OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients with retroperitoneal or pelvic sarcoma treated with perioperative radiation therapy (RT) versus those treated without perioperative RT. BACKGROUND: RT for retroperitoneal or pelvic sarcoma is controversial, and few studies have compared outcomes with and without RT. METHODS: Prospectively maintained databases were reviewed to retrospectively compare patients with primary retroperitoneal or pelvic sarcoma treated during 2003-2011. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to assess associations with the primary endpoints: local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and disease-specific survival. RESULTS: At 1 institution, 172 patients were treated with surgery alone, whereas at another institution 32 patients were treated with surgery and perioperative proton beam RT or intensity-modulated RT with or without intraoperative RT. The groups were similar in age, tumor size, grade, and margin status (all P > 0.08). The RT group had a higher percentage of pelvic tumors (P = 0.03) and a different distribution of histologies (P = 0.04). Perioperative morbidity was higher in the RT group (44% vs 16% of patients; P = 0.004). After a median follow-up of 39 months, 5-year LRFS was 91% (95% confidence interval, 79%-100%) in the RT group and 65% (57%-74%) in the surgery-only group (P = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, RT was associated with better LRFS (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = 0.03). Five-year disease-specific survival was 93% (95% confidence interval, 82%-100%) in the RT group and 85% (78%-92%) in the surgery-only group (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of advanced-modality RT to surgery for primary retroperitoneal or pelvic sarcoma was associated with improved LRFS, although this did not translate into significantly better disease-specific survival. This treatment strategy warrants further investigation in a randomized trial.
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients with retroperitoneal or pelvic sarcoma treated with perioperative radiation therapy (RT) versus those treated without perioperative RT. BACKGROUND: RT for retroperitoneal or pelvic sarcoma is controversial, and few studies have compared outcomes with and without RT. METHODS: Prospectively maintained databases were reviewed to retrospectively compare patients with primary retroperitoneal or pelvic sarcoma treated during 2003-2011. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to assess associations with the primary endpoints: local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and disease-specific survival. RESULTS: At 1 institution, 172 patients were treated with surgery alone, whereas at another institution 32 patients were treated with surgery and perioperative proton beam RT or intensity-modulated RT with or without intraoperative RT. The groups were similar in age, tumor size, grade, and margin status (all P > 0.08). The RT group had a higher percentage of pelvic tumors (P = 0.03) and a different distribution of histologies (P = 0.04). Perioperative morbidity was higher in the RT group (44% vs 16% of patients; P = 0.004). After a median follow-up of 39 months, 5-year LRFS was 91% (95% confidence interval, 79%-100%) in the RT group and 65% (57%-74%) in the surgery-only group (P = 0.02). On multivariate analysis, RT was associated with better LRFS (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = 0.03). Five-year disease-specific survival was 93% (95% confidence interval, 82%-100%) in the RT group and 85% (78%-92%) in the surgery-only group (P = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of advanced-modality RT to surgery for primary retroperitoneal or pelvic sarcoma was associated with improved LRFS, although this did not translate into significantly better disease-specific survival. This treatment strategy warrants further investigation in a randomized trial.
Authors: H L Gieschen; I J Spiro; H D Suit; M J Ott; D W Rattner; M Ancukiewicz; C G Willett Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2001-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alberto Bossi; Ivo De Wever; Erik Van Limbergen; Bianca Vanstraelen Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: J Glenn; W F Sindelar; T Kinsella; E Glatstein; J Tepper; J Costa; A Baker; P Sugarbaker; M F Brennan; C Seipp Journal: Surgery Date: 1985-03 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Brian O'Sullivan; Aileen M Davis; Robert Turcotte; Robert Bell; Charles Catton; Pierre Chabot; Jay Wunder; Rita Kandel; Karen Goddard; Anna Sadura; Joseph Pater; Benny Zee Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-06-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Thomas F Delaney; Lucyna Kepka; Saveli I Goldberg; Francis J Hornicek; Mark C Gebhardt; Sam S Yoon; Dempsey S Springfield; Kevin A Raskin; David C Harmon; David G Kirsch; Henry J Mankin; Andrew E Rosenberg; G Petur Nielsen; Herman D Suit Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Derek J Erstad; Yi-Ju Chiang; Russell G Witt; Brandon Cope; Elise F Nassif; Christopher P Scally; Keila E Torres; Barry W Feig; Kelly K Hunt; Andrew J Bishop; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; Christina L Roland; Emily Z Keung Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-09-17 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: B T Turner; L Hampton; D Schiller; L A Mack; C Robertson-More; H Li; M L Quan; A Bouchard-Fortier Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Thomas F DeLaney; Yen-Lin Chen; Elizabeth H Baldini; Dian Wang; Judith Adams; Shea B Hickey; Beow Y Yeap; Stephen M Hahn; Karen De Amorim Bernstein; G Petur Nielsen; Edwin Choy; John T Mullen; Sam S Yoon Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-01-04
Authors: Pippa F Cosper; Jeffrey Olsen; Todd DeWees; Brian A Van Tine; William Hawkins; Jeff Michalski; Imran Zoberi Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 3.481