4.6 Review

Incidence of Sarcoma Histotypes and Molecular Subtypes in a Prospective Epidemiological Study with Central Pathology Review and Molecular Testing

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 6, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020294

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Merck Serono
  2. Conticanet (European Connective Tissue Cancer Network) [FP6-018806]
  3. INCa (French National Cancer Institute)
  4. French national cancer league (Ain and Rhone committees)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The exact overall incidence of sarcoma and sarcoma subtypes is not known. The objective of the present population-based study was to determine this incidence in a European region (Rhone-Alpes) of six million inhabitants, based on a central pathological review of the cases. Methodology/Principal Findings: From March 2005 to February 2007, pathology reports and tumor blocks were prospectively collected from the 158 pathologists of the Rhone-Alpes region. All diagnosed or suspected cases of sarcoma were collected, reviewed centrally, examined for molecular alterations and classified according to the 2002 World Health Organization classification. Of the 1287 patients screened during the study period, 748 met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The overall crude and world age-standardized incidence rates were respectively 6.2 and 4.8 per 100,000/year. Incidence rates for soft tissue, visceral and bone sarcomas were respectively 3.6, 2.0 and 0.6 per 100,000. The most frequent histological subtypes were gastrointestinal stromal tumor (18%; 1.1/100,000), unclassified sarcoma (16%; 1/100,000), liposarcoma (15%; 0.9/100,000) and leiomyosarcoma (11%; 0.7/100,000). Conclusions/Significance: The observed incidence of sarcomas was higher than expected. This study is the first detailed investigation of the crude incidence of histological and molecular subtypes of sarcomas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available