Kamran Harati1, Adrien Daigeler2, Kim Lange2, Hiltrud Niggemann3, Ingo Stricker4, Hans-Ulrich Steinau2, Marcus Lehnhardt2, Ole Goertz2,5. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Buerkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany. kamran.harati@t-online.de. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Buerkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany. 3. Statistical Consulting and Data Analysis, Schlehendornweg 24, 07751, Jena, Germany. 4. Institute of Pathology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Buerkle-de-la-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany. 5. Department of Plastic Surgery, Martin-Luther Hospital, Caspar-Theyss-Strasse 27-29, 14193, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Somatic leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is an aggressive soft tissue sarcoma entity with a high metastatic potential. The purpose of this study was to identify prognostic indicators of survival in patients with somatic LMS of the soft tissues. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the relationship between local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival (OS) and potential prognostic factors in 164 patients who were suitable for surgical treatment in curative intent. Patients with soft tissue LMS of the extremities, the truncal wall and the head and neck area were included. The median follow-up time was 4.9 years. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, the 5-year estimate of the DSS, OS and LRFS rate were 74.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.0-81.8), 70.6% (95% CI: 60.9-78.3) and 63.4% (95% CI 53.4-71.9), respectively. Thirty-eight patients (23.2%) developed distant metastases with a median survival time of 1.5 years after diagnosis of metastasis. Surgical margins attained at the initial oncologic resection and eventual re-excisions did not influence DSS, OS and LRFS significantly. Within the R0 subgroup, close and wide negative margins led to similar outcomes. High histologic grade (P < 0.001), size >5 cm (P = 0.002) and subfascial localisation (P = 0.002) were associated with significantly diminished DSS in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, only histologic grade was found to be an independent prognostic factor of DSS. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this study could not determine a prognostic significance of surgical margins suggesting that tumour characteristics other than margin status are important. Tumour biology reflected by the histologic grade dictates the final outcome.
BACKGROUND: Somatic leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is an aggressive soft tissue sarcoma entity with a high metastatic potential. The purpose of this study was to identify prognostic indicators of survival in patients with somatic LMS of the soft tissues. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the relationship between local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), overall survival (OS) and potential prognostic factors in 164 patients who were suitable for surgical treatment in curative intent. Patients with soft tissue LMS of the extremities, the truncal wall and the head and neck area were included. The median follow-up time was 4.9 years. RESULTS: In the entire cohort, the 5-year estimate of the DSS, OS and LRFS rate were 74.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.0-81.8), 70.6% (95% CI: 60.9-78.3) and 63.4% (95% CI 53.4-71.9), respectively. Thirty-eight patients (23.2%) developed distant metastases with a median survival time of 1.5 years after diagnosis of metastasis. Surgical margins attained at the initial oncologic resection and eventual re-excisions did not influence DSS, OS and LRFS significantly. Within the R0 subgroup, close and wide negative margins led to similar outcomes. High histologic grade (P < 0.001), size >5 cm (P = 0.002) and subfascial localisation (P = 0.002) were associated with significantly diminished DSS in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, only histologic grade was found to be an independent prognostic factor of DSS. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this study could not determine a prognostic significance of surgical margins suggesting that tumour characteristics other than margin status are important. Tumour biology reflected by the histologic grade dictates the final outcome.
Authors: Eduardo N Novais; Bahtiyar Demiralp; Joseph Alderete; Melissa C Larson; Peter S Rose; Franklin H Sim Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Joal D Beane; James C Yang; Donald White; Seth M Steinberg; Steven A Rosenberg; Udo Rudloff Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Julie Willeumier; Marta Fiocco; Remi Nout; Sander Dijkstra; William Aston; Rob Pollock; Henk Hartgrink; Judith Bovée; Michiel van de Sande Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Mark D McKee; Dong Feng Liu; John J Brooks; John F Gibbs; Deborah L Driscoll; William G Kraybill Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Justin Pijpe; Gerben H Torn Broers; Boudewijn E Ch Plaat; M Hundeiker; F Otto; Mirjam F Mastik; Harald J Hoekstra; Winette T A van der Graaf; Eva van Den Berg; Willemina M Molenaar Journal: Sarcoma Date: 2002