1
|
Blay JY, Tlemsani C, Toulmonde M, Italiano A, Rios M, Bompas E, Valentin T, Duffaud F, Le Nail LR, Watson S, Firmin N, Dubray-Longeras P, Ropars M, Perrin C, Hervieu A, Lebbe C, Saada-Bouzid E, Soibinet P, Fiorenza F, Bertucci F, Boudou P, Vaz G, Bonvalot S, Honoré C, Marec-Berard P, Minard V, Cleirec M, Biau D, Meeus P, Babinet A, Dumaine V, Carriere S, Fau M, Decanter G, Gouin F, Ngo C, Le Loarer F, Karanian M, Meurgey A, Dufresne A, Brahmi M, Chemin-Airiau C, Ducimetiere F, Penel N, Le Cesne A. Sclerosing Epithelioid Fibrosarcoma (SEF) versus Low Grade Fibromyxoid Sarcoma (LGFMS): Presentation and outcome in the nationwide NETSARC+ series of 330 patients over 13 years. Eur J Cancer 2024; 196:113454. [PMID: 38008029 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/08/2023] [Indexed: 11/28/2023]
Abstract
Sclerosing Epithelioid Fibrosarcoma (SEF) and Low Grade Fibromyxoid Sarcoma (LGFMS) are ultrarare sarcomas sharing common translocations whose natural history are not well known. We report on the nationwide exhaustive series of 330 patients with SEF or LGFMS in NETSARC+ since 2010. PATIENTS AND METHODS NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB). Since 2010, (i) pathological review has been mandatory for sarcoma,and (ii) tumour/patients' characteristics have been collected in the NETSARC+ nationwide database. The characteristics of patients with SEF and LGFMS and their outcome are compared. RESULTS 35/73 (48%) and 125/257(49%) of patients with SEF and LGFMS were female. More visceral, bone and trunk primary sites were observed in SEF (p < 0.001). 30% of SEF vs 4% of LGFMS patients had metastasis at diagnosis (p < 0.0001). Median size of the primary tumor was 51 mm (range 10-90) for LGFMS vs 80 (20-320) for SEF (p < 0.001). Median age for LGFMS patients was 12 years younger than that of SEF patients (43 [range 4-98] vs 55 [range 10-91], p < 0.001). Neoadjuvant treatment was more often given to SEF (16% vs 9%, p = 0.05). More patients with LGFMS were operated first in reference centers (51% vs 26%, p < 0.001). The R0 rate on the operative specimen was 41% in LGFMS vs 16% in SEF (p < 0.001). Median event-free survival (EFS) of patients with SEF and LGFMS were 32 vs 136 months (p < 0.0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Fifty-months OS was 93% vs 81% for LGFMS vs SEF (p = 0.05). Median OS was 77 months after first relapse, similar for SEF and LGFMS. In multivariate analysis, age, tumor size, metastasis at diagnosis were independent prognostic factors for OS in LGFMS. CONCLUSIONS Although sharing close molecular alterations, SEF and LGFMS have a different natural history, clinical presentation and outcome, with a higher risk of metastatic relapse in SEF. Survival after relapse is longer than with other sarcomas, and similar for SEF and LGFMS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Y Blay
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France.
| | | | - M Toulmonde
- Departement of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - A Italiano
- Departement of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - M Rios
- Institut Cancerologie Lorraine, Centre Alexis Vautrin, Nancy, France
| | - E Bompas
- Department of Medical Oncology, Institut de Cancerologie Ouest Nantes, France
| | - T Valentin
- Institut Claudius Regaud & Institut Universitaire de Cancerologie, Oncopole, Toulouse, France
| | - F Duffaud
- La Timone University Hospital, Marseille, France
| | | | - S Watson
- Dept of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie & INSERM U830, Institut Curie Research Center, Paris, France
| | - N Firmin
- Institut de Cancérologie de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | | | - M Ropars
- Eugene Marquis Comprehensive Cancer Center, France
| | | | - A Hervieu
- Centre George Francois Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - C Lebbe
- Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | - E Saada-Bouzid
- Dermato-Oncology Unit, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France
| | | | | | - F Bertucci
- Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France
| | | | - G Vaz
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | | | - C Honoré
- Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France
| | - P Marec-Berard
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - V Minard
- Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France
| | | | - D Biau
- Hopital Cochin, Paris, France
| | - P Meeus
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | | | | | - S Carriere
- Institut de Cancérologie de Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - M Fau
- Departement of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | - G Decanter
- Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - Metrics: Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, F-59000 Lille, France; Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
| | - F Gouin
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - C Ngo
- Departement of Medical Oncology, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France
| | | | - M Karanian
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - A Meurgey
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - A Dufresne
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - M Brahmi
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - C Chemin-Airiau
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - F Ducimetiere
- Centre Léon Bérard & Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France.
| | - N Penel
- Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694 - Metrics: Evaluation des technologies de santé et des pratiques médicales, F-59000 Lille, France; Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France
| | | |
Collapse
|