Explore the vast range of titles available.

Unlike for extremity sarcomas, the efficacy of radiotherapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma is not established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone on abdominal recurrence-free survival. EORTC-62092 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done in 31 research institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 13 countries in Europe and North America. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically documented, localised, primary retroperitoneal sarcoma that was operable and suitable for radiotherapy, who had not been previously treated and had a WHO performance status and American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 2 or lower, were centrally randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive web response system and a minimisation algorithm, to receive either surgery alone or preoperative radiotherapy followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by hospital and performance status. Radiotherapy was delivered as 50·4 Gy (in 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy) in either 3D conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, and the objective of surgery was a macroscopically complete resection of the tumour mass with en-bloc organ resection as necessary. The primary endpoint was abdominal recurrence-free survival, as assessed by the investigator, and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who started their allocated treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344018. Between Jan 18, 2012 and April 10, 2017, 266 patients were enrolled, of whom 133 were randomly assigned to each group. The median follow-up was 43·1 months (IQR 28·8–59·2). 128 (96%) patients from the surgery alone group had surgery, and 119 (89%) patients in the radiotherapy and surgery group had both radiotherapy and surgery. Median abdominal recurrence-free survival was 4·5 years (95% CI 3·9 to not estimable) in the radiotherapy plus surgery group and 5·0 years (3·4 to not estimable) in the surgery only group (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·71–1·44; log rank p=0·95). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were lymphopenia (98 [77%] of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group vs one [1%] of 128 patients in the surgery alone group), anaemia (15 [12%] vs ten [8%]), and hypoalbuminaemia (15 [12%] vs five [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 30 (24%) of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group, and in 13 (10%) of 128 patients in the surgery alone group. One (1%) of 127 patients in the radiotherapy plus surgery group died due to treatment-related serious adverse events (gastropleural fistula), and no patients in the surgery alone group died due to treatment-related serious adverse events. Preoperative radiotherapy should not be considered as standard of care treatment for retroperitoneal sarcoma. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, and European Clinical Trials in Rare Sarcomas.

Background Whether current postoperative surveillance regimes result in improved overall survival (OS) of patients with extremity sarcomas is unknown. Questions/purposes We hypothesized that a less intensive followup protocol would not be inferior to the conventional followup protocol in terms of OS. We (1) assessed OS of patients to determine if less intensive followup regimens led to worsened survival and asked (2) whether chest radiograph followup group was inferior to CT scan followup group in detecting pulmonary metastasis; and (3) whether less frequent (6-monthly) followup interval was inferior to more frequent (3-monthly) followup in detecting pulmonary metastasis and local recurrence. Methods A prospective randomized single-center noninferiority trial was conducted between January 2006 and June 2010. On the basis of 3-year survival of 60% with intensive, more frequent followup, 500 nonmetastatic patients were randomized to demonstrate noninferiority by a margin (delta) of 10% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36). The primary end point was OS at 3 years. The secondary objective was to compare disease-free survival (DFS) (time to recurrence) at 3 years. At minimum followup of 30 months (median, 42 months; range, 30–81 months), 178 deaths were documented. Results Three-year OS and DFS for all patients was 67% and 52%, respectively. Three-year OS was 67% and 66% in chest radiography and CT groups, respectively (HR, 0.9; upper 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.13). DFS rate was 54% and 49% in chest radiography and CT groups, respectively (HR, 0.82; upper 90% CI, 0.97). Three-year OS was 64% and 69% in 6-monthly and 3-monthly groups, respectively (HR, 1.2; upper 90% CI, 1.47). DFS was 51% and 52% in 6-monthly and 3-monthly groups, respectively (HR, 1.01; upper 90% CI, 1.2). Almost 90% of local recurrences were identified by patients themselves. Conclusions Inexpensive imaging detects the vast majority of recurrent disease in patients with sarcoma without deleterious effects on eventual outcomes. Patient education regarding self-examination will detect most instances of local recurrence although this was not directly assessed in this study. Although less frequent visits adequately detected metastasis and local recurrence, this trial could not conclusively demonstrate noninferiority in OS for a 6-monthly interval of followup visits against 3-monthly visits. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Evofosfamide is a hypoxia-activated prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard. We aimed to assess the benefit of adding evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy for advanced soft-tissue sarcomas. We did this international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, multicentre trial (TH CR-406/SARC021) at 81 academic or community investigational sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 15 years or older with a diagnosis of an advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, of intermediate or high grade, for which no standard curative therapy was available, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive doxorubicin alone (75 mg/m2 via bolus injection administered over 5–20 min or continuous intravenous infusion for 6–96 h on day 1 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles) or doxorubicin (given via the same dose procedure) plus evofosfamide (300 mg/m2 intravenously for 30–60 min on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day cycle for up to six cycles). After six cycles of treatment, patients in the single-drug doxorubicin group were followed up expectantly whereas patients with stable or responsive disease in the combination group were allowed to continue with evofosfamide monotherapy until documented disease progression. A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was stratified by extent of disease, doxorubicin administration method, and previous systemic therapy. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received any amount of study drug. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01440088. Between Sept 26, 2011, and Jan 22, 2014, 640 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (317 to doxorubicin plus evofosfamide and 323 to doxorubicin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall survival endpoint was not reached (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·88–1·29; p=0·527), with a median overall survival of 18·4 months (95% CI 15·6–22·1) with doxorubicin plus evofosfamide versus 19·0 months (16·2–22·4) with doxorubicin alone. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both groups were haematological, including anaemia (150 [48%] of 313 patients in the doxorubicin plus evofosfamide group vs 65 [21%] of 308 in the doxorubicin group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]), decreased neutrophil count (31 [10%] vs 41 [13%]), and decreased white blood cell count (39 [13%] vs 33 [11%]). Grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was more common in the combination group (45 [14%]) than in the doxorubicin alone group (four [1%]), as was grade 3–4 stomatitis (26 [8%] vs seven [2%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 145 (46%) of 313 patients in the combination group and 99 (32%) of 308 in the doxorubicin alone group. Five (2%) patients died from treatment-related causes in the combination group (sepsis [n=2], septic shock [n=1], congestive cardiac failure [n=1], and unknown cause [n=1]) versus one (<1%) patient in the doxorubicin alone group (lactic acidosis [n=1]). The addition of evofosfamide to doxorubicin as first-line therapy did not improve overall survival compared with single-drug doxorubicin in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas and so this combination cannot be recommended in this setting. Threshold Pharmaceuticals.

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented as a global crisis over the last century. How do specialist surgeons make decisions about patient care in these unprecedent times?DesignBetween April and May 2020, we conducted an international qualitative study. Sarcoma surgeons from diverse global settings participated in 60 min interviews exploring surgical decision making during COVID-19. Interview data were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.SettingParticipants represented public and private hospitals in 14 countries, in different phases of the first wave of the pandemic: Australia, Argentina, Canada, India, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, UK and USA.ParticipantsFrom 22 invited sarcoma surgeons, 18 surgeons participated. Participants had an average of 19 years experience as a sarcoma surgeon.Results17/18 participants described a decision they had made about patient care since the start of the pandemic that was unique to them, that is, without precedence. Common to ‘unique’ decisions about patient care was uncertainty about what was going on and what would happen in the future (theme 1: the context of uncertainty), the impact of the pandemic on resources or threat of the pandemic to overwhelm resources (theme 2: limited resources), perceived increased risk to self (theme 3: duty of care) and least-worst decision making, in which none of the options were perceived as ideal and participants settled on the least-worst option at that point in time (theme 4: least-worst decision making).ConclusionsIn the context of rapidly changing standards of justice and beneficence in patient care, traditional decision-making frameworks may no longer apply. Based on the experiences of surgeons in this study, we describe a framework of least-worst decision making. This framework gives rise to actionable strategies that can support decision making in sarcoma and other specialised fields of surgery, both during the current crisis and beyond.

IntroductionThe management of spinal sarcomas is complex, given their widespread involvement and high recurrence rates. Despite consensus on the need for a multidisciplinary approach with surgery at its core, there is a lack of definitive guidelines for clinical decision-making. This study examines a case series of primary spinal sarcomas, focusing on the surgical strategies, clinical results, and survival data to inform and guide therapeutic practices.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent surgical resection for primary spinal sarcomas between 2005 and 2022. The study focused on gathering data on patient demographics, surgical details, postoperative complications, overall hospital stay, and mortality within 90 days post-surgery.ResultsThe study included 14 patients with a primary diagnosis of spinal sarcoma, with an average age of 48.6 ± 12.6 years. Chondrosarcoma emerged as the most common tumor type, representing 57.1% of cases, followed by Ewing sarcoma at 35.7%, and synovial sarcoma at 7.1%. Patients with chondrosarcoma were treated with en-bloc resection, while the patient with synovial sarcoma underwent intra-lesional excision and those with Ewing sarcoma received decompression and tumor debulking. Postoperative assessments revealed significant improvements in neurological conditions. Notably, functional status as measured by the Karnofski Performance Index (KPI), improved substantially post-surgery (from 61.4 to 80.0%) The mean follow-up was 34.9 ± 9.2 months. During this time period one patient experienced fatal bleeding after en-bloc resection complications involving the vena cava. None of the patient needed further surgery.ConclusionsOur 16-year study offers vital insights into managing primary spinal sarcomas, showcasing the effectiveness of surgical intervention, particularly en-bloc resection. Despite their rarity and complexity, our multidisciplinary treatment approach yields improved outcomes and highlights the potential for refined surgical strategies to become standardized care in this challenging domain.

Based on preclinical data for the antitumour effect of zoledronate in osteosarcoma, we assessed whether zoledronate combined with chemotherapy and surgery improved event-free survival in children and adults with osteosarcoma. In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial (OS2006), patients aged between 5 years and 50 years with newly diagnosed high-grade osteosarcoma were randomly assigned to receive standard chemotherapy with or without ten zoledronate intravenous infusions (four preoperative and six postoperative). Adults older than 25 years received 4 mg zoledronate per infusion, patients aged 18–25 years received 0·05 mg/kg for the first two infusions and 4 mg for the remaining eight infusions, and younger patients received 0·05 mg/kg per infusion. Chemotherapy comprised high-dose methotrexate based chemotherapy in patients younger than 18 years, and doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in adults older than 25 years; patients aged 18–25 years were treated with either regime at the discretion of the treating centre. Balanced randomisation between the two groups was done centrally with online randomisation software, based on a minimisation algorithm taking into account centre, age, combined with chemotherapy regimen, and risk group (resectable primary and no metastasis vs other). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment, but the endpoint adjudication committee members who reviewed suspected early progressions were masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was event-free survival, estimated from the randomisation to the time of first failure (local or distant relapse, progression, death) or to the last follow-up visit for the patients in first complete remission, analysed on a modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded patients found not to have a malignant tumour after central review. Three interim analyses were planned. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00470223. Between April 23, 2007, and March 11, 2014, 318 patients, median age 15·5 years (range 5·8–50·9), were enrolled from 40 French centres; of whom 158 were assigned to the control group (chemotherapy alone) and 160 to the zoledronate group, including 55 (17%) patients with definite metastases. The trial was stopped for futility after the second interim analysis. With a median follow-up of 3·9 years (IQR 2·7–5·1), 125 events occurred (55 in the control group and 70 in the with zoledronate group). Event-free survival at 3 years for all 315 randomly assigned patients was 60·3% (95% CI 64·5–65·9); 3-year event-free survival was 63·4% (55·2–70·9) for the control group and 57·1% (48·8–65·0) for the zoledronate group. The risk of failure was not reduced and was even marginally higher in the zoledronate group than in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·36 [95% CI 0·95–1·96]; p=0·094). No major increase in severe toxic effects of grade 3 or higher associated with zoledronate, barring expected hypocalcaemia (45 [29%] of 153 participants in the zoledronate group vs ten [6%] of 155 participants in the control group; p<0·0001) and hypophosphataemia (61 [40%] of 151 in the zoledronate group vs 26 [17%] of 156 in the control group; p<0·0001). No significant difference in orthopaedic complications was noted between the two groups (27 in the control group and 29 in the zoledronate group). Two treatment-related deaths were reported (one from cardiomyopathy in the control group and one from multiorgan failure in the zoledronate group before the first zoledronate infusion). From the results observed in this study, we do not recommend zoledronate in osteosarcoma patients. Further biological studies are required to understand the discordance between the results of OS2006 trial and preclinical data. French National Cancer Institute (INCa), Novartis, Chugai, Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Fédération Enfants et Santé, Société Française des Cancers et Leucémies de l'Enfant.

Background While research on exercise interventions during anticancer treatment is well-established in adults, only very few studies exist in children. However, pediatric patients experience great limitations to being physically active, and appropriate interventions are desired. Procedure The present study aimed at investigating the effects of individualized exercise interventions during inpatient stays on pediatric patients with a malignant bone tumor. The parameter of interest was physical activity (PA). Patients’ PA during home stays was assessed 6 weeks as well as 3, 6, 12, and 18 months post-surgery. Patients were distinguished into an intervention group and a control group. All patients received endoprosthetic replacement of the affected bone in the same institution. Results A constant increase in all PA parameters was observed during follow-up. Exercise interventions were possible and appeared worthwhile. The intervention group showed better PA results at all measurements; however, no significant differences between groups were found. Furthermore, differences decreased especially after the cessation of the intervention. General problems in reaching appropriate power and compliance were observed. Conclusions Individualized exercise interventions in pediatric bone tumor patients are possible and appear to be beneficial. Such interventions should be implemented in adjuvant care; however, future research is needed to understand more about the effects of different interventions.

External-beam radiotherapy (delivered either preoperatively or postoperatively) is frequently used in local management of sarcomas in the soft tissue of limbs, but the two approaches differ substantially in their potential toxic effects. We aimed to determine whether the timing of external-beam radiotherapy affected the number of wound healing complications in soft-tissue sarcoma in the limbs of adults. After stratification by tumour size (≤ 10 cm or > 10 cm), we randomly allocated 94 patients to preoperative radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions) and 96 to postoperative radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 fractions). The primary endpoint was rate of wound complications within 120 days of surgery. Analyses were per protocol for primary outcomes and by intention to treat for secondary outcomes. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (range 0·27–5·6). Four patients, all in the preoperative group, did not undergo protocol surgery and were not evaluable for the primary outcome. Of those patients who were eligible and evaluable, wound complications were recorded in 31 (35%) of 88 in the preoperative group and 16 (17%) of 94 in the postoperative group (difference 18% [95% CI 5–30], p=0·01). Tumour size and anatomical site were also significant risk factors in multivariate analysis. Overall survival was slightly better in patients who had preoperative radiotherapy than in those who had postoperative treatment (p=0·0481). Because preoperative radiotherapy is associated with a greater risk of wound complications than postoperative radiotherapy, the choice of regimen for patients with soft-tissue sarcoma should take into account the timing of surgery and radiotherapy, and the size and anatomical site of the tumour. Published online June 11, 2002 http://image.thelancet.com/extras/01art4373web.pdf

PurposeWe conducted a systematic review of studies reporting on measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), with a special focus on the use of the preference-weighted instruments, in patients with extremity bone sarcoma treated with limb-salvage surgery or amputation.MethodsWe searched MedLine, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for English-language studies reporting on HRQoL of patients with bone sarcoma from inception to 28 August 2023. All records found were independently reviewed by two reviewers. We used the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the CONSORT 2010 checklist to assess the quality of the cohort and randomised studies, respectively.ResultsThe search identified 1225 records, of which 16 studies were included for data extraction. Only one study used a preference-weighted instrument for measuring HRQoL in a small sample of patients (n = 28). Ten studies used the generic SF-36 questionnaire, but no preference-weighted HRQoL based on SF-6D was derived from the SF-36 scores. Most studies comparing HRQoL between amputation and limb-salvage surgery reported no significant differences. Twelve cohort studies scored six or more out of nine points based on the NOS. The only randomised study scored 54% on the CONSORT 2010 checklist.ConclusionsThe approaches used to measure HRQoL were inconsistent and outcome scores varied substantially. Only one study used preference-weighted instruments for HRQoL measurement. Future research into the surgical treatment of extremity bone sarcoma should consider the use of preference-weighted instruments to measure HRQoL, which will therefore enable economic evaluation for the growing orthopaedic armamentarium of novel surgical interventions.RegistrationThis systematic review was registered with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42021282380).