What is the association of preoperative biopsy with recurrence and survival in retroperitoneal sarcoma? A systematic review by the Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association clinical practice guidelines working party.

Preoperative biopsy for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) enables appropriate multidisciplinary treatment planning. A systematic review of literature from 1990 to June 2022 was conducted using the population, intervention, comparison and outcome model to evaluate the local recurrence and overall survival of preoperative biopsy compared to those that had not. Of 3192 studies screened, five retrospective cohort studies were identified. Three reported on biopsy needle tract seeding, with only one study reporting biopsy site recurrence of 2 %. Two found no significant difference in local recurrence and one found higher 5-year local recurrence rates in those who had not been biopsied. Three studies reported overall survival, including one with propensity matching, did not show a difference in overall survival. In conclusion, preoperative core needle biopsy of RPS is not associated with increased local recurrence or adverse survival outcomes.

Validity and Efficiency of Progression-Free Survival-2 as a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in Advanced Cancer Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: Progression-free survival (PFS)-2, defined as the time from randomization to progression on second-line therapy, is potentially a more reliable surrogate than PFS for overall survival (OS), but will require longer follow-up and a larger sample size. We sought to compare the validity and efficiency, defined as proportional increase in follow-up time and sample size, of PFS-2 to PFS. METHODS: We performed an electronic search to identify randomized trials of advanced solid tumors reporting PFS, PFS-2, and OS as prespecified end points. Only studies that had protocols that defined measurement of PFS-2 and follow-up for patients after first disease progression were included. We compared correlations in the relative treatment effect for OS with PFS and PFS-2. We reconstructed individual patient data from survival curves to estimate time to statistical significance (TSS) of the relative treatment effect. We further computed the sample size (person-year [PY] follow-up) required to reach statistical significance. RESULTS: Across the 42 analysis units and 21,255 patients, the correlation of the relative treatment effect between OS and PFS-2, r, was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.80) and r = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.74) for OS and PFS. The median differences in TSS between OS with PFS, OS with PFS-2, and PFS with PFS-2 were 16.59 (95% CI, 4.48 to not reached [NR]), 10.0 (95% CI, 2.2 to NR), and 4.31 (95% CI, 2.92 to 13.13) months, respectively. The median difference in PYs required to reach statistical significance for PFS-2 over PFS was 156 (95% CI, 82 to 500) PYs, equivalent to an estimated median 12.7% increase in PYs. CONCLUSION: PFS-2 offers improved correlation with OS than PFS with a modest increase in follow-up time and sample size. PFS-2 should be considered as a primary end point in future trials of advanced cancers.

A systematic review of the role of chemotherapy in retroperitoneal sarcoma by the Australia and New Zealand sarcoma association clinical practice guidelines working party.

BACKGROUND: In primary localised resectable retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), loco-regional and distant relapse occur frequently despite optimal surgical management. The role of chemotherapy in improving outcomes is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, using the population, intervention, comparison outcome (PICO) model, to evaluate whether neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy improve outcomes in adults with primary localised resectable RPS. Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central were queried for publications from 1946 to June 2022 that evaluated recurrence free survival, overall survival, and post operative complications. Each study was screened by two independent reviewers for suitability. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed. RESULTS: Twenty three studies were identified; one meta-analysis of retrospective studies and 22 retrospective studies including three with propensity matched cohorts. Most studies did not analyse outcomes by histology, detail treatment regimens, provide baseline characteristics or selection criteria for those receiving chemotherapy. Evidence of selection bias was illustrated in several studies. Newcastle-Ottawa quality of retrospective cohort studies was good for 12 studies and poor for 10 studies. All studies were assessed as Level III-2 evidence by the Australian NHMRC hierarchy. Overall, the addition of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery was not associated with improvement in local recurrence, metastasis free survival, disease free survival or overall survival in primary localised resectable RPS. There is some evidence of an association of chemotherapy with worse overall survival. One single centre study showed that neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with increased post operative complications compared to surgery alone in primary localised resectable RPS. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence that demonstrates the addition of chemotherapy to surgery improves outcomes in adult patients with primary localised resectable RPS. Available evidence is limited by its retrospective nature and high likelihood of selection bias with chemotherapy generally administered to patients at higher risk of recurrence and many patients not receiving care in high volume sarcoma centres. Randomised trials are required to conclusively determine the role of chemotherapy in primary localised resectable RPS.

The role of radiation therapy in the management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: A systematic review and clinical practice guidelines from the Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association.

While surgery is the mainstay of treatment for localised retroperitoneal sarcoma, the use of radiotherapy (RT) remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the role of RT for retroperitoneal sarcoma. A systematic review using the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome model from 1990 to 2022 identified 66 studies (a mixture of preoperative and postoperative RT); one randomised controlled trial (RCT) with two publications, 18 registry studies, and 46 retrospective studies. In the RCT of preoperative RT, there was no difference in local/abdominal recurrence. The pooled analysis of this RCT and a retrospective study showed a significant abdominal recurrence free survival benefit with preoperative RT in low grade liposarcoma. The RCT and the majority of retrospective series found RT did not improve recurrence free survival (11 of 16 no difference in combined local and distant RFS, 11 of 13 no difference in distant metastasis free survival), disease specific survival (9 of 12 studies) or overall survival (33 of 49 studies). The majority of studies found no association between RT and perioperative morbidity. In summary, preoperative RT may improve local control for low grade (well-differentiated or grades 1-2 dedifferentiated) liposarcoma, but not other histological subtypes. There is no strong evidence that perioperative RT provides an overall survival benefit. Patients with low grade retroperitoneal liposarcoma can be considered for preoperative RT to improve abdominal recurrence free survival. The rationale and level of evidence in this scenario should be carefully discussed by the multidisciplinary team with patients. RT should not be routinely recommended for other histological subtypes.

Association of chemotherapy dose intensity and age with outcomes in patients with Ewing's family sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Ewing's family sarcoma (EFS) is an aggressive malignancy with a peak incidence in adolescents. Multimodal treatment involves surgery and/or radiotherapy, and chemotherapy typically with VDC/IE (vincristine, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide alternating with ifosfamide and etoposide). There is a paucity of data for the treatment of adults, with protocols extrapolated from the pediatric setting. This study aimed to assess patterns of care, chemotherapy tolerability across age groups, and outcomes from four Australian sarcoma centers. METHODS: ANZSA ACCORD sarcoma database and medical records were used to identify and collect data of patients aged ≥ 10 years with EFS who received VDC/IE between 2010 and 2020. Survival outcomes were analyzed based on chemotherapy received dose intensity (RDI). Clinical predictors of RDI were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 146 patients with EFS, 76 received VDC/IE. The majority had localized disease (65%). Seventy-one percent completed scheduled chemotherapy, with some requiring dose reduction (29%), delay > 7 days (65%), or cycle omission (4%). Hematological toxicity was the main reason for dose reduction/delay. Fifty-seven percent patients achieved an acceptable RDI ≥85%. Compared to those aged 10-19, the odds ratio for acceptable RDI aged 40-59 was 0.20 (95% CI 0.04-0.86, p = 0.04). RDI was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival, after accounting for age, gender, Ewing's type, primary site, and stage (adjusted HR 0.25 [95% CI 0.10-0.63], p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Survival outcomes in EFS were associated with chemotherapy RDI. Older adults more commonly required dose reduction or early cessation of treatment due to toxicity. VDC/IE chemotherapy should be carefully tailored in adults > 40 years.

Surgery at specialised sarcoma centres improves patient outcomes - A systematic review by the Australia and New Zealand sarcoma association clinical practice guidelines working party.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of sarcoma requires multidisciplinary team input throughout the process of diagnosis, treatment and follow up. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact of surgery performed at specialised sarcoma centres on outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) model. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central databases were queried for publications that evaluated the local control, limb salvage rate, 30-day and 90-day surgical mortality, and overall survival in patients undergoing surgery in a specialist sarcoma centre compared with non-specialist centre. Each study was screened by two independent reviewers for suitability. A qualitative synthesis of the results was performed. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies were identified. The majority of studies were Level III-3 as assessed by the NHMRC Evidence Hierarchy, whilst just over half of the studies were of good quality. Definitive surgery performed at specialised sarcoma centres was associated with improved local control as defined by lower rate of local relapse, higher rate of negative surgical margins, improved local recurrence free survival and higher limb conservation rate. Available evidences show a favourable pattern of lower 30-day and 90-day mortality rates, and greater overall survival when surgery was performed in specialist sarcoma centres compared with non-specialised centres. CONCLUSIONS: Evidences support better oncological outcomes when surgery is performed at specialised sarcoma centre. Patients with suspected sarcoma should be referred early to a specialised sarcoma centre for multidisciplinary management, which includes planned biopsy and definitive surgery.

The benefit for radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres: A systematic review and clinical practice guidelines from the Australia and New Zealand Sarcoma Association.

Patients with sarcoma are best managed at specialised sarcoma centres as supported by published literature. Optimal management requires multidisciplinary team input to formulate the diagnosis and treatment sequencing taking into consideration multiple clinical and pathologic factors. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the impact on outcomes of radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres. A systematic review was conducted using the population, intervention, comparison and outcome model. A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central databases for publications from 1990 to February 2022 that evaluated the local control, survival and toxicity of radiotherapy at specialised sarcoma centres. A total of 21 studies were included (17 cancer registry studies, four retrospective comparative studies). Four studies reported the local recurrence endpoint when radiotherapy was part of limb conservation treatment and showed better conformity to clinical practice guidelines and an improved local recurrence free rate when radiotherapy treatment is supported through, but may not be necessarily delivered at a specialised sarcoma centres. Only one retrospective study analysed toxicity specifically and demonstrated that patients who received preoperative radiotherapy at community centres compared to radiotherapy at a specialised sarcoma centre were more likely to develop a major wound complication. Fourteen studies reported overall survival, and 12 of these showed significantly better 5-year overall survival for patients managed at specialised sarcoma centres, however the specific impact of radiotherapy delivered at sarcoma centres could not be determined. In conclusion, patients with sarcoma should be managed through specialised sarcoma centres for better oncological outcomes. Radiotherapy in specialised sarcoma centre is associated with a lower rate of wound complications and may contribute to improved oncological outcomes as part of the limb conservation treatment at a specialised sarcoma centre.

Left cheek sclerosing rhabdomyosarcoma and development of isolated free flap donor site metastasis.

Rhabdomyosarcoma is a rare mesenchymal malignancy with four different morphological subtypes: alveolar, embryonal, pleomorphic and spindle cell/sclerosing. It is the most common soft tissue sarcoma of children and adolescents but occurs less commonly in adults. We describe a male patient in his 20s with sclerosing rhabdomyosarcoma of the left cheek who developed an isolated free flap donor site metastasis in the first instance but subsequently progressed with bilateral pulmonary metastases. Multidisciplinary team involvement in a sarcoma specialist centre is essential and collaboration between the pathologist, radiologist, head and neck surgeon, orthopaedic surgeon, radiation oncologist and medical oncologist were integral in providing optimal management in this patient. Furthermore, this case report highlights this phenomenon of implantation metastasis in a patient with rhabdomyosarcoma, and emphasises the importance of surgical barriers between the resection and reconstruction teams in an oncological case.

PD-L1 expression as a prognostic marker in patients treated with chemotherapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: In metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), PD-L1 expression is associated with benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. However, the significance of PD-L1 expression in chemotherapy-treated patients is uncertain. Methods: Using the chemotherapy control arm of first-line randomized trials, a meta-analysis of the association between efficacy outcomes and PD-L1 status was performed, stratified by assay due to inter-assay differences. Results: Across 12 trials and 4378 patients, overall survival (OS) was superior in high PD-L1 versus negative tumors and low versus negative according to 22C3/28-8 assays. When classified by SP142 assay, no significant difference in response or survival was seen between PD-L1 groups. Conclusion: In mNSCLC, high PD-L1-expressing tumors are associated with longer OS and improved objective rate when treated with chemotherapy. Inter-assay variability impacts outcome results.

Biomarkers are naturally occurring cancer traits that can predict certain events. PD-L1 expression is a biomarker used in advanced lung cancer to predict benefit from immunotherapy. However, the association between PD-L1expression and chemotherapy is unclear. The authors analyzed data from 14 large clinical trials and found that PD-L1 expression could also be used to define a type of lung cancer that responds better to chemotherapy.

The validity of progression-free survival 2 as a surrogate trial end point for overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) is the gold-standard end point for oncology trials. However, the availability of multiple therapeutic options after progression and crossover to receive investigational agents confound and delay OS data maturation. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS-2), defined as the time from randomization to progression on first subsequent therapy, has been proposed as a surrogate for OS. Using a meta-analytic approach, the authors aimed to assess the association between OS and PFS-2 and compare this with progression-free survival 1 (PFS-1) and the objective response rate (ORR). METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed to identify randomized trials of systemic therapies in advanced solid tumors that reported PFS-2 as a prespecified end point. Correlations between OS and PFS-2, OS and PFS-1, and OS and ORR as hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) were assessed via linear regression weighted by trial size. RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials were included, and they comprised 19,031 patients across 8 tumor types. PFS-2 displayed a moderate correlation with OS (r = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.69). Conversely, correlations of ORR (r = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.00-0.13) and PFS-1 (r = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.00-0.33) were poor. The findings for PFS-2 were consistent for subgroup analyses by treatment type (immunotherapy vs nonimmunotherapy: r = 0.67 vs 0.67), survival post progression (<12 vs ≥12 months: r = 0.86 vs 0.79), and percentage not receiving subsequent treatment (<50% vs ≥50%: r = 0.70 vs 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Across diverse tumors and therapies, the treatment effect on PFS-2 correlated moderately with the treatment effect on OS. PFS-2 performed consistently better than PFS-1 and ORR, regardless of postprogression treatment and postprogression survival. PFS-2 should be included as a key trial end point in future randomized trials of solid tumors.