4.6 Review

The significance of margins in pediatric Non-Rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas: Consensus on surgical margin definition harmonization from the INternational Soft Tissue SaRcoma ConsorTium (INSTRuCT)

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 11719-11730

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5671

关键词

margins; pediatric; adolescent oncology; radiotherapy; soft tissue sarcoma; surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The background discusses the controversial issue of margin status following surgery in pediatric soft tissue sarcomas and the need for international harmonized recommendations. The INSTRuCT NRSTS working group aims to develop common guidelines by pooling and mining clinical trial data from various cooperative groups. This review addresses accepted principles, controversies, and perspectives from different specialties to build a framework for future research.
BackgroundMargin status following surgery in children, adolescents, and young adults with soft tissue sarcomas is controversial and has been defined differently by various specialties, with definitions changing over time and by cooperative group. The International Soft Tissue Sarcoma Consortium (INSTRuCT) is a collaboration of the Children's Oncology Group (COG) Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee, European pediatric Soft Tissue sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG), and the European Cooperative Weichteilsarkom Studiengruppe (CWS) devoted to improving patient outcomes by pooling and mining cooperative group clinical trial data. MethodsThe INSTRuCT non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS) working group aimed to develop international harmonized recommendations regarding surgical margin assessment and definitions in children and adolescents with soft tissue tumors. Results and ConclusionThis review addresses accepted principles and areas of controversy, including the perspectives of surgeons, pathologists, radiation oncologists, and pediatric oncologists, to develop a framework for building common guidelines for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据