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.

Management Strategies for Adults with Locally Advanced, Unresectable or Metastatic Malignant Perivascular Epithelioid Cell Tumor (PEComa): Challenges and Solutions.

PEComa (PEC tumor; perivascular epithelioid cell tumors) is a rare group of tumors of mesenchymal origin composed of perivascular epithelioid cells (PEC) with features of melanotic and smooth muscle differentiation. In this article, we would like to present the current treatment options for this group of tumors. PEComas are classified as tumors of uncertain malignant potential because recurrences occur after radical treatment. The primary treatment is surgical resection with negative margins. Due to the different locations of the tumors, often the cooperation of multispecialty surgeons is required during the operations. In locally advanced cases, cytoreduction and HIPEC may be effective but still are an experimental treatment. For nonresectable PEComa chemotherapy, mTOR inhibitors and VEGFR inhibitors are used.

Validation of a novel risk score to predict early and late recurrence in solitary fibrous tumour.

BACKGROUND: Current risk models in solitary fibrous tumour (SFT) were developed using cohorts with short follow-up and cannot reliably identify low-risk patients. We recently developed a novel risk model (G-score) to account for both early and late recurrences. Here, we aimed to validate the G-score in a large international cohort with long-term follow-up. METHODS: Data were collected from nine sarcoma referral centres worldwide. Recurrence-free interval (RFi) was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 318 patients with localised extrameningeal SFTs. Disease recurrence occurred in 96 patients (33%). The estimated 5-year RFi rate was 72%, and the 10-year RFi rate was 52%. G-score precisely predicted recurrence risk with estimated 10-year RFi rate of 84% in low risk, 54% in intermediate risk and 36% in high risk (p < 0.001; C-index 0.691). The mDemicco (p < 0.001; C-index 0.749) and SalasOS (p < 0.001; C-index 0.674) models also predicted RFi but identified low-risk patients less accurate with 10-year RFi rates of 72% and 70%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: G-score is a highly significant predictor of early and late recurrence in SFT and is superior to other models to predict patients at low risk of relapse. A less intensive follow-up schedule could be considered for patients at low recurrence risk according to G-score.

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.

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.

Morbidity and Outcomes After Distal Pancreatectomy for Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: An Analysis by the Trans-Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Multi-visceral resection often is used in the treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). The morbidity after distal pancreatectomy for primary pancreatic cancer is well-documented, but the outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS are not. This study aimed to evaluate morbidity and oncologic outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS. METHODS: In this study, 26 sarcoma centers that are members of the Trans-Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) retrospectively identified consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS from 2008 to 2017. The outcomes measured were 90-day severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate, and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2017, 280 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS. The median tumor size was 25 cm, and the median number of organs resected, including the pancreas, was three. In 96% of the operations, R0/R1 resection was achieved. The 90-day severe complication rate was 40 %. The grades B and C POPF complication rates were respectively 19% and 5% and not associated with worse overall survival. Administration of preoperative radiation and factors to mitigate POPF did not have an impact on the risk for the development of a POPF. The RPS invaded the pancreas in 38% of the patients, and local recurrence was doubled for the patients who had a microscopic, positive pancreas margin (hazard ratio, 2.0; p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS has acceptable morbidity and oncologic outcomes and is a reasonable approach to facilitate complete tumor resection.

Defining the role of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in high-risk retroperitoneal sarcoma: A multi-institutional study from the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group.

BACKGROUND: In patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS), the incidence of recurrence after surgery remains high. Novel treatment approaches are needed. This retrospective study evaluated patients with primary, high-risk RPS who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy followed by surgery to 1) determine the frequency and potential predictors of radiologic tumor responses and 2) assess clinical outcomes. METHODS: Clinicopathologic data were collected for eligible patients treated at 13 sarcoma referral centers from 2008 to 2018. Univariable and multivariable logistic models were performed to assess the association between clinical predictors and response. Overall survival (OS) and crude cumulative incidences of local recurrence and distant metastasis were compared. RESULTS: Data on 158 patients were analyzed. A median of 3 cycles of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (interquartile range, 2-4 cycles) were given. The regimens were mostly anthracycline based; however, there was significant heterogeneity. No patients demonstrated a complete response, 37 (23%) demonstrated a partial response (PR), 88 (56%) demonstrated stable disease, and 33 (21%) demonstrated progressive disease (PD) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Only a higher number of cycles given was positively associated with PR (P = .005). All patients underwent complete resection, regardless of the tumor response. Overall, patients whose tumors demonstrated PD before surgery showed markedly worse OS (P = .005). An indication of a better clinical outcome was seen in specific regimens given for grade 3 dedifferentiated liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-risk RPS, the response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy is fair overall. Disease progression on therapy may be used to predict survival after surgery. Subtype-specific regimens should be further validated.

Is the Surgical Margin in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Different?

BACKGROUND: Radical surgical excision is the mainstay of therapy of primary, nonmetastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and margin status after surgery is a significant prognostic factor. METHODS AND RESULTS: The aim of this paper is to review principles in primary GIST surgery, i.e. differences between R0, R1, and R2 resection, to describe how surgical margin status and tumor intraperitoneal rupture influence the patients' outcome, and how this may be effected by neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in locally advanced tumors. A systematic search of literature published between 2000 and 2018 was performed regarding this topic. CONCLUSION: Correct interpretation of margin status after surgery can be affected by many factors during operation and preparation of tissue.

Assessment of the Surgical Treatment Results in Patients with Colorectal Cancer in a District Hospital Versus Treatment Results in a Highly Specialized Center.

UNLABELLED: In Poland there there are about 15-16 thousand cases of colon cancer per year. The health care system allows the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer in highly specialized hospitals, oncology centers and district hospitals. The results of treatment within different reference level differ. The aim of the study was to evaluate the results of surgical treatment of patients with colorectal cancer at a district hospitals compared with the results of highly specialized center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study. The material consisted of 171 consecutively operated patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer treated in the Department of Surgery, District Hospital in Wolomin. The control group consisted of 200 patients treated surgically at the Department of General and Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital in Lódz. In both centers, the patients were operated on by surgeons with experience in operations on the large bowel. The demographic data, information on the type of indication (elective vs emergent), and the severity of the disease by AJCC / TNM scale were collected. In the district hospital there were patients with more advanced disease (p <0.001), older (p = 0.0001), and often operated under emergent indication (p = 0.0001). The telephone survey collected data on survival or the date of death of the patient and set the percentage of five-year survival. RESULTS: The proportion of five-year survival in the study group and control group was respectively 46% and 71% (p <0.0001). The percentage of five-year survival among patients undergoing elective procedure in both centers were respectively for Wolomin and Lódz 58% and 73% (p = 0.008). The proportion of 5-year survival among "younger" patients (<70) was respectively in Wolomin and Lódz 64% and 81% (p = 0.004) for "older" patients with (> 70) 50% and 60% (p = 0.6747) Conclusions. Overall results of surgical treatment of patients with colorectal cancer in the district hospital are inferior to treatment results in a highly specialized center. The population treated in the district hospital is statistically significantly different in comparison to patients treated in highly specialized center. The following differences were captured: severity of the disease, age and type of indication (elective vs emergent). The diffrences has an influence on the outcomes. The five years survival for patients > 70 years undergoing elective procedure is not statistically different between the district hospital and highly specialized center.