New Sarculator Prognostic Nomograms for Patients With Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: Case Volume Does Matter.

OBJECTIVE: To update the current Sarculator retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) prognostic nomograms considering the improvement in patient prognosis and the case volume effect. BACKGROUND: Survival of patients with primary RPS has been increasing over time, and the volume-outcome relationship has been well recognized. Nevertheless, the specific impact on prognostic nomograms is unknown. METHODS: All consecutive adult patients with primary localized RPS treated at 8 European and North American sarcoma reference centers between 2010 and 2017 were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups: high-volume centers (HVC, ≥13 cases/year) and low-volume centers (LVC, <13 cases/year). Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Multivariable analyses for OS and DFS were performed. The nomograms were updated by recalibration. Nomograms performance was assessed in terms of discrimination (Harrell C index) and calibration (calibration plot). RESULTS: The HVC and LVC groups comprised 857 and 244 patients, respectively. The median annual primary RPS case volume (interquartile range) was 24.0 in HVC (15.0-41.3) and 9.0 in LVC (1.8-10.3). Five-year OS was 71.4% (95% CI: 68.3%-74.7%) in the HVC cohort and 63.3% (56.8%-70.5%) in the LVC cohort ( P =0.012). Case volume was associated with both OS (LVC vs. HVC hazard ratio 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82, P =0.011) and DFS (hazard ratio 1.93, 95% CI: 1.57-2.37, P <0.001) at multivariable analyses. When applied to the study cohorts, the Sarculator nomograms showed good discrimination (Harrell C index between 0.68 and 0.73). The recalibrated nomograms showed good calibration in the HVC group, whereas the original nomograms showed good calibration in the LVC group. CONCLUSIONS: New nomograms for patients with primary RPS treated with surgery at high-volume versus low-volume sarcoma reference centers are available in the Sarculator app.

Outcomes in older adults with metastatic esophageal and gastric carcinoma treated with palliative chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma (GEC) in elderly patients is increasing, yet patients ≥75 years have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials. We sought to investigate palliative chemotherapy administration patterns and survival outcomes in older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis identified patients aged 65-74 (young-old) and ≥75 years (older-old) diagnosed with advanced GEC. Patient and tumor characteristics were recorded, with descriptive analysis, time-to-event data analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis performed. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-eight "young-old" and 109 'older-old' patients were identified. Patient characteristics were similar between groups except for Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI), with lower co-morbidities in the "young-old" compared to "older-old" cohort (P < .001; CCI = 0 in 103 (52%) "young-old" vs 31 (28%) "older-old"). The primary diagnosis in both groups was adenocarcinoma. 119 (60%) "young-old" and 25 (23%) "older-old" patients received chemotherapy (P < .001). Performance status was the primary explanation for chemotherapy non-receipt in both cohorts; age was the explanation in 21 (25%) "older-old" patients and none in the "young-old" patients. PFS for first-line systemic therapy in "young-old" patients was 6.4 (95% CI 5.9-7.6) versus 7.5 months (95% CI 5.1-11.3) in "older-old" patients (P = .69) whilst respective OS was 12.3 (95% CI 10.1-15.5) and 10.4 months (95% CI 9.0-14.6) (P = .0816). Toxicity prompted chemotherapy cessation in 17 (15%) "young-old" and 3 (13%) "older-old" patients (P = .97). Multivariate analysis identified CCI and ECOG performance status as predictive for PFS and OS, respectively. No causative relationship was identified with other variables. CONCLUSION: Our study of real-world older-adults show that significant number of "older-old" patients with GEC do not receive chemotherapy. Among "older-old" adults who do receive systemic therapy, outcomes are comparable; this underscores the importance of geriatric assessment-guided care and suggests that age alone should not be a barrier to receipt of chemotherapy in patients with advanced GEC.

Preoperative Radiotherapy in Patients With Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: EORTC-62092 Trial (STRASS) Versus Off-trial (STREXIT) Results.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of radiotherapy (RT) on abdominal recurrence-free survival (ARFS) in patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma treated in the EORTC-STBSG-62092 (STRASS) phase 3 randomized controlled trial (STRASS cohort) and off-trial (STREXIT cohort) and to pool STRASS and STREXIT data to test the hypothesis that RT improves ARFS in patients with liposarcoma. BACKGROUND: The STRASS trial did not show any difference in ARFS between patients treated with preoperative radiotherapy+surgery (RT+S) versus surgery alone (S). METHODS: All consecutive adult patients not enrolled in STRASS and underwent curative-intent surgery for a primary retroperitoneal sarcoma with or without preoperative RT between 2012 and 2017 (STRASS recruiting period) among ten STRASS-recruiting centres formed the STREXIT cohort. The effect of RT in STREXIT was explored with a propensity score (PS)-matching analysis. Primary endpoint was ARFS defined as macroscopically incomplete resection or abdominal recurrence or death of any cause, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: STRASS included 266 patients, STREXIT included 831 patients (727 after excluding patients who received preoperative chemotherapy, 202 after 1:1 PS-matching). The effect of RT on ARFS in STRASS and 1:1 PS-matched STREXIT cohorts, overall and in patients with liposarcoma, was similar. In the pooled cohort analysis, RT administration was associated with better ARFS in patients with liposarcoma [N=321, hazard ratio (HR), 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-0.89]. In particular, patients with well-differentiated liposarcoma and G1-2 dedifferentiated liposarcoma (G1-2 DDLPS, n=266) treated with RT+S had better ARFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-0.97) while patients with G3 DDLPS and leiomyosarcoma had not. At the current follow-up, there was no association between RT and overall survival or distant metastases-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, preoperative RT was associated with better ARFS in patients with primary well-differentiated liposarcoma and G1-2 DDLPS.

Comparison of Four Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Advanced Gastric and Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic scores that can identify patients at risk for early death are needed to aid treatment decision-making and patient selection for clinical trials. We compared the accuracy of four scores to predict early death (within 90 days) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer. METHODS: Advanced GE cancer patients receiving first-line systemic therapy were included. Prognostic risks were calculated using: Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm-Score), and MD Anderson Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (MDA-ICI) scores. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze associations between prognostic scores and OS. The predictive discrimination was estimated using Harrell's c-index. Predictive ability for early death was measured using time-dependent AUCs. RESULTS: In total, 451 patients with metastatic GE cancer were included. High risk patients had shorter OS for all scores (RMH high- vs. low-risk median OS 7.9 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001; MDACC 6.8 vs. 11.9 months P < .001; GRIm-Score 5.3 vs. 13 months, P < .001; MDA-ICI 8.2 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, each prognostic score was significantly associated with OS. The GRIm-Score had the highest predictive discrimination and predictive ability for early death. CONCLUSIONS: The GRIm-Score had the highest accuracy in predicting early death and OS. Clinicians may use this score to identify patients at higher risk of early death to guide treatment decisions including clinical trial enrolment. This score could also be used as a stratification factor in future clinical trial designs.

Desmoid Tumors in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Patients: Favorable Outcomes with Multidisciplinary Management.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to describe the clinical features, management, and outcomes of desmoid tumors (DTs) in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients at a high-volume sarcoma center. METHODS: Consecutive patients with FAP and DTs were identified from our institutional databases (1985-2021). Patient demographics, treatment, and outcomes were described. Categorical data were compared using Fisher's exact test, and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Forty-five patients with 67 DTs were identified: 39 mesenteric or retroperitoneal (58.2%), 17 abdominal wall (25.4%), 4 extremity (6%), 4 breast (6%) and 3 back (4.4%). Severe DT symptoms were present in 12 patients (26.7%). Initial treatments per tumor were observation in 30 (44.8%) DTs, chemotherapy in 15 (22.4%) DTs, surgery in 10 (14.9%) DTs, and other systemic therapies in 10 (14.9%) DTs. The majority of DTs remained stable with observation or a single intervention (77.8%). Median PFS was 23.4 years (95% confidence interval 7.6-39.2). In the 12 severely symptomatic patients, four patients required more than two interventions for DT control. At a median follow-up of 6.0 years (range 0.7-35.8 years), 33 (73.3%) patients were alive with disease, 7 (15.6%) were alive without disease, and 5 (11.1%) died of other causes. No patients died of DT-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of DTs in FAP patients remained stable with observation or a single intervention. There were no DT-related deaths; however, 12 of 45 patients (26.7%) experienced significant tumor morbidity and required more interventions for disease control. Further studies on quality of life are required.

Outcome After Surgical Treatment of Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans (DFSP): Does it Require Extensive Follow-up and What is an Adequate Resection Margin?

INTRODUCTION: Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a rare cutaneous tumour of indeterminate malignant potential. The mainstay treatment for DFSP is surgical resection. Given the reported high local recurrence rate, the ideal resection margin for DFSP is unclear. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the local recurrence and metastatic rate of DFSP and DFSP with fibrosarcomatous degeneration (FS-DFSP), with specific attention to margin status in an attempt to address the issue of margin adequacy. METHODS: Patients treated for DFSP at a single sarcoma centre were identified from a prospective database. DFSP and FS-DFSP patients with and without prior surgery were included. Patients were followed after surgery to monitor complications, local recurrence and metastasis. RESULTS: The study included 200 patients: 166 patients with DFSP and 34 patients with FS-DFSP. In the DFSP group, nine patients (5.4%) had positive margins, one case (0.6%) developed local recurrence (LR) and no patients developed distant metastases. In the FS-DFSP group, seven patients (20.6%) had positive margins, six patients (17.6%) developed local recurrence (LR) and eight patients (23.5%) developed distant metastases, of which three (37.5%) were in the lungs, one (12.5%) in bone and four (50%) in other soft tissue sites. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Local recurrence and metastases are extremely rare in patients with DFSP. Achieving a negative as opposed to a wide surgical margin may be sufficient to avoid local recurrence of most DFSP. We suggest that no ongoing surveillance for local or systemic relapse is required for DFSP patients after negative margin resection. For FS-DFSP, we recommend the same surveillance schedule, based on tumour grade, as other soft tissue sarcoma.

Effect of Preoperative Treatment on the Performance of Predictive Nomograms in Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS)-specific nomograms provide estimates of survival and recurrence risk following resection in the individual patient. The effect of preoperative treatment on nomogram performance has not been previously examined. Our aim was to evaluate the predictive accuracy of existing RPS-specific nomograms in patients managed at our center, where the majority of patients received preoperative radiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent curative treatment for primary RPS at Mount Sinai Hospital/Princess Margaret Hospital between 1996 and 2016 were identified. The performance of four previously published nomograms was assessed by measuring the agreement between nomogram-predicted and observed outcomes using Harrell's C-Index and level of calibration. Outcomes included in each of the nomograms [overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific death (DSD), local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR)] at each of the specified post-resection timepoints were examined. RESULTS: In total, 253 patients were included. When observed outcomes were compared with those predicted by each of the four nomograms, the C-Index ranged from 0.60 to 0.81, representing a wide range of predictive accuracy. The lowest C-Index was for prediction of LR. Calibration plots revealed that the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) nomogram predicted a 5-year LR of 45%, whereas the observed LR was 24%. Overprediction of LR was detected in patients who had undergone preoperative radiotherapy, but not in patients treated with surgery alone. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative radiotherapy appeared to preclude the use of the LR component of existing nomograms for primary RPS. Updated nomograms should be created to reflect this variable, particularly in light of the recently published STRASS trial results.

Management of Locally Recurrent Retroperitoneal Sarcoma in the Adult: An Updated Consensus Approach from the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), but local recurrence is common. Biologic behavior and recurrence patterns differ significantly among histologic types of RPS, with implications for management. The Transatlantic Australasian RPS Working Group (TARPSWG) published a consensus approach to primary RPS, and to complement this, one for recurrent RPS in 2016. Since then, additional studies have been published, and collaborative discussion is ongoing to address the clinical challenges of local recurrence in RPS. METHODS: An extensive literature search was performed, and the previous consensus statements for recurrent RPS were updated after review by TARPSWG members. The search included the most common RPS histologic types: liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, solitary fibrous tumor, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor. RESULTS: Recurrent RPS management was evaluated from diagnosis to follow-up evaluation. For appropriately selected patients, resection is safe. Nomograms currently are available to help predict outcome after resection. These and other new findings have been combined with expert recommendations to provide 36 statements, each of which is attributed a level of evidence and grade of recommendation. In this updated document, more emphasis is placed on histologic type and clarification of the intent for surgical treatment, either curative or palliative. Overall, the fundamental tenet of optimal care for patients with recurrent RPS remains individualized treatment after multidisciplinary discussion by an experienced team with expertise in RPS. CONCLUSIONS: Updated consensus recommendations are provided to help guide decision-making for treatment of locally recurrent RPS and better selection of patients who would potentially benefit from surgery.

Influence of sarcopenia, clinical data, and 2-[18F] FDG PET/CT in outcome prediction of patients with early-stage adenocarcinoma esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic value of sarcopenia measurements done on staging 2-[18F] FDG PET/CT together with metabolic activity of the tumor in patients with adenocarcinoma esophagogastric cancer with surgical treatment. METHODS: Patients with early-stage, surgically treated esophageal adenocarcinoma and available pre-treatment 2-[18F] FDG PET/CT were included. The standard uptake value (SUV) and SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) were recorded. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) was measured at the L3 level on the CT component of the PET/CT. Sarcopenia was defined as SMI < 34.4cm2/m2 in women and < 45.4cm2/m2 in men. RESULTS: Of the included 145 patients. 30% were sarcopenic at baseline. On the univariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, ECOG, surgical T and N staging, lymphovascular invasion (LVI) positive lymph nodes, and sarcopenia were significant prognostic factors concerning RFS and OS. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, surgical N staging (p = 0.025) and sarcopenia (p = 0.022) remained significant poor prognostic factors for OS and RFS. Combining the clinical parameters with the imaging-derived nutritional evaluation of the patient but not metabolic parameters of the tumor showed improved predictive ability for OS and RFS. CONCLUSION: Combining the patients' imaging-derived sarcopenic status with standard clinical data, but not metabolic parameters, offered an overall improved prognostic value concerning OS and RFS.

Preoperative and Postoperative Approaches to Gastroesophageal Cancer: What is All the Fuss About.

Gastroesophageal cancers carry poor prognoses, and are a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Even in those with resectable disease, more than half of patients treated with surgery alone experience disease recurrence. Multimodality approaches using preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy have been established, resulting in incremental improvements in outcomes. Globally, there is no standardized approach, and treatment varies with geographic location. The question remains of how to select the optimal perioperative treatment that will maximize benefit for patients while avoiding toxicities from unnecessary therapies. This article reviews currently available evidence supporting preoperative and postoperative therapy in gastroesophageal cancers, with an emphasis on recent practice-changing trials and ongoing areas of investigation, including the role of immune checkpoint inhibition and biomarker-guided treatment.

Anal Adenocarcinoma: A Rare Entity in Need of Multidisciplinary Management.

BACKGROUND: Anal adenocarcinoma is a rare clinical entity for which the optimal management is not defined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the multidisciplinary management and outcomes of patients with anal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a quaternary cancer center. PATIENTS: Men and women with anal adenocarcinoma treated between 1995 and 2016 were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-two patients were treated with either chemoradiotherapy or trimodality therapy including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgical resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local failure, regional failure, and distant metastasis rates were estimated using the cumulative incidence method. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival and overall survival. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the clinical predictors of outcome. RESULTS: There was a higher 5-year rate of local failure in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy compared with trimodality therapy (53% vs 10%; p < 0.01). The 5-year incidence of distant metastases was 29% (trimodality therapy) versus 30% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.9); adjuvant chemotherapy did not reduce the incidence of distant metastases (p = 0.8). Five-year overall survival was 73% (trimodality therapy) versus 49.4% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.1). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse overall survival were treatment with chemoradiotherapy, cT3-4 category disease, and node-positive disease. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size and retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment may continue to be tailored to individual patients, better outcomes with a trimodality therapy approach were observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708.ADENOCARCINOMA ANAL: UNA ENTIDAD POCO FRECUENTE EN NECESIDAD DE UN MANEJO MULTIDISCIPLINARIO. ANTECEDENTES: El adenocarcinoma anal es una entidad clínica poco frecuente por lo que aún no se define el manejo óptimo. OBJETIVO: Describir el manejo multidisciplinario y los resultados de los pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal. DISEO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ENTORNO CLINICO: Centro de cáncer cuaternario. PACIENTES: Hombres y mujeres con adenocarcinoma anal tratados entre 1995 y 2016. INTERVENCIONES: Cincuenta y dos pacientes fueron tratados con quimiorradioterapia o terapia trimodal que incluyó: radioterapia, quimioterapia y resección quirúrgica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: Se estimaron las tasas de falla local, falla regional y metástasis a distancia mediante el método de incidencia acumulada. Se utilizó el método de Kaplan-Meier para estimar la supervivencia libre de progresión y la supervivencia global. Los riesgos proporcionales de multivariable Cox se utilizaron para evaluar los predictores clínicos de los resultados. RESULTADOS: Hubo una mayor tasa de falla local a cinco años en pacientes tratados con quimiorradioterapia en comparación con terapia trimodal (53% vs 10%; p < 0,01). La incidencia a cinco años de metástasis a distancia fue del 29% (terapia trimodal) versus 30% (quimiorradioterapia) (p = 0,9); la quimioterapia adyuvante no redujo la incidencia de metástasis a distancia (p = 0,8). La supervivencia global a cinco años fue del 73% (terapia trimodal) versus 49,4% (quimiorradioterapia); p = 0,1. En el análisis multivariable, los factores asociados con una peor supervivencia general fueron el tratamiento con quimiorradioterapia, enfermedad de categoría cT3-4 y enfermedad con ganglios positivos. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio está limitado por su pequeño tamaño de muestra y su naturaleza retrospectiva. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el tratamiento puede seguir adaptándose a pacientes individuales, se observaron mejores resultados con un enfoque TTM. Conslute Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Challenges in virtual collection of patient-reported data: a prospective cohort study conducted in COVID-19 era.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, patients attending ambulatory clinics at cancer centers in Ontario completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) at each visit. At our center, completion was via touchpad, with assistance from clinic volunteers. As of March 2020, clinic appointments were conducted virtually when possible and touch pads removed. We anticipated a negative impact on the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the recognition of severe symptoms. METHODS: We performed a prospective cross-sectional cohort study to investigate remote ESAS completion by patients with appointments at a weekly surgical oncology clinic. Patients in the initial study cohort were asked to complete and return the ESAS virtually (V). Given low completion rates, the ensuing cohort was asked to complete a hard-copy (HC) ESAS. For the final cohort, we provided remote, personal mentorship by a member of the care team to support virtual electronic ESAS completion (virtual-mentored (VM) cohort). RESULTS: Between May and July 2020, a total of 174 patient encounters were included in the study. For the V cohort, 20/46 patients (44%) successfully completed and returned the electronic ESAS, compared to 49/50 (98%) for the HC cohort. For the VM cohort, the overall completion rate was 74% (58/78); however, 12 of these 58 patients did not independently complete a virtual ESAS. Virtual questionnaire completion was not predicted by age, sex, or tumor site, although patients who completed the ESAS were more likely to be in active management rather than surveillance (p = 0.04). Of all completed forms, 42% revealed a depression score of ≥2, and 27% an anxiety score of ≥4. CONCLUSIONS: We identified significant barriers to the virtual completion of ESAS forms, with a lack of predictive variables. The severe degree of psychological distress reported by ~50% of respondents demonstrates the need for ongoing regular collection/review of these data. Innovative solutions are required to overcome barriers to the virtual collection of PROs.

A framework for role allocation in education, research and leadership services in Canadian academic divisions of general surgery: a modified Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Moving toward a funding standard similar to that for clinical services for roles essential to the functioning of education, research and leadership services within divisions of general surgery is necessary to strengthen divisional resilience. We aimed to identify roles and underlying tasks in these services central to sustainable functioning of Canadian academic divisions of general surgery. METHODS: Between June 2018 and October 2020, we used a 4-step modified Delphi method (online survey, face-to-face nominal group technique [n = 12], semistructured telephone interview [n = 8] and nominal group technique [n = 12]) to achieve national consensus from an expert panel of all 17 heads of academic divisions of general surgery in Canada on the roles and accompanying tasks essential to education, research and leadership services within an academic division of general surgery. We used 70% agreement to determine consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that a framework for role allocation in education, research and leadership services was relevant and necessary. Consensus was reached for 7 roles within the educational service, 3 roles within the research service and 5 roles within the leadership service. CONCLUSION: Our framework represents a national consensus that defines role standards for education, research and leadership services in Canadian academic divisions of general surgery. The framework can help divisions build resiliency, and enable sustained and deliberate advances in these services.

Retroperitoneal sarcoma: the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group Program.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) is a bottom-up clinical network established in 2013 with the goal of improving the care and outcomes of patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). Here, we review the knowledge produced by this collaborative effort and examine the future potential of this group. RECENT FINDINGS: TARPSWG has produced retrospective studies focused on patients with primary and recurrent RPS allowing a better understanding of patient prognosis, treatment outcomes and tumor biology. The group has played a pivotal role in a phase III randomized STudy of preoperative RAdiotherapy plus Surgery versus surgery alone for patients with Retroperitoneal Sarcoma (STRASS) trial, favoring patient recruitment and trial completion. A prospective registry for patients with primary RPS populated by TARPSWG members is ongoing. TARPSWG has created consensus papers with recommendations regarding the management of patients with primary, recurrent and metastatic RPS that collated the views of representatives of sarcoma centers from Europe, North America, Asia and Australia. SUMMARY: Since its inception, TARPSWG has become a leading network in the field of RPS. It has made a major contribution to the world of RPS research and cares allowing to overcome the limitations related to the rarity of the disease through collaboration.

Has the Outcome for Patients Who Undergo Resection of Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Changed Over Time? A Study of Time Trends During the Past 15 years.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate changes in treatment strategy and outcome for patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) undergoing resection at referral centers during a recent period. METHODS: The study enrolled consecutive adult patients with primary non-metastatic RPS who underwent resection with curative intent between 2002 and 2017 at 10 referral centers. The patients were grouped into three periods according to date of surgery: t1 (2002-2006), t2 (2007-2011), and t3 (2012-2017). Five-year overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and crude cumulative incidence (CCI) of local recurrence (LR) and distant metastasis (DM) were calculated. Multivariable analyses for OS and DSS were performed. RESULTS: The study included 1942 patients. The median follow-up period after resection varied from 130 months (interquartile range [IQR], 124-141 months) in t1 to 37 months (IQR, 35-39 months) in t3. The 5-year OS was 61.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56.4-66.3%) in t1, 67.0% (95 CI, 63.2-71.0%) in t2, and 71.9% (95% CI, 67.7-76.1%) in t3. The rate of macroscopically incomplete resection (R2) was 7.1% in t1 versus 4.7% in t3 (p = 0.066). The median number of resected organs increased over time (p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis resection during t3 was associated with better OS and DSS. The 90-day postoperative mortality improved over time (4.3% in t1 to 2.3% in t3; p = 0.031). The 5-year CCI of LR and DM did not change significantly over time. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term survival of patients who underwent resection for primary RPS has increased during the past 15 years. This increased survival is attributable to better patient selection for resection, quality of surgery, and perioperative patient management.

Postoperative Morbidity After Resection of Recurrent Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: A Report from the Transatlantic Australasian RPS Working Group (TARPSWG).

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate perioperative morbidity after surgery for first locally recurrent (LR1) retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). Data concerning the safety of resecting recurrent RPS are lacking. METHODS: Data were collected on all patients undergoing resection of RPS-LR1 at 22 Trans-Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) centers from 2002 to 2011. Uni- and multivariable logistic models were fitted to study the association between major (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) complications and patient/surgery characteristics as well as outcome. The resected organ score, a method of standardizing the number of organs resected, as previously described by the TARPSWG, was used. RESULTS: The 681 patients in this study had a median age of 59 years, and 51.8% were female. The most common histologic subtype was de-differentiated liposarcoma (43%), the median resected organ score was 1, and 83.3% of the patients achieved an R0 or R1 resection. Major complications occurred for 16% of the patients, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.4%. In the multivariable analysis, a transfusion requirement was found to be a significant predictor of major complications (p < 0.001) and worse overall survival (OS) (p = 0.010). However, having a major complication was not associated with a worse OS or a higher incidence of local recurrence or distant metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: A surgical approach to recurrent RPS is relatively safe and comparable with primary RPS in terms of complications and postoperative mortality when performed at specialized sarcoma centers. Because alternative effective therapies still are lacking, when indicated, resection of a recurrent RPS is a reasonable option. Every effort should be made to minimize the need for blood transfusions.

Analysis of Differentiation Changes and Outcomes at Time of First Recurrence of Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma by Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG).

BACKGROUND: Local recurrence following resection of retroperitoneal liposarcoma (RLPS) is common. Well-differentiated (WD) and dedifferentiated (DD) RLPS are distinct entities with differing outcomes. A few reports suggest that WDLPS can recur as DDLPS and that DDLPS can recur as WDLPS. This study evaluates whether this change in differentiation from the primary tumor to the first local recurrence impacts long-term outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review from 22 sarcoma centers identified consecutive patients who underwent resection for a first locally recurrent RLPS from January 2002 to December 2011. Outcomes measured included overall survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis. RESULTS: A total of 421 RPLS patients were identified. Of the 230 patients with primary DDLPS, 34 (15%) presented WDLPS upon recurrence (DD → WD); and of the 191 patients with primary WDLPS, 54 (28%) presented DDLPS upon recurrence (WD → DD). The 6-year overall survival probabilities (95% CI) for DD → DD, DD → WD, WD → WD, and WD → DD were 40% (32-48%), 73% (58-92%), 76% (68-85%), and 56% (43-73%) (p < 0.001), respectively. The 6-year second local recurrence incidence was 66% (59-73%), 63% (48-82%), 66% (57-76%), and 77% (66-90%), respectively. The 6-year distant metastasis incidence was 13% (9-19%), 3% (0.4-22%), 5% (2-11%), and 4% (1-16%), respectively. On multivariable analysis, DD → WD was associated with improved overall survival when compared with DD → DD (p < 0.001). Moreover, WD → DD was associated with a higher risk of LR (p = 0.025) CONCLUSION: A change in RLPS differentiation from primary tumor to first local recurrence appears to impact survival. These findings may be useful in counseling patients on their prognosis and subsequent management.

Management of Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma (RPS) in the Adult: An Updated Consensus Approach from the Transatlantic Australasian RPS Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas comprise a heterogeneous group of rare tumors of mesenchymal origin that include several well-defined histologic subtypes. In 2015, the Transatlantic Australasian RPS Working Group (TARPSWG) published consensus recommendations for the best management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). Since then, through international collaboration, new evidence and knowledge have been generated, creating the need for an updated consensus document. METHODS: The primary aim of this study was to critically evaluate the current evidence and develop an up-to-date consensus document on the approach to these difficult tumors. The resulting document applies to primary RPS that is non-visceral in origin, with exclusion criteria as previously described. The relevant literature was evaluated and an international group of experts consulted to formulate consensus statements regarding the best management of primary RPS. A level of evidence and grade of recommendation were attributed to each new/updated recommendation. RESULTS: Management of primary RPS was considered from diagnosis to follow-up. This rare and complex malignancy is best managed by an experienced multidisciplinary team in a specialized referral center. The best chance of cure is at the time of primary presentation, and an individualized management plan should be made based on the 29 consensus statements included in this article, which were agreed upon by all of the authors. Whenever possible, patients should be enrolled in prospective trials and studies. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing international collaboration is critical to expand upon current knowledge and further improve outcomes of patients with RPS. In addition, prospective data collection and participation in multi-institution trials are strongly encouraged.

Chemoradiotherapy Using Carboplatin plus Paclitaxel versus Cisplatin plus Fluorouracil for Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trimodality therapy (TMT) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) using concurrent carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CP) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locoregional esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. Alternatively, nCRT with cisplatin plus fluorouracil (CF) can be used. Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) with CP or CF can be used if surgery is not planned. In the absence of comparative trials, we aimed to evaluate outcomes of CP and CF in the settings of TMT and dCRT. METHODS: A single-site, retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre to identify all patients who received CRT for locoregional esophageal or GEJ cancer. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression model. The inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, 93 patients with esophageal (49%) and GEJ (51%) cancers underwent nCRT (n = 67; 72%) or dCRT (n = 26; 28%). Median age was 62.3 years and 74% were male. Median follow-up was 23.9 months. Comparing CP to CF in the setting of TMT, the OS and DFS rates were similar. In the setting of dCRT, CP was associated with significantly inferior 3-year OS (36 vs. 63%; p = 0.001; HR 3.1; 95% CI: 1.2-7.7) and DFS (0 vs. 41%; p = 0.004; HR 3.6; 95% CI: 1.4-8.9) on multivariable and IPTW sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: TMT with CF and CP produced comparable outcomes. However, for dCRT, CF may be a superior regimen.

Preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (EORTC-62092: STRASS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Unlike for extremity sarcomas, the efficacy of radiotherapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma is not established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone on abdominal recurrence-free survival. METHODS: EORTC-62092 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done in 31 research institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 13 countries in Europe and North America. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically documented, localised, primary retroperitoneal sarcoma that was operable and suitable for radiotherapy, who had not been previously treated and had a WHO performance status and American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 2 or lower, were centrally randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive web response system and a minimisation algorithm, to receive either surgery alone or preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by hospital and performance status. Radiotherapy was delivered as 50·4 Gy (in 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy) in either 3D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, and the objective of surgery was a macroscopically complete resection of the tumour mass with en-bloc organ resection as necessary. The primary endpoint was abdominal recurrence-free survival, as assessed by the investigator, and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who started their allocated treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344018. FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2012 and April 10, 2017, 266 patients were enrolled, of whom 133 were randomly assigned to each group. The median follow-up was 43·1 months (IQR 28·8-59·2). 128 (96%) patients from the surgery alone group had surgery, and 119 (89%) patients in the radiotherapy and surgery group had both radiotherapy and surgery. Median abdominal recurrence-free survival was 4·5 years (95% CI 3·9 to not estimable) in the radiotherapy plus surgery group and 5·0 years (3·4 to not estimable) in the surgery only group (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·71-1·44; log rank p=0·95). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were lymphopenia (98 [77%] of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group vs one [1%] of 128 patients in the surgery alone group), anaemia (15 [12%] vs ten [8%]), and hypoalbuminaemia (15 [12%] vs five [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 30 (24%) of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group, and in 13 (10%) of 128 patients in the surgery alone group. One (1%) of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group died due to treatment-related serious adverse events (gastropleural fistula), and no patients in the surgery alone group died due to treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative radiotherapy should not be considered as standard of care treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma. FUNDING: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, and European Clinical Trials in Rare Sarcomas.