Bagaria, Sanjay P

AbstractBackgroundPrimary mesenteric soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare and limited evidence is available to inform management. Surgical resection is challenging due to the proximity of vital structures and a need to preserve enteric function.ObjectivesTo determine the overall survival (OS) and recurrence‐free survival (RFS) for patients undergoing primary resection for mesenteric STS.MethodsThe Trans‐Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) is an intercontinental collaborative comprising specialist sarcoma centers. Data were collected retrospectively for all patients with mesenteric STS undergoing primary resection between 2000 and 2019.ResultsFifty‐six cases from 15 institutions were included. The spectrum of pathology was similar to the retroperitoneum, although of a higher grade. R0/R1 resection was achieved in 87%. Median OS was 56 months. OS was significantly shorter in higher‐grade tumors (p = .018) and extensive resection (p < .001). No significant association between OS and resection margin or tumor size was detected. Rates of local recurrence (LR) and distant metastases (DM) at 5 years were 60% and 41%, respectively. Liver metastases were common (60%), reflecting portal drainage of the mesentery.ConclusionPrimary mesenteric sarcoma is rare, with a modest survival rate. LR and DM are frequent events. Liver metastases are common, highlighting the need for surveillance imaging.

Background In this series from the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG), the authors examined longitudinal outcomes of patients with a second recurrence of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) after complete resection of a first local recurrence (LR). Methods Data from patients undergoing resection of a first LR from January 2002 to December 2011were collected from 22 sarcoma centers. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) after second recurrence. Results Second recurrences occurred in 400 of 567 patients (70.5%) after an R0/R1 resection of a first locally recurrent RPS. Patterns of disease recurrence were LR in 323 patients (80.75%), distant metastases (DM) in 55 patients (13.75%), and both LR and DM in 22 patients (5.5%). The main subtype among the LR group was liposarcoma (77%), whereas DM mainly were leiomyosarcomas (43.6%). In patients with a second LR only, a total of 200 patients underwent re‐resection (61.9%). The 5‐year OS rate varied significantly based on the pattern of failure ( P < .001): 45.6% for the LR group, 25.5% for the DM group, and 0% for the group with LR and DM. The only factors found to be associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis were both time between second surgery and the development of the second recurrence (32 months vs 8 months: hazard ratio, 0.44 [ P < .001]) and surgery for second recurrence (yes vs no: hazard ratio, 3.25 [ P < .001]). The 5‐year OS rate for patients undergoing surgery for a second LR was 59% versus 18% in the patients not deemed suitable for surgical resection. Conclusions Survival rates after second recurrence of RPS varied based on patterns of disease recurrence and treatment. Durable disease‐free survivors were identified after surgery for second LR in patients selected for this intervention.

AbstractBackgroundRelatively few cutaneous head and neck melanoma (CHNM) patients with were included in the multicenter selective lymphadenectomy trial II (MSLT‐II). Our objective was to investigate whether immediate completion lymph node dissection completion of lymph node dissection (CLND) was associated with survival benefit for sentinel lymph node (SLN) positive CHNM using the National Cancer Database.MethodsSLN positive patients with CHNM from 2012 to 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent SLN biopsy (SLNB) only versus those who underwent SLNB followed by CLND (SLNB + CLND). The primary outcome was 5‐year overall survival (OS).ResultsAmong 530 SLNB + patients, 342 patients underwent SLNB followed by CLND (SLNB + CLND). The SLNB only group had fewer positive SLN, less advanced pathologic stage, and a lower rate of adjuvant immunotherapy. There was no significant difference in 5‐year OS between the two groups (51.0% vs 67%; P = .56). After adjusting for pathologic stage, there remained no difference in 5‐year OS among patients with stage IIIA (63.0% vs. 73.6%, P = 0.22) or IIIB/IIIC disease (39.1% vs 57.8%; P = .52).ConclusionsUsing a large nationwide database, CLND was not shown to be associated with improved OS for patients with SLNB positive CHNM, validating the results of MSLT‐II.

Background. We sought to study the association between RPS case volume and outcomes. Although a relationship has been demonstrated between case volume and patient outcomes in some cancers, such a relationship has not been established for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPSs). Study Design. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients undergoing treatment for primary RPS diagnosed between 2004 and 2013. Mean annual patient volume for RPS resection was calculated for all hospitals and divided into low volume (<5 cases/year), medium volume (5–10 cases/year), and high volume (>10 cases/year). Risk-adjusted regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of 30-day surgical mortality, R0 margin status, and overall survival (OS). Results. Our study population consisted of 5,407 patients with a median age of 61 years, of whom 47% were male and 3,803 (70%) underwent surgical resection. Absolute 30-day surgical mortality and R0 margin rate following surgery for low-, medium-, and high-volume institutions were 2.4%, 1.3%, and 0.5% (p=0.027) and 68%, 65%, and 82%, (p<0.001), respectively. Five-year overall survival rates for low, medium, and high-volume institutions were 56%, 57%, and 66%, respectively (p<0.001). Patients treated at low-volume institutions had a significantly higher risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR = 4.66, 95% CI 2.26–9.63) and long-term mortality (adjusted HR = 1.56, 95% CI 1.16–2.11) compared to high-volume institutions. Conclusion. We demonstrate the existence of a hospital sarcoma service line volume-oncologic outcome relationship for RPS at the national level and provide benchmark data for cancer care delivery systems and policy makers.

Introduction. Optimization of outcomes of extra-abdominal STS is not clearly understood. We sought to determine whether hospital surgical volume and adherence to NCCN guidelines, or both, are associated with outcomes in the treatment of extra-abdominal soft tissue sarcoma (STS).Methods. The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients undergoing surgery for extra-abdominal STS diagnosed from 2003 to 2007. Mean annual hospital volume for STS surgery was divided into volume terciles (1T ≤3, 2T 4–10, and 3T ≥11 cases/year). Adherence to NCCN guidelines was determined. Primary outcome was overall survival.Results. Our study population consisted of 13,684 patients with a median age of 56 years. 3T hospitals were more likely to adhere to NCCN guidelines for stage III patients (63% versus 47%;p≤0.001) than 1T hospitals. On multivariable analysis, adherence to NCCN guidelines was associated with improved survival (HR = 0.79, CI 0.73–0.87;p<0.001), but hospital volume was not (3T versus 1T: HR = 0.92, CI 0.82–1.02;p=0.12). Five-year overall survival was comparable for compliant groups at 1T, 2T, and 3T hospitals (72%, 72.4%, and 72.6%, resp.). 3T hospitals were not associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44–1.11) compared to 1T hospitals but did have a higher R0 resection rate (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.32–1.54).Conclusions. Adherence to NCCN guidelines, irrespective of hospital volume, is associated with improved overall survival for patients with extra-abdominal STS. High-volume hospitals more often adhere to guidelines, but low-volume hospitals that follow national guidelines may achieve comparable outcomes.

Retroperitoneal liposarcomas (RPLPS) are rare tumors that represent at least 50% of all retroperitoneal sarcomas. Surgical resection remains the standard of care. Unfortunately, many RPLPS patients will develop a local recurrence and subsequently die in the absence of distant metastasis. This review outlines the factors that predict local recurrence and influence the management of first and subsequent multiply recurrent RPLPS.