4.7 Article

A Contemporary Large Single-Institution Evaluation of Resected Retroperitoneal Sarcoma

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 2150-2158

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3616-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bob and Eileen Gilman Family Sarcoma Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) are rare malignancies, comprising just 10-15 % of all soft-tissue sarcomas. These are challenging tumors to treat, with surgical resection being the only modality capable of providing a cure. This study analyzed the management and survival of patients resected at a large academic institution. A retrospective study of all patients with primary localized RPS referred to the University of Washington between January 2000 and January 2013 was performed. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were used to analyze progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by patient, tumor, and treatment variables. The study identified 132 patients. Median follow-up was 31.8 months. Median PFS was 33 months, and median OS was 111 months. Sixty patients (45.5 %) underwent a margin-negative resection (R0), 59 (44.7 %) had a microscopic margin-positive resection (R1), and 7 (5.3 %) had a macroscopic margin-positive resection (R2). Forty (30.3 %) patients received preoperative radiation, 28 (21.2 %) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 7 (5.3 %) received both. Tumor grade and microscopic margin status emerged as statistically significant predictors for both PFS and OS. Tumor size was also found to correlate with PFS. No significant difference in OS or PFS was observed for histologic subtype, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant radiation. Complete surgical resection should remain the mainstay of management for RPS, with emphasis on achieving negative microscopic margins. Neither neoadjuvant chemotherapy nor radiation was shown to significantly improve survival, and their unclear role in the management of RPS requires evaluation in a prospective setting.

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