BACKGROUND: The present AJCC/TNM staging system is of limited value for prediction of prognosis for patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. The objective of the present study was to develop a postsurgical classification system that would enable comparison of outcomes for patients with primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: Four classes were defined: I, low-grade/complete resection/no metastasis; II, high-grade/complete resection/no metastasis; III, any-grade/incomplete resection/no metastasis; and IV, any-grade/any resection/distant metastasis. The prognostic value of this classification system was analyzed in a population-based multicenter group(MCG) of patients with primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma (n = 124) and in a cohort of patients treated in a single tertiary referral center (SCG; n = 107). RESULTS: Overall 5-year survival rates were 55% in the SCG and 43% in the MCG (P = 0.02). Class III (incomplete resection) was more frequent in the MCG than in the SCG (33% vs. 16%; P = 0.02). In the SCG, stage-specific 5-year survival rates were 89%, 40%, 26%, and 17% for classes I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P < 0.001), in comparison with 68%, 46%, 24%, and 0% in the MCG (P < 0.001). In a comparison of class-specific survival between the groups, only class I patients in the SCG had significantly better survival than class I patients in the MCG (P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Classification based on grade, completeness of resection, and distant metastasis offers a reproducible prognostic tool that can be used to evaluate treatment strategies for primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma. The probability of complete resection was significantly higher in the SCG than in the MCG. In patients with low-grade, completely resected sarcoma, there is a significant survival benefit with treatment in a high-volume tertiary center of excellence.
BACKGROUND: The present AJCC/TNM staging system is of limited value for prediction of prognosis for patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. The objective of the present study was to develop a postsurgical classification system that would enable comparison of outcomes for patients with primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: Four classes were defined: I, low-grade/complete resection/no metastasis; II, high-grade/complete resection/no metastasis; III, any-grade/incomplete resection/no metastasis; and IV, any-grade/any resection/distant metastasis. The prognostic value of this classification system was analyzed in a population-based multicenter group(MCG) of patients with primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma (n = 124) and in a cohort of patients treated in a single tertiary referral center (SCG; n = 107). RESULTS: Overall 5-year survival rates were 55% in the SCG and 43% in the MCG (P = 0.02). Class III (incomplete resection) was more frequent in the MCG than in the SCG (33% vs. 16%; P = 0.02). In the SCG, stage-specific 5-year survival rates were 89%, 40%, 26%, and 17% for classes I, II, III, and IV, respectively (P < 0.001), in comparison with 68%, 46%, 24%, and 0% in the MCG (P < 0.001). In a comparison of class-specific survival between the groups, only class I patients in the SCG had significantly better survival than class I patients in the MCG (P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Classification based on grade, completeness of resection, and distant metastasis offers a reproducible prognostic tool that can be used to evaluate treatment strategies for primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma. The probability of complete resection was significantly higher in the SCG than in the MCG. In patients with low-grade, completely resected sarcoma, there is a significant survival benefit with treatment in a high-volume tertiary center of excellence.
Authors: Sarah B Fisher; Yi-Ju Chiang; Barry W Feig; Janice N Cormier; Kelly K Hunt; Keila E Torres; Christina L Roland Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: M Toulmonde; S Bonvalot; P Méeus; E Stoeckle; O Riou; N Isambert; E Bompas; M Jafari; C Delcambre-Lair; E Saada; A Le Cesne; C Le Péchoux; J Y Blay; S Piperno-Neumann; C Chevreau; J O Bay; V Brouste; P Terrier; D Ranchère-Vince; A Neuville; A Italiano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Andrew J Bishop; Gunar K Zagars; Keila E Torres; Kelly K Hunt; Janice N Cormier; Barry W Feig; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-05-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ane S Sogaard; Jacob M Laurberg; Mette Sorensen; Ole S Sogaard; Pal Wara; Peter Rasmussen; Soren Laurberg Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2010-09-12 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: Hari Nathan; Chandrajit P Raut; Katherine Thornton; Joseph M Herman; Nita Ahuja; Richard D Schulick; Michael A Choti; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Tyler Abarca; Yubo Gao; Varun Monga; Munir R Tanas; Mohammed M Milhem; Benjamin J Miller Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Giovanni B Doglietto; Antonio P Tortorelli; Valerio Papa; Fausto Rosa; Maurizio Bossola; Francesco P Prete; Marcello Covino; Fabio Pacelli Journal: World J Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 3.352