Network (SELNET) consortium participated, including countries in the Americas and Europe. The European Society for Medical Oncology‐Magnitude of clinical benefit scale was applied to systemic‐treatment recommendations to support prioritization.

Results

There were 80 SRs, 35 Rs, and 10 NCs among the 125 recommendations issued and completed by 31 multidisciplinary sarcoma experts. The consensus was higher among the 75 higher‐priority recommendations (85%, 12%, and 3% for SR, R, and NC, respectively) than in the 50 lower‐priority recommendations (32%, 52%, and 16% for SR, R, and NC, respectively).

Conclusion

The consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high‐level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a tool for sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID‐19 outbreak.

Implications for Practice

The Sarcoma European‐Latin American Network (SELNET) consensus on sarcoma prioritization care during the COVID‐19 era issued 125 pragmatical recommendations distributed as higher or lower priority to protect critical decisions on sarcoma care during the COVID‐19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary team from 11 countries reached consensus on 115 recommendations. The consensus was lower among lower‐priority recommendations, which shows reticence to postpone actions even in indolent tumors. The European Society for Medical Oncology‐Magnitude of Clinical Benefit scale was applied as support for prioritizing systemic treatment. Consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a practice tool for guidance in the decisions of sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID‐19 outbreak.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has caused deferral, modification, or cessation of treatment for patients with cancer. This article presents a consensus on prioritizing recommendations across the continuum of sarcoma patient care.

Which goals should we pursue in each line of treatment for advanced soft tissue sarcoma?

Treatment goals for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) vary according to disease stage and treatment line. In potentially resectable advanced disease, the goal of treatment is tumor shrinkage to facilitate surgical resection with better margins. Doxorubicin in combination with ifosfamide (or dacarbazine) is first-line therapy of choice in this setting. Tumor shrinkage is relevant not only for surgical rescue but also to obtain rapid symptomatic relief related to tumor volume. Doxorubicin monotherapy can be selected as first-line therapy in cases where disease control with less morbidity is the objective. Second-line therapy for metastatic disease generally aims for disease stabilization with good quality of life although, in some palliative or potentially resectable cases, tumor shrinkage may be relevant. To date, treatment aim has not been a critical factor in the design of clinical trials in advanced STS. In clinical practice, however, treatment is selected according to aim. Future clinical trials in patients with advanced STS should take treatment goals into account. Using illustrative case studies, evidence is examined which supports the current approach to treatment of advanced STS.

Surgery in reference centers improves survival of sarcoma patients: a nationwide study

BACKGROUND

NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 sarcoma reference centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB) aiming to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients. Since 2010, presentation to an MDTB and expert pathological review are mandatory for sarcoma patients nationwide. In the present work, the impact of surgery in a reference center on the survival of sarcoma patients investigated using this national NETSARC registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients' characteristics and follow-up are prospectively collected and data monitored. Descriptive, uni- and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors were conducted in the entire series (N = 35 784) and in the subgroup of incident patient population (N = 29 497).

RESULTS

Among the 35 784 patients, 155 different histological subtypes were reported. 4310 (11.6%) patients were metastatic at diagnosis. Previous cancer, previous radiotherapy, neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), and Li-Fraumeni syndrome were reported in 12.5%, 3.6%, 0.7%, and 0.1% of patients respectively. Among the 29 497 incident patients, 25 851 (87.6%) patients had surgical removal of the sarcoma, including 9949 (33.7%) operated in a NETSARC center. Location, grade, age, size, depth, histotypes, gender, NF1, and surgery outside a NETSARC center all correlated to overall survival (OS), local relapse free survival (LRFS), and event-free survival (EFS) in the incident patient population. NF1 history was one of the strongest adverse prognostic factors for LRFS, EFS, and OS. Presentation to an MDTB was associated with an improved LRFS and EFS, but was an adverse prognostic factor for OS if surgery was not carried out in a reference center. In multivariate analysis, surgery in a NETSARC center was positively correlated with LRFS, EFS, and OS [P < 0.001 for all, with a hazard ratio of 0.681 (95% CI 0.618-0.749) for OS].

CONCLUSION

This nationwide registry of sarcoma patients shows that surgical treatment in a reference center reduces the risk of relapse and death.

In Reply

Authors of the recently published article from the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcoma respond to comments on the results of their study.

Hospital Volume Versus Good Clinical Practice

This letter to the editor comments on a recently published article that assessed the treatment of patients with soft tissue sarcoma in high‐volume versus low‐volume centers.