Health-related quality of life after isolated limb perfusion compared to extended resection, or amputation for locally advanced extremity sarcoma: Is a limb salvage strategy worth the effort?

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare long-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with locally advanced extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS) after isolated limb perfusion followed by resection (IR), compared to extended resection (ER), primary amputation (A) or secondary amputation after IR (IR-A). METHODS: Patients were selected from the respondents of a multi-institutional cross-sectional cohort survivorship study (SURVSARC) conducted among sarcoma survivors registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), 2-10 years after diagnosis. Used PROs were the EORTC QLQ-C30, the Cancer worry scale (CWS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). RESULTS: We identified 97 eSTS survivors: IR = 20, ER = 49, A = 20, IR-A = 8. While there were no differences in PROs between IR and ER, results showed better functioning and functionality in both groups versus the amputation groups. The amputation groups scored significantly lower on physical functioning (A = 62.7, IR-A = 65.7 versus IR = 78.0, ER = 82.7, p = 0.001) and role functioning (A = 67.5, IR-A = 52.8 versus IR = 79.2, ER = 80.6, p = 0.039), both EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Also for the TESS, the scores were significantly lower for the amputation groups compared to the limb sparing groups (upper extremity p = 0.007 with A = 68.9, IR-A = 71.6 versus IR = 93.3, ER = 91.1; lower extremity p < 0.001 with A = 72.2, IR-A50.9 versus IR = 84.5 and ER = 85.5). There were no significant differences between the groups on cancer worry, anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: HRQoL in eSTS survivors treated with IR or ER is equal; for maintenance of physical functioning and functionality IR and ER outperform an amputation.

Diagnosed with a Rare Cancer: Experiences of Adult Sarcoma Survivors with the Healthcare System-Results from the SURVSARC Study.

The aim of this study was to explore the experience of rare cancer patients with the healthcare system and examine differences between age groups (adolescents and young adults (AYA, 18-39 years), older adults (OA, 40-69 years) and elderly (≥70 years)). Dutch sarcoma patients, 2-10 years after diagnosis, completed a questionnaire on their experience with the healthcare system, satisfaction with care, information needs, patient and diagnostic intervals (first symptom to first doctor's visit and first doctor's visit to diagnosis, respectively) and received supportive care. In total, 1099 patients completed the questionnaire (response rate 58%): 186 AYAs, 748 OAs and 165 elderly. Many survivors experienced insufficient medical and non-medical guidance (32% and 38%), although satisfaction with care was rated good to excellent by 94%. Both patient and diagnostic intervals were >1 month for over half of the participants and information needs were largely met (97%). AYAs had the longest patient and diagnostic intervals, experienced the greatest lack of (non-)medical guidance, had more desire for patient support groups and used supportive care most often. This nationwide study among sarcoma survivors showed that healthcare experiences differ per age group and identified needs related to the rarity of these tumors, such as improvements concerning (non-)medical guidance and diagnostic intervals.

The route to diagnosis of sarcoma patients: Results from an interview study in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Sarcomas are rare tumours. Early diagnosis is challenging, but important for local control and potentially survival and quality of life(QoL). We investigated (1)the route to diagnosis (RtD) experienced by sarcoma patients, including factors contributing to the length of the RtD from patients' perspective; (2)the impact of the RtD on QoL and care satisfaction; and (3)differences in aims 1-2 between English and Dutch patients. METHODS: Fifteen sarcoma patients from The Royal Marsden Hospital, United Kingdom, and Radboud University Medical Centre, The Netherlands, were interviewed, exploring RtD experiences. Interviews were analysed according to qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The main themes were: patient interval, diagnostic interval, reflection on the RtD and recommendations for improvement. Patient interval was long if symptoms were attributed as benign, did not interfere with daily life or were expected to cease. An incorrect working diagnosis, ineffective process of additional investigations, long referral times and lack of a lead clinician lengthened the diagnostic interval. Long waiting times, false reassurance and inadequate information provision led to dissatisfaction and a high emotional burden. Factors for improvement included increasing awareness of patients and healthcare providers, empowering patients, and having a lead clinician. CONCLUSION: The RtD of sarcoma patients is complex. Increasing awareness of patients and healthcare providers may contribute to shorten the RtD.

Patient and diagnostic intervals of survivors of sarcoma: Results from the SURVSARC study.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with sarcoma are hypothesized to experience a prolonged route to a cancer diagnosis. This route, the total interval, can be divided into a patient interval (the time from the appearance of symptoms to physician consultation) and diagnostic interval (time from the first consultation to diagnosis). In the current study, the authors investigated these intervals among survivors of sarcoma and identified factors associated with prolonged intervals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among adult patients with sarcoma 2 to 10 years after diagnosis. Patients completed a questionnaire regarding their total interval, which was linked to clinical data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Descriptive statistics were used to describe intervals. Based on Dutch clinical guidelines, a diagnostic interval ≥1 month was considered to be prolonged and an interval ≥3 months was considered as very long. Multivariable regression analyses investigated associations between patient and tumor characteristics and interval length. RESULTS: A total of 1099 participants were included (response rate, 58%); approximately 60% reported a patient interval ≥1 month and 36% reported a patient interval ≥3 months. Risk factors for a very long patient interval were sarcoma of the skin or pelvis, liposarcoma, or rhabdomyosarcoma. Stage III disease was associated with a shorter patient interval. The diagnostic interval length was ≥1 month in 55% of patients and ≥3 months in 28% of patients. Risk factors for a very long diagnostic interval were female sex, age <70 years, or having a synovial sarcoma or chordoma. CONCLUSIONS: The patient and diagnostic interval lengths were prolonged in a substantial percentage of this sarcoma survivorship population. Factors found to be associated with the length of the patient interval or the diagnostic interval differed. Creating awareness among (especially young) patients to consult a physician and awareness among physicians to consider a sarcoma diagnosis will contribute to optimization of the total interval.

Unraveling the Heterogeneity of Sarcoma Survivors' Health-Related Quality of Life Regarding Primary Sarcoma Location: Results from the SURVSARC Study.

Sarcoma patients experience physical and psychological symptoms, depending on age of onset, subtype, treatment, stage, and location of the sarcoma, which can adversely affect patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to unravel the heterogeneity of sarcoma survivors' HRQoL regarding primary sarcoma location. A cross-sectional study was conducted among Dutch sarcoma survivors (N = 1099) aged ≥18, diagnosed 2-10 years ago. Primary sarcoma locations were head and neck, chest, abdominal including retroperitoneal, pelvis including urogenital organs, axial skeleton, extremities (upper and lower), breast, skin and other locations. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-C30 was used to measure HRQoL accompanied by treatment-specific HRQoL questions. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Axial skeleton sarcomas had the lowest functioning levels and highest symptoms compared to other locations. Skin sarcomas had the highest functioning levels and lowest symptoms on most scales. Bone sarcomas scored worse on several HRQoL domains compared to soft tissue sarcomas. High prevalence of treatment-specific HRQoL issues were found per location. In conclusion, sarcomas can present everywhere, which is reflected by different HRQoL outcomes according to primary sarcoma location. The currently used HRQoL measure lacks treatment-specific questions and is too generic to capture all sarcoma-related issues, emphasizing the necessity for a comprehensive sarcoma-specific HRQoL measurement strategy.

The Perceived Impact of Length of the Diagnostic Pathway Is Associated with Health-Related Quality of Life of Sarcoma Survivors: Results from the Dutch Nationwide SURVSARC Study.

BACKGROUND: Sarcoma patients often experience a long time to diagnosis, known as the total interval. This interval can be divided into the patient (time from symptoms to doctor consultation) and diagnostic intervals (time from first consultation to diagnosis). In other cancers, a long total interval has been associated with worse outcomes, but its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has never been investigated among sarcoma patients. This study investigates the association between (1) the actual time to diagnosis and HRQoL; (2) the perceived impact of the diagnostic interval length and HRQoL; (3) the actual length and perceived impact of the length and the HRQoL of sarcoma survivors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed among sarcoma patients aged ≥18, diagnosed 2-10 years ago in the Netherlands. The participants completed a questionnaire on HRQoL, the time to diagnosis, the perceived impact of the diagnostic interval on HRQoL, and coping. RESULTS: 1099 participants were included (response rate, 58%). The mean time since diagnosis was 67.4 months. More than half reported a patient (60%) or diagnostic interval (55%) ≥1 month. A third (31%) perceived a negative impact of the diagnostic interval length on HRQoL. Patient or diagnostic interval length was not associated with HRQoL. By contrast, participants perceiving a negative impact (32%) had lower HRQoL scores than those perceiving a positive (11%) or no impact (58%) (p = 0.000). This association remained significant in a multivariable model, in which maladaptive coping strategies and tumour characteristics were also found to be associated with HRQoL. Participants perceiving a negative impact of the length of the diagnostic interval related this to high psychological distress levels, more physical disabilities, and worse prognosis. CONCLUSION: The perceived impact of the diagnostic interval length was associated with the HRQoL of sarcoma survivors, whereas the actual length was not associated with HRQoL. Maladaptive coping strategies were independently associated with HRQoL. This offers opportunities for early intervention to improve HRQoL.