Arash O Naghavi1, Ricardo J Gonzalez2, Jacob G Scott1, John E Mullinax2, Yazan A Abuodeh1, Youngchul Kim3, Odion Binitie2, Kamran A Ahmed1, Marilyn M Bui4, Amarjit S Saini1, Jonathan S Zager5, Matthew C Biagioli1, Douglas Letson2, Louis B Harrison1, Daniel C Fernandez6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL. 2. Sarcoma Department, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL. 4. Department of Anatomic Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL. 5. Department of Cutaneous Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL. Electronic address: Daniel.fernandez@moffitt.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prior studies illustrated a reduction in wound complications with the use of staged reconstruction (SR) and negative pressure wound therapy when treating soft tissue sarcoma (STS) with surgical resection followed by high-dose-rate adjuvant brachytherapy. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of SR and immediate reconstruction (IR) brachytherapy in recurrent STS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of 40 patients with recurrent STS of the local extremity and trunk treated with resection followed by adjuvant brachytherapy alone. Margin status was defined as positive (SM(+)) if there was microscopic involvement (R1) or ≤1 mm margin and negative (SM(-)) if >1 mm margin was obtained. SR and IR were compared regarding toxicity, local control, and limb preservation. RESULTS: Median followup was 27 months. When comparing the SR (n = 22) and IR (n = 18) cohorts, there was a significantly lower final SM(+) rate in SR (32% vs. 83%, p < 0.01). A 2-year local control benefit seen with SR (80% vs. 34%; p = 0.012) and a final SM(-) (81% vs. 39%; p = 0.023). SR was associated with less toxicity on multivariate analysis, including a 90% decrease in persistent edema, an 80% decrease in wound dehiscence, and a 94% decrease in nonhealing wounds, when compared to IR. Ten of 31 (32%) extremity cases required eventual amputation from either chronic wound complications (n = 4) or local recurrence (n = 6). SR predicted for a benefit in 2-year limb preservation (88% vs. 50%; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In our series, the treatment with SR brachytherapy resulted in less morbidity and an improved final SM(-) rate. This technique translated to an improvement in both local control and limb preservation of recurrent STS.
PURPOSE: Prior studies illustrated a reduction in wound complications with the use of staged reconstruction (SR) and negative pressure wound therapy when treating soft tissue sarcoma (STS) with surgical resection followed by high-dose-rate adjuvant brachytherapy. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of SR and immediate reconstruction (IR) brachytherapy in recurrent STS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review of 40 patients with recurrent STS of the local extremity and trunk treated with resection followed by adjuvant brachytherapy alone. Margin status was defined as positive (SM(+)) if there was microscopic involvement (R1) or ≤1 mm margin and negative (SM(-)) if >1 mm margin was obtained. SR and IR were compared regarding toxicity, local control, and limb preservation. RESULTS: Median followup was 27 months. When comparing the SR (n = 22) and IR (n = 18) cohorts, there was a significantly lower final SM(+) rate in SR (32% vs. 83%, p < 0.01). A 2-year local control benefit seen with SR (80% vs. 34%; p = 0.012) and a final SM(-) (81% vs. 39%; p = 0.023). SR was associated with less toxicity on multivariate analysis, including a 90% decrease in persistent edema, an 80% decrease in wound dehiscence, and a 94% decrease in nonhealing wounds, when compared to IR. Ten of 31 (32%) extremity cases required eventual amputation from either chronic wound complications (n = 4) or local recurrence (n = 6). SR predicted for a benefit in 2-year limb preservation (88% vs. 50%; p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In our series, the treatment with SR brachytherapy resulted in less morbidity and an improved final SM(-) rate. This technique translated to an improvement in both local control and limb preservation of recurrent STS.
Authors: Stefan Denzinger; Lars Lübke; Wolfgang Roessler; Wolf F Wieland; Sigurd Kessler; Maximilian Burger Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Iñigo San Miguel; Mikel San Julián; Mauricio Cambeiro; Miguel Fernández Sanmamed; Blanca Vázquez-García; Maria Pagola; Miren Gaztañaga; Salvador Martín-Algarra; Rafael Martinez-Monge Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: A Modesto; T Filleron; C Chevreau; C Le Péchoux; P Rochaix; S Le Guellec; A Ducassou; D Gangloff; G Ferron; M Delannes Journal: Cancer Radiother Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 1.018
Authors: R Correa; J Gómez-Millán; M Lobato; A Fernández; R Ordoñez; C Castro; Y Lupiañez; J A Medina Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Arash O Naghavi; Ricardo J Gonzalez; Jacob G Scott; Youngchul Kim; Yazan A Abuodeh; Tobin J Strom; Michelle Echevarria; John E Mullinax; Kamran A Ahmed; Louis B Harrison; Daniel C Fernandez Journal: J Contemp Brachytherapy Date: 2017-01-31
Authors: Rebekka Götzl; Sebastian Sterzinger; Andreas Arkudas; Anja M Boos; Sabine Semrau; Nikolaos Vassos; Robert Grützmann; Abbas Agaimy; Werner Hohenberger; Raymund E Horch; Justus P Beier Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 6.639