4.6 Article

The effect of microscopic margin status on survival in adult retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas

Journal

EJSO
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 168-174

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.05.031

Keywords

Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma; Resection margin; Radiation; R0

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Resection is the primary treatment for retroperitoneal (RP) soft tissue sarcomas (STS). Whether obtaining microscopically negative margins (R0) improves overall survival (OS) over microscopically positive margins (R1) remains unclear. Methods: Using the National Cancer Data Base, we identified adult patients diagnosed with RP STS after R0 or R1 resection from 1998 to 2011. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to identify clinicopathologic factors associated with margin status, including radiotherapy receipt. To assess differences in OS, the log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards regression, and propensity score matching were used. Results: We identified 4015 patients; 2593 (64.6%) underwent R0 resection and 1422 (35.4%) underwent R1 resection. The most common histology was liposarcoma (2,371, 59.1%), median age was 60 years, and median follow up was 67 months. Median OS for R0 vs. R1 patients was 92 and 70 months, respectively (log-rank p < .001). Pre-operative RT was associated with increased probability of R0 resection (68.0% vs. 57.2%, p = .012). Multivariable regression showed R0 vs. R1 resection (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.81, p < .001) was associated with improved survival, a finding confirmed on propensity score matching. Other significant predictors of OS included low tumor grade, younger age, smaller tumor size, liposarcoma histology, and receipt of RT (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.93, p = .016). Conclusions: Patients who undergo R0 resection for RP STS appear to experience superior OS compared with patients who had R1 resections. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd and British Association of Surgical Oncology/European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

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