OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the association between lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and overall survival (OS) in truncal/extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS). METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for all patients, ages 18-85 years, who underwent resection of primary, truncal/extremity STS between 2010 and 2012, and had LVI data. The primary endpoint was OS. RESULTS: Among 6169 patients identified, the most common histology groups were (1) liposarcoma (LPS, 24%), (2) undifferentiated pleiomorphic sarcoma (UPS, 19%), and (3) leiomyosarcoma (LMS, 15%); 449 patients (7%) were LVI-positive. There were no differences in demographics or comorbidities between the LVI groups. Compared with LVI-negative patients, LVI-positive patients were more likely to have larger (> 5 cm: 80% vs. 66%), deep (80% vs. 68%), and high-grade tumors (82% vs. 57%). They were also more likely to have positive margins (27% vs. 17%), nodal (16% vs. 2%) and metastatic disease (21% vs. 4%), and receive chemotherapy (37% vs. 18%; all p < 0.001). LVI was associated with worse median OS (39 months vs. MNR; p < 0.001), which persisted on stratum-specific analyses for all tumor grades, size categories, and stages I-III, but not stage IV. On multivariable Cox regression, LVI was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-2.44), while accounting for other significant prognostic factors. Among non-metastatic, curative-intent resections (n = 5696), LVI was still associated with worse OS (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.28-2.49). CONCLUSIONS: LVI appears to be an important adverse pathologic factor in truncal and extremity STS. Even when taking into account other established prognostic factors, LVI was predictive of worse OS. Knowledge of LVI status may help to better risk-stratify patients and guide management strategies, and should be considered in future prognostic classification schemes and nomograms.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the association between lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and overall survival (OS) in truncal/extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS). METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for all patients, ages 18-85 years, who underwent resection of primary, truncal/extremity STS between 2010 and 2012, and had LVI data. The primary endpoint was OS. RESULTS: Among 6169 patients identified, the most common histology groups were (1) liposarcoma (LPS, 24%), (2) undifferentiated pleiomorphic sarcoma (UPS, 19%), and (3) leiomyosarcoma (LMS, 15%); 449 patients (7%) were LVI-positive. There were no differences in demographics or comorbidities between the LVI groups. Compared with LVI-negative patients, LVI-positive patients were more likely to have larger (> 5 cm: 80% vs. 66%), deep (80% vs. 68%), and high-grade tumors (82% vs. 57%). They were also more likely to have positive margins (27% vs. 17%), nodal (16% vs. 2%) and metastatic disease (21% vs. 4%), and receive chemotherapy (37% vs. 18%; all p < 0.001). LVI was associated with worse median OS (39 months vs. MNR; p < 0.001), which persisted on stratum-specific analyses for all tumor grades, size categories, and stages I-III, but not stage IV. On multivariable Cox regression, LVI was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-2.44), while accounting for other significant prognostic factors. Among non-metastatic, curative-intent resections (n = 5696), LVI was still associated with worse OS (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.28-2.49). CONCLUSIONS:LVI appears to be an important adverse pathologic factor in truncal and extremity STS. Even when taking into account other established prognostic factors, LVI was predictive of worse OS. Knowledge of LVI status may help to better risk-stratify patients and guide management strategies, and should be considered in future prognostic classification schemes and nomograms.
Authors: Sarah B Fisher; Sameer H Patel; David A Kooby; Sharon Weber; Mark Bloomston; Clifford Cho; Ioannis Hatzaras; Carl Schmidt; Emily Winslow; Charles A Staley; Shishir K Maithel Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Sameer H Patel; David A Kooby; Charles A Staley; Juan M Sarmiento; Shishir K Maithel Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Marie-Cécile Le Deley; Michael Paulussen; Ian Lewis; Bernadette Brennan; Andreas Ranft; Jeremy Whelan; Gwénaël Le Teuff; Jean Michon; Ruth Ladenstein; Perrine Marec-Bérard; Henk van den Berg; Lars Hjorth; Keith Wheatley; Ian Judson; Heribert Juergens; Alan Craft; Odile Oberlin; Uta Dirksen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ana Carneiro; Par-Ola Bendahl; Jacob Engellau; Henryk A Domanski; Christopher D Fletcher; Pehr Rissler; Anders Rydholm; Mef Nilbert Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Luigi Mariani; Rosalba Miceli; Michael W Kattan; Murray F Brennan; Maurizio Colecchia; Marco Fiore; Paolo G Casali; Alessandro Gronchi Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Dario Callegaro; Rosalba Miceli; Sylvie Bonvalot; Peter Ferguson; Dirk C Strauss; Antonin Levy; Anthony Griffin; Andrew J Hayes; Silvia Stacchiotti; Cecile Le Pechoux; Myles J Smith; Marco Fiore; Angelo P Dei Tos; Henry G Smith; Luigi Mariani; Jay S Wunder; Raphael E Pollock; Paolo G Casali; Alessandro Gronchi Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Andres A Roma; Denise A Barbuto; Siavash Azadmanesh Samimi; Simona Stolnicu; Isabel Alvarado-Cabrero; Jose Chanona-Vilchis; Irene Aguilera-Barrantes; Mariza de Peralta-Venturina; Anais Malpica; Joanne K L Rutgers; Elvio G Silva Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: G G Van den Eynden; I Van der Auwera; S J Van Laere; C G Colpaert; P van Dam; L Y Dirix; P B Vermeulen; E A Van Marck Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 7.640