4.7 Article

Myxoid\Round Cell Liposarcoma (MRCLS) Revisited: An Analysis of 418 Primarily Managed Cases

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 1081-1088

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-2127-z

关键词

Liposarcoma; liposarcoma myxoid; Sarcoma; Neoplasm; Metastasis bone

资金

  1. Mach-Gaensslen Foundation of Canada
  2. Stryker Orthopaedics Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Objectives of this study were to evaluate oncologic outcomes and to provide guidelines for the management of primary myxoid (MLS) and round cell liposarcoma (RCLS). Methods. A multicenter, retrospective study of 418 cases of MRCLS primarily managed by Canadian multidisciplinary sarcoma teams. Results. Study included 418 cases (MLS: 311 patients and RCLS: 107; > 5% round cell) with a median age of 45 years and a median follow-up of 5.2 years. Median tumor size was 10 cm, and 81% were deep and 90% were in lower limb. The majority of patients underwent surgical resection and radiotherapy, with a small percentage (6%) receiving chemotherapy. The overall 10-year local control rate was 93% with no differences between MLS and RCLS. Radiotherapy was significant in preventing local relapse and reducing tumor diameter (median = 18%) and improving microscopic margin status, but did not impact survival. Radiotherapy and the margin status were independent predictors of local recurrence. The 5- and 10-year metastatic-free survivals were 84 and 77% respectively for MLS and 69 and 46% for RCLS. The initial site of metastasis was found in multiple locations (34%) and bone involvement was frequent (40%) with predilection for spine (79%). Round cell percent (> 5%) and tumor diameter (> 10 cm) correlated with increased risk for metastasis and death. Conclusions. MLS and RCLS showed different metastatic risk but equally good local control. Radiotherapy was effective in preventing local recurrence and should be delivered as neoadjuvant. New staging strategies are to be defined to account for the unusual metastatic pattern.

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

4.7
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