Hyun Ju Kim1,2, Yong Jin Cho3, Soo Hee Kim4, Sun Young Rha1, Joong Bae Ahn1, Woo Ick Yang4, Young Han Lee5, Jin-Suck Suh5, Jae Kyung Roh1, Kyung Sik Kim6, Young Deuk Choi7, Kyoo-Ho Shin8, Hyo Song Kim9. 1. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. 2. Yonsei University Graduate School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. 4. Department of Pathology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Department of Urology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 8. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. QSHIN@yuhs.ac. 9. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. hyosong77@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We performed this study to define distinctive clinical features of leiomyosarcoma by assessing prognostic factors. METHODS: Between 1988 and 2011, 129 leiomyosarcoma patients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 129 leiomyosarcoma patients, the distribution of anatomic locations was: extremity (n = 25), pelvis (n = 40), thoracic cavity (n = 11), intra-abdomen (n = 19), retroperitoneum (n = 23), and head/neck (n = 11). We classified the anatomic locations into two categories as abdominal (intra-abdomen and retroperitoneum, n = 42) and extra-abdominal (extremity, pelvis, thoracic cavity, and head/neck, n = 87). Prognosis was worse for the abdominal group than for the extra-abdominal group (median DFS 2.9 9.0 years, P = 0.04). Similarly, overall survival (OS) was also significantly worse for abdominal group (P = 0.027). Independent prognostic factors for survival were primary site (P = 0.041, hazard ratio (HR) 1.7; 95 % CI 1.2-2.8), tumor size (P = 0.038, HR 1.9; 95 % CI 1.13-3.38), margin status (P = 0.019, HR 2.1; 95 % CI 1.13-3.88), and histology grade (P = 0.01, HR 3.59; 95 % CI 1.64-7.87). We identified four different risk groups with different survival outcome: group 1 (n = 8), no adverse factors; groups 2 (n = 37) and 3 (n = 61) with one and two adverse factors, and group 4 (n = 23) with 3 or 4 adverse factors. CONCLUSION: Primary site, tumor size, resection margin, and histology subtype were independently associated with survival outcome. A prognostic model for leiomyosarcoma patients revealed four distinct groups of patients with good prognostic discrimination.
BACKGROUND: We performed this study to define distinctive clinical features of leiomyosarcoma by assessing prognostic factors. METHODS: Between 1988 and 2011, 129 leiomyosarcomapatients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 129 leiomyosarcomapatients, the distribution of anatomic locations was: extremity (n = 25), pelvis (n = 40), thoracic cavity (n = 11), intra-abdomen (n = 19), retroperitoneum (n = 23), and head/neck (n = 11). We classified the anatomic locations into two categories as abdominal (intra-abdomen and retroperitoneum, n = 42) and extra-abdominal (extremity, pelvis, thoracic cavity, and head/neck, n = 87). Prognosis was worse for the abdominal group than for the extra-abdominal group (median DFS 2.9 9.0 years, P = 0.04). Similarly, overall survival (OS) was also significantly worse for abdominal group (P = 0.027). Independent prognostic factors for survival were primary site (P = 0.041, hazard ratio (HR) 1.7; 95 % CI 1.2-2.8), tumor size (P = 0.038, HR 1.9; 95 % CI 1.13-3.38), margin status (P = 0.019, HR 2.1; 95 % CI 1.13-3.88), and histology grade (P = 0.01, HR 3.59; 95 % CI 1.64-7.87). We identified four different risk groups with different survival outcome: group 1 (n = 8), no adverse factors; groups 2 (n = 37) and 3 (n = 61) with one and two adverse factors, and group 4 (n = 23) with 3 or 4 adverse factors. CONCLUSION: Primary site, tumor size, resection margin, and histology subtype were independently associated with survival outcome. A prognostic model for leiomyosarcomapatients revealed four distinct groups of patients with good prognostic discrimination.
Entities:
Keywords:
Leiomyosarcoma; Prognostic factors; Risk stratification model
Authors: Robert L Giuntoli; Daniel S Metzinger; Connie S DiMarco; Stephen S Cha; Jeff A Sloan; Gary L Keeney; Bobbie S Gostout Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: G A Omura; J A Blessing; F Major; S Lifshitz; C E Ehrlich; C Mangan; J Beecham; R Park; S Silverberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1985-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Martee L Hensley; J Kyle Wathen; Robert G Maki; Dejka M Araujo; Gregory Sutton; Dennis A Priebat; Suzanne George; Robert A Soslow; Laurence H Baker Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 6.860