Nationwide trends in the current management of desmoid (aggressive) fibromatosis.

AIMS: The optimal management of desmoid fibromatosis remains unclear, leading to significant variability in patient management. To assess this problem, the current approach of clinicians managing this complex condition in the UK was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hypothetical case of intramuscular limb girdle desmoid fibromatosis in a fit 65-year-old patient was devised. Surgical and non-surgical oncology members of the British Sarcoma Group were questioned on how they would manage this case in three scenarios: primary disease with function-sparing surgery possible, primary disease with neurovascular involvement and disease recurrence after a previous R0 resection. Initial management, management of symptomatic disease progression, follow-up preferences and any differences in respondents' management choices in a younger case were investigated. RESULTS: The responses from 14 sarcoma surgeons and 23 oncologists (14 clinical, nine medical) were analysed. Desmoid fibromatosis management is generally shared by surgeons and oncologists within sarcoma multidisciplinary teams in the UK. Variation exists in the chosen initial management of primary desmoid fibromatosis in the UK, with function-sparing surgery possible (observation 51%, resection 51%), primary desmoid fibromatosis with neurovascular involvement (hormone therapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 51%, radiotherapy 27%, observation 22%) and for cases of desmoid fibromatosis recurrence (radiotherapy 41%, hormone therapy and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 27%, observation 24%). There was a clear preference of surgical resection of symptomatic disease progression in cases of primary desmoid fibromatosis without neurovascular involvement (60%). By contrast, radiotherapy was the preferred treatment for progression in cases with neurovascular involvement (47%) or cases of recurrence after a previous R0 resection (34%). Clinical follow-up was selected 3 months after intervention in 68% of scenarios. Follow-up imaging was selected 3 or 6 months after intervention in 57% and 21% of cases, respectively. Most respondents would not change their chosen management in younger patients. DISCUSSION: Several groups have issued formal guidelines for clinicians managing desmoid fibromatosis, including the British Sarcoma Group, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society for Medical Oncology. However, these are in some ways contradictory and may not reflect recent publications, potentially explaining the significant variation in the management of desmoid fibromatosis in the UK shown by this survey. We propose a review of current evidence; a national consensus or a desmoid fibromatosis registry may help to standardise desmoid fibromatosis care.

Variations in selective nerve root block technique.

INTRODUCTION: Much literature reports on selective nerve root blocks (SNRBs) in cases of lumbosacral radiculopathy. Unfortunately, authors only inconsistently reveal the exact needle tip position relative to the causative pathology at the time of injection. Different injection sites may provide different symptomatic benefits. We investigated the variation in injection techniques of practitioners working in the UK. METHODS: A clinical scenario was devised depicting a patient with radiculopathy secondary to an L4/5 vertebral disc prolapse. Participants were questioned on their chosen management of this patient, focusing particularly on SNRB technique. Questionnaires were sent to spinal surgeons, pain management specialists and musculoskeletal radiologists. RESULTS: A total of 100 responses were detailed enough for inclusion. The majority (83%) of respondents reported they would inject local anaesthetic and steroids, 4% would inject local anaesthetic alone and 13% would inject a different substance. Over half (53%) would target the L5 nerve root, 26% the L4 nerve root, 12% the prolapsed disc itself and 9% two separate vertebral levels. Variation was also noted in needle tip location relative to the neural sheath. CONCLUSIONS: When treating lumbar radiculopathy, there are apparent variations in the use and positioning of SNRBs for a given level of disc pathology. Needle tip position may have a direct influence on clinical outcome following SNRBs. Caution is therefore required when considering the validity of previously published studies investigating SNRBs and different injectates.