Cutaneous versus non-cutaneous angiosarcoma: clinicopathologic features and treatment outcomes in 60 patients at a single Asian cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Angiosarcoma (AS) is an uncommon soft tissue sarcoma with dismal prognosis that presents either cutaneously (C-AS) or non-cutaneously (NC-AS). We compared the clinical features and treatment outcomes between these 2 groups. METHODS: A single-centre study evaluating 60 AS patients between 2002 and 2012 was performed. RESULTS: The median age was 70 years. C-AS of the scalp or face comprised 66% of patients. C-AS patients were older than NC-AS (median age 74 vs. 56 years; p < 0.001). Proportionately more C-AS patients presented with non-metastatic disease (86 vs. 50%; p = 0.007). Amongst resected C-AS and NC-AS patients, rates of positive surgical margins (53 vs. 50%; p = 1.00) and adjuvant therapy (25 vs. 43%; p = 0.626) were not significantly different, though proportionately fewer C-AS patients relapsed (36 vs. 78%; p = 0.038). Paclitaxel was the most common agent in first line palliative systemic therapy, achieving an objective response rate of 56%. Median overall survival was 11.2 months, with no significant difference between C-AS and NC-AS (11.3 vs. 9.8 months; p = 0.895). CONCLUSION: Distinct from AS in the West, our series demonstrates a clear preponderance of scalp AS. Disparities in clinical characteristics between C-AS and NC-AS did not translate into survival differences.

The influence of primary site on outcomes in leiomyosarcoma: a review of clinicopathologic differences between uterine and extrauterine disease.

BACKGROUND: Leiomyosarcomas (LMS) comprise 25% of soft tissue sarcomas. Recent reports suggest differences in treatment outcomes between uterine (uLMS) and extrauterine (eLMS) disease that may reflect distinct disease biologies. We sought to identify prognostic factors in LMS and clinicopathologic differences between uLMS and eLMS. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study evaluating 97 eligible patients treated for LMS between 2002 and 2010. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 21.2 months. uLMS affected 53% of patients, and was less common beyond age 60 years compared with eLMS (10% vs. 37%, P = 0.002). Seventy-two percent of patients presented with nonmetastatic disease. Of these, 94% underwent curative surgery, among whom more uLMS patients achieved negative surgical margins (90% vs. 45%, P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in adjuvant therapy use and relapse patterns between uLMS and eLMS. Half of metastatic patients received palliative chemotherapy, among whom 76% received anthracycline-based chemotherapy in first line to which response rate was 31%. Median overall survival was 45.2 months, 49.8 months in uLMS, and 40.5 months in eLMS (P = 0.294). Among patients without metastases, median survival was 60.8 months (77.3 vs. 48.1 mo in uLMS and eLMS, respectively, P = 0.194). In metastatic disease, median survival was 20.7 months (22.0 vs. 17.5 mo in uLMS and eLMS, respectively, P = 0.936). Advanced disease stage, bone metastases and lack of metastasectomy prognosticated for inferior survival. CONCLUSIONS: While demonstrating interesting clinicopathologic differences, the evidence for uLMS and eLMS being biologically distinct remains inconclusive. Disease stage is prognostically most important in LMS.

Localized gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the rectum: An uncommon primary site with prominent disease and treatment-related morbidities.

Well-established clinicopathological variables used in the risk stratification of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) may not completely predict rectal GIST, an uncommon and poorly studied GIST subset. The aim of the present study was to determine the patterns of relapse and morbidities associated with recurrence in rectal GIST. A single-institution retrospective study between 2002 and 2011 was conducted, identifying 9 patients (8%) with localized rectal GIST, while comparing small intestinal (n=37) and gastric (n=63) GIST (median age, 60 years). Rectal GIST tumors were smaller compared to small intestinal/gastric GIST (P=0.044). The number of mitoses per 50 high-power field (HPF) did not differ by primary site. In general, 73% of patients were high-risk, as defined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus criteria, however, only 25% received adjuvant imatinib. Fewer rectal GIST patients achieved negative surgical margins compared to small intestinal/gastric GIST (67 vs. 92%; P=0.054). Of the 9 patients with localized rectal GIST 6 had peri-operative tumor rupture, anastomotic breakdown or required anal sphincter-compromising surgery. At the time of the first relapse, 83% of the recurrences were local failures for rectal GIST, compared to 21% for small intestinal/gastric GIST (P=0.005). The median relapse-free survival was 51 months for the entire cohort, and 54, 36 and 56 months for rectal, small intestinal and gastric GIST, respectively (P=0.468). Rectal GIST was found to be associated with high rates of local relapse and significant morbidity, despite being significantly smaller compared to GIST of other sites. A multimodality peri-operative therapeutic approach may be required to improve outcomes.