Lupe Sanchez-Mete1, Virginia Ferraresi2, Mauro Caterino3, Aline Martayan4, Irene Terrenato5, Elena Mannisi1, Vittoria Stigliano1. 1. Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00144 Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00144 Rome, Italy. 3. Radiology Unit, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00144 Rome, Italy. 4. Division of Clinical Pathology, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00144 Rome, Italy. 5. Biostatistics and Bioinformatic Unit-Scientific Direction, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, 00144 Rome, Italy.
Abstract
(1) Background: desmoid tumors (DTs) are common in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). An active surveillance approach has been recently proposed as a valuable alternative to immediate treatment in some patients. However, no clear indication exists on which patients are suitable for active surveillance, how to establish the cut-off for an active treatment, and which imaging technique or predictive factors should be used during the surveillance period. (2) Results: we retrospectively analyzed 13 FAP patients with DTs. A surveillance protocol consisting of scheduled follow-up evaluations depending on tumor location and tissue thickening, abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan/Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allowed prompt intervention in 3/11 aggressive intra-abdominal DTs, while sparing further interventions in the remaining cases, despite worrisome features detected in three patients. Moreover, we identified a possible predictive marker of tumor aggressiveness, i.e., the "average monthly growth rate" (AMGR), which could distinguish patients with very aggressive/life-threatening tumor behavior (AMGR > 0.5) who need immediate active treatment, from those with stable DTs (AMGR < 0.1) in whom follow-up assessments could be delayed. (3) Conclusion: surveillance protocols may be a useful approach for DTs. Further studies on larger series are needed to confirm the usefulness of periodic CT scan/MRI and the value of AMGR as a prognostic tool to guide treatment strategies.
(1) Background: desmoid tumors (DTs) are common in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). An active surveillance approach has been recently proposed as a valuable alternative to immediate treatment in some patients. However, no clear indication exists on which patients are suitable for active surveillance, how to establish the cut-off for an active treatment, and which imaging technique or predictive factors should be used during the surveillance period. (2) Results: we retrospectively analyzed 13 FAPpatients with DTs. A surveillance protocol consisting of scheduled follow-up evaluations depending on tumor location and tissue thickening, abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan/Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allowed prompt intervention in 3/11 aggressive intra-abdominal DTs, while sparing further interventions in the remaining cases, despite worrisome features detected in three patients. Moreover, we identified a possible predictive marker of tumor aggressiveness, i.e., the "average monthly growth rate" (AMGR), which could distinguish patients with very aggressive/life-threatening tumor behavior (AMGR > 0.5) who need immediate active treatment, from those with stable DTs (AMGR < 0.1) in whom follow-up assessments could be delayed. (3) Conclusion: surveillance protocols may be a useful approach for DTs. Further studies on larger series are needed to confirm the usefulness of periodic CT scan/MRI and the value of AMGR as a prognostic tool to guide treatment strategies.
Authors: Maria Laura DE Marchis; Francesco Tonelli; Davide Quaresmini; Domenica Lovero; David Della-Morte; Franco Silvestris; Fiorella Guadagni; Raffaele Palmirotta Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: D Garbay; A Le Cesne; N Penel; C Chevreau; P Marec-Berard; J-Y Blay; M Debled; N Isambert; A Thyss; E Bompas; O Collard; S Salas; J-M Coindre; B Bui; A Italiano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Stephen X Skapek; William S Ferguson; Linda Granowetter; Meenakshi Devidas; Antonio R Perez-Atayde; Louis P Dehner; Fredric A Hoffer; Roseanne Speights; Mark C Gebhardt; Gary V Dahl; Holcombe E Grier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alexander J F Lazar; Daniel Tuvin; Shohrae Hajibashi; Sultan Habeeb; Svetlana Bolshakov; Empar Mayordomo-Aranda; Carla L Warneke; Dolores Lopez-Terrada; Raphael E Pollock; Dina Lev Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2008-10-02 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: M H Nieuwenhuis; E M Mathus-Vliegen; C G Baeten; F M Nagengast; J van der Bijl; A D van Dalsen; J H Kleibeuker; E Dekker; A M Langers; J Vecht; F T Peters; R van Dam; W G van Gemert; W N Stuifbergen; W R Schouten; H Gelderblom; H F A Vasen Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Sai Ge; Duo Cheng; Xuhui Zhang; Ting Xu; Zhenghang Wang; Fengxiao Dong; Lan Su; Jinlei Song; Jia Wang; Jian Li; Lin Shen; Xicheng Wang Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 5.942