Tenosynovial giant cell tumor: a case report.

BACKGROUND: This case reports the synchronous diagnosis of two rare unrelated diseases; leiomyosarcoma and tenosynovial giant cell tumor of the knee. It focuses on the challenges of diagnosing tenosynovial giant cell tumor, including cognitive biases in clinical medicine that delay diagnosis. It also demonstrates the pathogenic etiology of tenosynovial giant cell tumor, evidenced by the transient deterioration of the patients' knee symptoms following the administration of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor given as part of the chemotherapeutic regime for leiomyosarcoma. CASE PRESENTATION: A 37-year-old Caucasian man presented with a left groin lump and left knee pain with swelling and locking. Investigations including positron emission tomography-computed tomography and biopsy revealed leiomyosarcoma in a lymph node likely related to the spermatic cord, with high-grade uptake in the left knee that was presumed to be the primary site. His knee symptoms temporarily worsened each time granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was administered with each cycle of chemotherapy for leiomyosarcoma to help combat myelosuppressive toxicity. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy of the knee confirmed a tenosynovial giant cell tumor. His knee symptoms relating to the tenosynovial giant cell tumor improved following the completion of his leiomyosarcoma treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Tenosynovial giant cell tumor remains a diagnostic challenge. We discuss the key clinical features and investigations that aid prompt diagnosis. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines for soft tissue sarcoma have recently been updated to include the pharmacological management of tenosynovial giant cell tumor. Our case discussion provides an up-to-date review of the evidence for optimal management of patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor, with a particular focus on novel pharmacological options that exploit underlying pathogenesis.

A virtual multi-disciplinary meeting is a cost-effective method of triaging referrals to a regional musculoskeletal oncology service.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In 2010, a virtual sarcoma referral model was implemented, which aims to provide a centralised multidisciplinary team (MDT) to provide rapid advice, avoiding unnecessary appointments and providing a streamlined service. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of this screening tool in reducing the service burden and expediting patient journey. METHODS AND RESULTS: All referrals made to a single tertiary referral sarcoma unit from January 2010 to December 2018 were extracted from a prospective database. Only 26.0% events discussed required review directly. 30.3% were discharged back to referrer. 16.5% required further investigations. 22.5% required a biopsy prior to review. There was a reduction in the rate of patients reviewed at the sarcoma clinic, and a higher discharge rate from the MDT in 2018 versus 2010 (p < 0.001). This gives a potential cost saving of 670,700 GBP over the 9 year period. CONCLUSION: An MDT meeting which triages referrals is cost-effective at reducing unnecessary referrals. This can limit unnecessary exposure of patients who may have an underlying diagnosis of cancer to a high-risk environment, and reduces burden on services as it copes with increasing demands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A need for clarity on surgical management of breast sarcoma: Scottish sarcoma network guidelines and regional audit.

Currently, there are no comprehensive breast sarcoma guidelines in the UK. There is therefore a need for guidelines to clarify surgical management, which we have based on data from our regional audit, current evidence, and consensus between West of Scotland Breast Cancer and Scottish Sarcoma Managed Clinical Networks. Methods and results: From 2007 to 2019, 46 patients were treated with breast sarcoma in the West of Scotland. Sarcoma Centre versus Peripheral Hospitals: Incomplete excision rate was 0% at sarcoma centre and 50% at peripheral hospitals (p = 0.0002, Odds Ratio 43). For angiosarcoma, 0% positive margin at the sarcoma centre versus 62.5% at the peripheral unit (p = 0.0036, odds ratio 39.3). Tumours treated at the sarcoma centre were larger than those treated at peripheral hospitals (92.5 versus 39.7 mm, p = 0.0009). WLE (wide local excision) versus mastectomy: Out of eight WLE patients, seven (87.5%) had positive margins, with 6 of these patients proceeding to mastectomy (i.e. 75% WLE patients ultimately had a mastectomy). The positive margin rate was significantly higher in WLE (87.5%) than in mastectomy (10.3%) (p = 0.0001, odds ratio 60.7). Survival: No difference was noted between the sarcoma centre and peripheral hospitals for overall survival (p = 0.43), stratified for tumours <5 cm (p = 0.16), and disease-free survival (p = 0.45). Conclusions: Our data strongly suggest that specific guidelines are needed for breast sarcoma, and that managing these patients according to breast carcinoma protocols in peripheral hospitals is sub-optimal. We recommend centralisation of breast sarcoma patient care to a specialist sarcoma centre, with WLE not recommended as a firstline surgical option given both the high rates of incomplete excision and subsequent need for completion mastectomy.