Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the response rates of different extremity soft-tissue sarcoma subtypes (eSTS) after isolated limb perfusion (ILP), based on an international multi-centre study., Materials and Methods: The retrospective cohort comprised eSTS patients from 17 specialised ILP centres that underwent melphalan-based ILP, with or without recombinant human tumour necrosis factor (rhTNFα) (TM-ILP and M-ILP, respectively). Response was measured on imaging (magnetic resonance imaging) and/or clinical response, for which M-ILPs were excluded., Results: A total of 1109 eSTS patients were included. The three most common histological subtypes were undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (17%, n = 184), synovial sarcoma (16%, n = 175) and myxofibrosarcoma (8%, n = 87). rhTNFα was used in 93% (TM-ILP) and resulted in a significantly better overall response rate (ORR, p = 0.031) and complete responses (CR, p < 0.001) in comparison to M-ILP, without significant differences among histological subgroups. The ORR of TM-ILP was 68%, including 17% CR. Also, 80% showed progressive disease. Significantly higher response rates were shown for Kaposi sarcoma (KS) with 42% CR and 96% ORR (both p < 0.001), and significantly higher CR rates for angiosarcoma (AS, 45%, p < 0.001) and clear cell sarcoma (CCS, 31%, p = 0.049). ILP was followed by resection ≤ 6 months in 80% of the patients. The overall limb salvage rate was 88%, without significant differences among histological subgroups, but was significantly higher for ILP responders compared to non-responders (93% versus 76%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: ILP resulted in high response and LRS among all eSTS subtypes, however, with significant differences between subtypes with most promising results for KS, AS and CCS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Large inter-surgeon variability exists in technical anatomical resectability assessment of colorectal cancer liver-only metastases (CRLM) following induction systemic therapy. We evaluated the role of tumour biological factors in predicting resectability and (early) recurrence after surgery for initially unresectable CRLM., Methods: 482 patients with initially unresectable CRLM from the phase 3 CAIRO5 trial were selected, with two-monthly resectability assessments by a liver expert panel. If no consensus existed among panel surgeons (i.e. same vote for (un)resectability of CRLM), conclusion was based on majority. The association of tumour biological (sidedness, synchronous CRLM, carcinoembryonic antigen and RAS/BRAF V600E mutation status) and technical anatomical factors with consensus among panel surgeons, secondary resectability and early recurrence (<6 months) without curative-intent repeat local treatment was analysed by uni- and pre-specified multivariable logistic regression., Results: After systemic treatment, 240 (50%) patients received complete local treatment of CRLM of which 75 (31%) patients experienced early recurrence without repeat local treatment. Higher number of CRLM (odds ratio 1.09 [95% confidence interval 1.03-1.15]) and age (odds ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval 1.00-1.07]) were independently associated with early recurrence without repeat local treatment. In 138 (52%) patients, no consensus among panel surgeons was present prior to local treatment. Postoperative outcomes in patients with and without consensus were comparable., Conclusions: Almost a third of patients selected by an expert panel for secondary CRLM surgery following induction systemic treatment experience an early recurrence only amenable to palliative treatment. Number of CRLM and age, but no tumour biological factors are predictive, suggesting that until there are better biomarkers; resectability assessment remains primarily a technical anatomical decision., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement C.J.A.P. has an advisory role for Nordic Pharma. This funding is not related to the current research. The remaining authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of intensive follow-up after curative intent treatment for five common solid tumours, in terms of survival and treatment of recurrences., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted, identifying comparative studies on follow-up for colorectal, lung, breast, upper gastro-intestinal and prostate cancer. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS), and treatment of recurrences. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, with particular focus on studies at low risk of bias., Results: Fourteen out of 63 studies were considered to be at low risk of bias (8 colorectal, 4 breast, 0 lung, 1 upper gastro-intestinal, 1 prostate). These studies showed no significant impact of intensive follow-up on OS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) for colorectal (0.99; 0.92-1.06), breast 1.06 (0.92-1.23), upper gastro-intestinal (0.78; 0.51-1.19) and prostate cancer (1.00; 0.86-1.16). No impact on CSS (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval) was found for colorectal cancer (0.94; 0.77-1.16). CSS was not reported for other cancer types. Intensive follow-up increased the rate of curative treatment (relative risk; 95% confidence interval) for colorectal cancer recurrences (1.30; 1.05-1.61), but not for upper gastro-intestinal cancer recurrences (0.92; 0.47-1.81). For the other cancer types, no data on treatment of recurrences was available in low risk studies., Conclusion: For colorectal and breast cancer, high quality studies do not suggest an impact of intensive follow-up strategies on survival. Colorectal cancer recurrences are more often treated locally after intensive follow-up. For other cancer types evaluated, limited high quality research on follow-up is available., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to develop a prediction model for 10-year overall survival (OS) after resection of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) based on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics., Methods: Consecutive patients after complete resection of CRLM were included from two centres (1992-2019). A prediction model providing 10-year OS probabilities was developed using Cox regression analysis, including KRAS, BRAF and histopathological growth patterns. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using cross-validation. A web-based calculator was built to predict individual 10-year OS probabilities., Results: A total of 4112 patients were included. The estimated 10-year OS was 30% (95% CI 29-32). Fifteen patient, tumour and treatment characteristics were independent prognostic factors for 10-year OS; age, gender, location and nodal status of the primary tumour, disease-free interval, number and diameter of CRLM, preoperative CEA, resection margin, extrahepatic disease, KRAS and BRAF mutation status, histopathological growth patterns, perioperative systemic chemotherapy and hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy. The discrimination at 10-years was 0.73 for both centres. A simplified risk score identified four risk groups with a 10-year OS of 57%, 38%, 24%, and 12%., Conclusions: Ten-year OS after resection of CRLM is best predicted with a model including 15 patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics. The web-based calculator can be used to inform patients. This model serves as a benchmark to determine the prognostic value of novel biomarkers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr Groot Koerkamp received pumps for intra-arterial chemotherapy for use in clinical trials from Tricumed., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of the study is to assess the effect of perioperative chemotherapy (CTX) in patients with grade II-III extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS) on overall survival (OS) and evaluate whether the PERSARC prediction tool could identify patients with eSTS more likely to benefit from CTX., Methods: Patients (18-70 years) with primary high-grade eSTS surgically treated with curative intent were included in the retrospective cohort study. The effect of any perioperative CTX and anthracycline + ifosfamide (AI)-based CTX on OS was investigated in three PERSARC-risk groups (high/intermediate/low). The PERSARC-risk groups were defined by the 33% and 66% quantile of the predicted 5-year OS of the study population equal to a 5-year OS of 65.8% and 79.8%, respectively. The effect of CTX on OS was investigated with weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox models with an interaction between risk group and CTX., Results: This study included 5683 patients. The weighted Kaplan-Meier curves did not demonstrate a beneficial effect of any CTX and AI-based CTX on OS in the overall population. However, in the high PERSARC-risk group the 5-year OS of AI-based CTX was significantly better than no CTX (69.8% vs 59.0%, respectively, p = 0.004) (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.53-0.83)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated a beneficial effect of AI-based CTX on OS in a selected group of high-risk patients with an absolute survival benefit of 11% as stratified by the PERSARC prediction tool. However, no beneficial effect of CTX on OS was found in the overall population of patients with primary high-grade eSTS younger than 70 years., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: No studies extensively compared the young adults (YA, 18-39 years), middle-aged (40-69 years), and elderly (≥70 years) population with primary high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS). This study aimed to determine whether the known effect of age on overall survival (OS) and disease progression can be explained by differences in tumour characteristics and treatment protocol among the YA, middle-aged and elderly population in patients with primary high-grade eSTS treated with curative intent., Methods: In this retrospective multicentre study, inclusion criteria were patients with primary high-grade eSTS of 18 years and older, surgically treated with curative intent between 2000 and 2016. Cox proportional hazard models and a multistate model were used to determine the association of age on OS and disease progression., Results: A total of 6260 patients were included in this study. YA presented more often after 'whoops'-surgery or for reresection due to residual disease, and with more deep-seated tumours. Elderly patients presented more often with grade III and larger (≥10 cm) tumours. After adjustment for the imbalance in tumour and treatment characteristics the hazard ratio for OS of the middle-aged population is 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-1.76) and 3.13 (95% CI: 2.59-3.78) in the elderly population, compared with YA., Discussion: The effect of age on OS could only partially be explained by the imbalance in the tumour characteristics and treatment variables. The threefold higher risk of elderly could, at least partially, be explained by a higher other-cause mortality. The results might also be explained by a different tumour behaviour or suboptimal treatment in elderly compared with the younger population., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement None declared., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study evaluates the results of the active surveillance (AS) approach in adult patients with desmoid-type fibromatosis (DTF) because AS is advocated as a front-line approach for DTF in the European consensus guidelines., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted (December 19th, 2019, updated on April 14th, 2020). Studies describing the outcomes of the AS approach were included. The PRISMA guidelines were used., Results: Twenty-five articles were included for data retrieval. Forty-two percent of reported patients (1480 of 3527 patients) received AS, the majority were women and the majority had a primary tumour. The median age at diagnosis ranged from 28 to 59 years. Common tumour sites were the extremities/girdles (n = 273), the abdominal wall (n = 253) and the trunk (n = 153). The median reported percentage of progressive disease, stable disease and partial response was 20% (interquartile range [IQR]: 13-35%), 59% (IQR: 37-69%) and 19% (IQR 3-23%), respectively. In 640 patients, the outcome was not specified. The median reported percentage of shifting to an active form of treatment was 29%, most commonly to systemic treatment (n = 195) and surgery (n = 107). The reported median follow-up time ranged between 8 and 73 months. The reported median time to progression and/or initiation of the subgroup shifting from AS to 'active' therapy ranged from 6.3 months to 19.7 months., Conclusion: The majority of patients undergoing AS have either stable disease or a partial response, and about one-third of patients shift to an active form of treatment. Selecting patients who will benefit from active surveillance upfront should be the priority of future studies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Based on recent advances in the management of patients with sentinel node (SN)-positive melanoma, we aimed to develop prediction models for recurrence, distant metastasis (DM) and overall mortality (OM)., Methods: The derivation cohort consisted of 1080 patients with SN-positive melanoma from nine European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) centres. Prognostic factors for recurrence, DM and OM were studied with Cox regression analysis. Significant factors were incorporated in the models. Performance was assessed by discrimination (c-index) and calibration in cross-validation across centres. The models were externally validated using a prospective cohort consisting of 705 German patients with SN-positive: 473 trial participants of the German Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group study (DeCOG-SLT) and 232 screened patients. A nomogram was developed for graphical presentation., Results: The final model for recurrence and the calibrated models for DM and OM included ulceration, age, SN tumour burden and Breslow thickness. The models showed reasonable calibration. The c-index for the recurrence, DM and OM model was 0.68, 0.70 and 0.70, respectively, and 0.70, 0.72 and 0.74, respectively, in external validation. The EORTC-DeCOG model identified a robust low-risk group, with all identified low-risk patients (approximately 4% of the entire population) having a 5-year recurrence probability of <25% and an overall 5-year recurrence rate of 13%. A model including information on completion lymph node dissection (CLND) showed only marginal improvement in model performance., Conclusions: The EORTC-DeCOG nomogram provides an adequate prognostic tool for patients with SN-positive melanoma, without the need for CLND. It showed consistent results across validation. The nomogram could be used for patient counselling and might aid in adjuvant therapy decision-making., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement D.V. has served in a consultancy/advisory role for Amgen, not related to this work. U.L. has served in a consultancy/advisory role for Pierre Fabre, Roche and Novartis and has received travel/accommodation expenses from Pierre Fabre and Novartis (all not related to this work). A.C.J.v.A. has served in a consultancy/advisory role for Amgen, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Novartis, MSD-Merck, Merck-Pfizer and Roche and has received funding from Amgen and Novartis (all not related to this work). P.R. has received honoraria from BMS, Novartis, Roche, MSD and Amgen; has served in advisory role for Novartis, MSD, BMS, Pierre Fabre and Blueprint Medicines; has been a member of the speakers bureau of Pfizer and Pierre Fabre and has received research funding by the government (all not related to this work). C.R. has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Roche and Pierre Fabre and has served in advisory/consultancy role for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Pierre Fabre (all not related to this work). A.T. has received travel/accommodations expenses from Agenus (not related to this work). A.A.M.v.d.V. has received honoraria from MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, Novartis and Ipsen and has served as a consultant for MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, Novartis and Ipsen (all not related to this work). U.K. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer; has served in consulting/advisory role for AstraZeneca, BMS and Merck; has been a member of the speakers bureau of AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer; has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Pfizer and has received travel/accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, BMS, Ipsen and Pfizer (all not related to this work). R.S. has received honoraria from Takeda, 4SC, Novartis, Roche and MSD; has served in advisory role for Takeda, 4SC, Novartis and Roche and has received research funding from the government (all not related to this work). C.G. has received honoraria from Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Philogen, Roche and Sanofi; has served in consulting/advisory role for Amgen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Philogen, Roche and Sanofi; has received research funding from BMS, Novartis and Roche and has received travel/accommodation expenses from Amgen, BMS, MSD, NeraCare, Novartis, Philogen, Roche and Sanofi (all not related to this work). A.M.M.E. has received honoraria from Biocad, BMS, GSK, IO Biotech, MSD, Nektar, Novartis and Pfizer; has served in advisory/consultancy role for BMS, GSK, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer and has received travel/accommodation expenses from BMS and MSD (all not related to this work). D.J.G. has received honoraria from Amgen, BMS and Abbvie (all not related to this work). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite curative intents of treatment in localized malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours (MPNSTs), prognosis remains poor. This study investigated survival and prognostic factors for overall survival in non-retroperitoneal and retroperitoneal MPNSTs in the Netherlands., Methods: Data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Pathology Database. All primary MPNSTs were collected. Paediatric cases (age ≤18 years) and synchronous metastases were excluded from analyses. Separate Cox proportional hazard models were made for retroperitoneal and non-retroperitoneal MPNSTs., Results: A total of 629 localized adult MPNSTs (35 retroperitoneal cases, 5.5%) were included for analysis. In surgically resected patients (88.1%), radiotherapy and chemotherapy were administered in 44.2% and 6.7%, respectively. In retroperitoneal cases, significantly less radiotherapy and more chemotherapy were applied. In non-retroperitoneal MPNSTs, older age (60+), presence of NF1, size >5 cm, and deep-seated tumours were independently associated with worse survival. In retroperitoneal MPNSTs, male sex and age of 60+ years were independently associated with worse survival. Survival of R1 and that of R0 resections were similar for any location, whereas R2 resections were associated with worse outcomes. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy administrations were not associated with survival., Conclusion: In localized MPNSTs, risk stratification for survival can be done using several patient- and tumour-specific characteristics. Resectability is the most important predictor for survival in MPNSTs. No difference is present between R1 and R0 resections in both retroperitoneal and non-retroperitoneal MPNSTs. The added value of radiotherapy and chemotherapy is unclear., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diagnosing and treating soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) remains challenging, stressing the urgency for centralisation. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate the centralisation of STS surgery and its effect on survival., Methods: Patients operated for primary STS from 2006 to 2015 were queried from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals in which STS surgery was performed were allocated into three categories: low-volume (1-9 resections per year), medium-volume (10-19 resections) or high-volume (≥20 resections). Differences in tumour characteristics and outcome were calculated. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to adjust for case-mix., Results: Of the 5282 identified patients, 42% was treated in low-volume hospitals, 7.7% in medium-volume hospitals and 51% in high-volume hospitals, with a significant trend over time towards treatment in a high-volume hospital (p < 0.01). In high-volume hospitals, more often patients with non low-grade, large and deep-seated tumours were treated than in low-volume hospitals. For the whole group, there was no survival benefit for patients treated in high-volume hospitals, with 10-year net survival rates of 76% (low-volume), 68% (medium-volume) and 68% (high-volume). However, subgroup analysis for patients with non low-grade and deep-seated tumours did reveal a benefit from treatment in a high-volume hospitals with 10-year survival rates of 54% (high-volume), 49% (low-volume) and 42% (medium-volume) and a relative risk of 1.3 (high-volume versus low-volume, p = 0.03)., Conclusion: Centralisation of STS surgery has increased in the past decade. Surgery in a high-volume hospital improved survival of patients with non low-grade and deep-seated tumours, and therefore these patients should be referred to such a hospital., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In light of the evolving landscape of adjuvant therapy in melanoma and the recently confirmed absent survival benefit of completion lymph node dissection (CLND), it becomes important to explore possible consequences of omitting CLND, and whether it is possible to adequately stratify positive sentinel node (SN) patients solely based on information retrieved from the melanoma up to the sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB)., Methods: A retrospective cohort from nine European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Melanoma Group centres was used. Patients were staged based on SLNB and CLND result according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) criteria and stratified by ulceration and SN tumour burden. These were incorporated in Cox regression models. Predictive ability was assessed using Harrell's concordance index (c-index) and the Akaike information criterion (AIC)., Results: In total, 1015 patients were eligible. CLND led to upstaging in N-category in 19% and in AJCC stage in 5-6%. The model incorporating only ulceration and SN tumour burden performed equally well as the model incorporating substages after CLND. The model incorporating substages based on SLNB had the lowest predictive ability. Stratifying by ulceration and SN tumour burden resulted in four positive SN groups from which low-, intermediate- and high-risk prognostic classes could be derived., Conclusions: Adequate stratification of positive SN patients was possible based on ulceration and SN tumour burden category. The identification of low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients could guide adjuvant therapy in clinical practice. Omitting CLND seems to have little consequences., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) is essential for adequate melanoma staging. Most melanoma guidelines advocate to perform wide local excision and SNB as soon as possible, causing time pressure., Objective: To investigate the role of time interval between melanoma diagnosis and SNB on sentinel node (SN) positivity and survival., Methods: This is a retrospective observational study concerning a cohort of melanoma patients from four European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Melanoma Group tertiary referral centres from 1997 to 2013. A total of 4124 melanoma patients underwent SNB. Patients were selected if date of diagnosis and follow-up (FU) information were available, and SNB was performed in <180 d. A total of 3546 patients were included. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression analyses were performed to investigate how baseline characteristics and time interval until SNB are related to positivity rate, disease-free survival (DFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS)., Findings: Median time interval was 43 d (interquartile range [IQR] 29-60 d), and 705 (19.9%) of 3546 patients had a positive SN. Sentinel node positivity was equal for early surgery (≤43 d) versus late surgery (>43 d): 19.7% versus 20.1% (p = 0.771). Median FU was 50 months (IQR 24-84 months). Sentinel node metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] 3.17, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.53-3.97), ulceration (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.58-2.51), Breslow thickness (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.08), and male gender (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.26-1.98) (all p < 0.00001) were independently associated with worse MSS and DFS; time interval was not., Interpretation: No effect of time interval between melanoma diagnosis and SNB on 5-year survival or SN positivity rate was found for a time interval of up to 3 months. This information can be used to counsel patients and remove strict time limits from melanoma guidelines., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF) and melphalan based isolated limb perfusion (TM-ILP) is an attractive treatment option for advanced extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS). This study reports on a 20-year single centre experience and discusses the evolution and changes in methodology since the introduction of TNF in ILP., Patients and Methods: We performed 306 TM-ILPs in 275 patients with extremity STS. All patients were candidates for amputation or mutilating surgery in order to achieve local control. Clinical response evaluation consisted of clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging. To evaluate the importance of TNF-dose, treatment results of two periods (1991-2003 high dose (3-4 mg) TNF; 2003-2012 reduced dose (1-2mg) TNF) were compared., Results: During the study period, more femoral perfusions were done instead of iliac perfusions. Reduction of TNF dose and reduction of total ILP time did not lead to different clinical response rates (70% and 69% for periods 1 and 2 respectively) or different local recurrence rates, but was associated with less local toxicity (23% and 14% for periods 1 and 2 respectively). Hospital stay was significantly reduced during the study period. There was an improved pathological response in the high dose TNF group without consequences for clinical outcome., Conclusion: TM-ILP remains a very effective treatment modality for limb threatening extremity STS. Moreover, reduction of dose and the growing experience in ILP led to less local toxicity and shorter hospital stay., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)