Search

Background: Locally advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) management may include neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment by radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by wide surgical excision. While pathological complete response (pCR) to preoperative treatment is prognostic for survival in osteosarcomas, its significance for STS is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of pCR to pre-operative treatment on 3-year disease-free survival (3y-DFS) in STS patients., Methods: This is an observational, retrospective, international, study of adult patients with primary non-metastatic STS of the extremities and trunk wall, any grade, diagnosed between 2008 and 2012, treated with at least neoadjuvant treatment and surgical resection and observed for a minimum of 3 years after diagnosis. The primary objective was to evaluate the effect of pCR. (≤5% viable tumor cells or ≥95% necrosis/fibrosis) on 3y-DFS. Effect on local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant recurrence-free survival (MFS) overall survival (OS) at 3 years was also analyzed. Statistical univariate analysis utilized chi-square independence test and odds ratio confidence interval (CI) estimate, multivariate analysis was performed using LASSO., Results: A total of 330 patients (median age 56 years old, range:19-95) treated by preoperative RT (67%), CT (15%) or CRT (18%) followed by surgery were included. pCR was achieved in 74/330 (22%) of patients, of which 56/74 (76%) had received RT. 3-yr DFS was observed in 76% of patients with pCR vs 61% without pCR (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that pCR is statistically associated with better MFS (95% CI, 1.054-3.417; p = 0.033), LRFS (95% CI, 1.226-5.916; p = 0.014), DFS (95% CI, 1.165-4.040; p = 0.015) and OS at 3 years (95% CI, 1.072-5.210; p = 0.033)., Conclusions: In a wide, heterogeneous STS population we showed that pCR to preoperative treatment is prognostic for survival., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest SB received honoraria from Nanobiotix. CD, DN and GN were contracted by Nanobiotix. The other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The association between quality of surgery and overall survival in patients affected by localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not completely understood., Objective: To assess the risk of death with and without imatinib according to microscopic margins status (R0/R1) using data from a randomized study on adjuvant imatinib., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc observational study on patients included in the randomized, open-label, phase III trial, performed between December 2004 and October 2008. Median follow-up was 9.1 years (IQR, 8-10 years). The study was performed at 112 hospitals in 12 countries. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of primary GIST, with intermediate or high risk of relapse; no evidence of residual disease after surgery; older than 18 years; and no prior malignancies or concurrent severe/uncontrolled medical conditions. Data were analyzed between July 17, 2017, and March 1, 2020., Interventions: Patients were randomized after surgery to either receive imatinib (400 mg/d) for 2 years or no adjuvant treatment. Randomization was stratified by center, risk category (high vs intermediate), tumor site (gastric vs other), and quality of surgery (R0 vs R1). Tumor rupture was included in the R1 category but also analyzed separately., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point of this substudy was overall survival (OS), estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared between R0/R1 using Cox models adjusted for treatment and stratification factors., Results: A total of 908 patients were included; 51.4% were men (465) and 48.6% were women (440), and the median age was 59 years (range, 18-89 years). One hundred sixty-two (17.8%) had an R1 resection, and 97 of 162 (59.9%) had tumor rupture. There was a significant difference in OS for patients undergoing an R1 vs R0 resection, overall (hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; 95% CI, 1.45-2.89) and by treatment arm (HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.37-3.75 with adjuvant imatinib and HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.16-2.99 without adjuvant imatinib). When tumor rupture was excluded, this difference in OS between R1 and R0 resections disappeared (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.54-2.01)., Conclusions and Relevance: The difference in OS by quality of surgery with or without imatinib was associated with the presence of tumor rupture. When the latter was excluded, the presence of R1 margins was not associated with worse OS., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00103168.

Background: Adjuvant imatinib mesylate prolongs recurrence-free survival (RFS) after resection of localised primary gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). We aimed to develop a nomogram to predict RFS after surgery in the absence of adjuvant therapy to help guide patient selection for adjuvant imatinib therapy., Methods: A nomogram to predict RFS based on tumour size (cm), location (stomach, small intestine, colon/rectum, or other), and mitotic index (<5 or > or =5 mitoses per 50 high-power fields) was developed from 127 patients treated at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York, NY, USA. The nomogram was tested in patients from the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS; n=212) and the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA (Mayo; n=148). The nomogram was assessed by calculating concordance probabilities and testing calibration of predicted RFS with observed RFS. Concordance probabilities were also compared with those of three commonly used staging systems., Findings: The nomogram had a concordance probability of 0.78 (SE 0.02) in the MSKCC dataset, and 0.76 (0.03) and 0.80 (0.02) in the validation cohorts. Nomogram predictions were well calibrated. Inclusion of tyrosine kinase mutation status in the nomogram did not improve its discriminatory ability. Concordance probabilities of the nomogram were better than those of the two NIH staging systems (0.76 [0.03] vs 0.70 [0.04, p=0.04] and 0.66 [0.04, p=0.01] in the GEIS validation cohort; 0.80 [0.02] vs 0.74 [0.02, p=0.04] and 0.78 [0.02, p=0.05] in the Mayo cohort) and similar to those of the AFIP-Miettinen staging system (0.76 [0.03] vs 0.73 [0.004, p=0.28] in the GEIS cohort; 0.80 [0.02] vs 0.76 [0.003, p=0.09] in the Mayo cohort). Nomogram predictions of RFS seemed better calibrated than predictions made with the AFIP-Miettinen system., Interpretation: The nomogram accurately predicts RFS after resection of localised primary GIST and could be used to select patients for adjuvant imatinib therapy.