Search

Sclerosing Epithelioid Fibrosarcoma (SEF) and Low Grade Fibromyxoid Sarcoma (LGFMS) are ultrarare sarcomas sharing common translocations whose natural history are not well known. We report on the nationwide exhaustive series of 330 patients with SEF or LGFMS in NETSARC+ since 2010., Patients and Methods: NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB). Since 2010, (i) pathological review has been mandatory for sarcoma,and (ii) tumour/patients' characteristics have been collected in the NETSARC+ nationwide database. The characteristics of patients with SEF and LGFMS and their outcome are compared., Results: 35/73 (48%) and 125/257(49%) of patients with SEF and LGFMS were female. More visceral, bone and trunk primary sites were observed in SEF (p < 0.001). 30% of SEF vs 4% of LGFMS patients had metastasis at diagnosis (p < 0.0001). Median size of the primary tumor was 51 mm (range 10-90) for LGFMS vs 80 (20-320) for SEF (p < 0.001). Median age for LGFMS patients was 12 years younger than that of SEF patients (43 [range 4-98] vs 55 [range 10-91], p < 0.001). Neoadjuvant treatment was more often given to SEF (16% vs 9%, p = 0.05). More patients with LGFMS were operated first in reference centers (51% vs 26%, p < 0.001). The R0 rate on the operative specimen was 41% in LGFMS vs 16% in SEF (p < 0.001). Median event-free survival (EFS) of patients with SEF and LGFMS were 32 vs 136 months (p < 0.0001). The median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Fifty-months OS was 93% vs 81% for LGFMS vs SEF (p = 0.05). Median OS was 77 months after first relapse, similar for SEF and LGFMS. In multivariate analysis, age, tumor size, metastasis at diagnosis were independent prognostic factors for OS in LGFMS., Conclusions: Although sharing close molecular alterations, SEF and LGFMS have a different natural history, clinical presentation and outcome, with a higher risk of metastatic relapse in SEF. Survival after relapse is longer than with other sarcomas, and similar for SEF and LGFMS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Changes in the management of patients with cancer and delays in treatment delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic may impact the use of hospital resources and cancer mortality., Patients and Methods: Patient flows, patient pathways and use of hospital resources during the pandemic were simulated using a discrete event simulation model and patient-level data from a large French comprehensive cancer centre's discharge database, considering two scenarios of delays: massive return of patients from November 2020 (early-return) or March 2021 (late-return). Expected additional cancer deaths at 5 years and mortality rate were estimated using individual hazard ratios based on literature., Results: The number of patients requiring hospital care during the simulation period was 13,000. In both scenarios, 6-8% of patients were estimated to present a delay of >2 months. The overall additional cancer deaths at 5 years were estimated at 88 in early-return and 145 in late-return scenario, with increased additional deaths estimated for sarcomas, gynaecological, liver, head and neck, breast cancer and acute leukaemia. This represents a relative additional cancer mortality rate at 5 years of 4.4 and 6.8% for patients expected in year 2020, 0.5 and 1.3% in 2021 and 0.5 and 0.5% in 2022 for each scenario, respectively., Conclusions: Pandemic-related diagnostic and treatment delays in patients with cancer are expected to impact patient survival. In the perspective of recurrent pandemics or alternative events requiring an intensive use of limited hospital resources, patients should be informed not to postpone care, and medical resources for patients with cancer should be sanctuarised., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: No author reported potential conflict of interest in link with the submitted work. A.B. reports personal fees from Roche SAS. I.B. reports personal fees from Roche, Novartis, CSL Behring and Takeda. M.F. reports fees from HRA Pharma (participation to board) and travel grants from Ipsen, Pfizer and Novartis. S.D. reports grants and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and non-financial support from Roche Genentech, grants from Lilly, grants from Puma, grants from Myriad, grants from Orion, grants from Amgen, grants from Sanofi, grants from Genomic Health, grants from GE, grants from Servier, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants from Pierre Fabre, grants from Seagen and grants from Exact Sciences. L.A. reports a consulting/advisory role for Novartis (Institution), Amgen (Institution), Bristol Myers Squibb (Institution), Ipsen (Institution), Roche (Institution), Pfizer (Institution), Astellas Pharma (Institution), Merck (Institution), MSD (Institution), AstraZeneca (Institution), Exelixis (Institution), Corvus Pharmaceuticals (Institution) and Peloton Therapeutics (Institution) and research Funding from Bristol Myers Squibb (Institution). D.P. reports a consulting, advisory role or lectures for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche and Samsung; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche and Samsung; institutional financial interests (clinical trials research as the principal or co-investigator) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, MedImmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure and Daiichi Sankyo and travel and accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, prIME Oncology and Pfizer. M.D. reports honoraria for advisory boards or as a presenter in symposium from Merck Serono, MSD, AMGEN, Roche, Bayer, Ipsen, Pfizer, Servier, Pierre Fabre, HalioDx, Lilly and Sanofi. E.C. reports consulting advisory board activity for BMS, Ipsen, Sanofi, Pfizer, GSK and Merck. C.R. reports a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Sanofi and Pierre Fabre. C.M. reports consultant/advisory fees from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and Orion and as acted as a principal/sub-investigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Aduro, Agios, Amgen, Argen-x, Astex, AstraZeneca, Aveo pharmaceuticals, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eos, Exelixis, Forma, GamaMabs, Genentech, Gortec, GSK, H3 Biomedecine, Incyte, Innate Pharma, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa, Lilly, Loxo, Lysarc, Lytix Biopharma, MedImmune, Menarini, Merus, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis, Octimet, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides AB, Orion, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro and Xencor. J.B.M. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Jazz PHARMA and Astellas. S.M. reports personal fees from statistical advice to IDDI, Janssen Cilag and Amaris and from data and safety monitoring membership of clinical trials (Hexal, Steba, IQVIA, Roche, Sensorion, Biophytis, Servier and Yuhan). A.A. reports grant support, paid to her institution, from F. Hoffmann-La Roche. F.B. reports personal financial interests with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics and Takeda; institutional financial interests with AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, MedImmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and Takeda and non-financial interests (as a principal investigator) for AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Pierre Fabre and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd–sponsored trials (or ISR). J.B. reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb; a consulting or advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, PharmaMar (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst) and Merck Serono (Inst) and travel and accommodation expenses from Bristol Myers Squibb. Other authors report no conflict of interest. Y. Takahashi declares no conflict of interest. Her editorial work for the present article has been funded by Inserm., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Desmoid tumours (DTs) are rare tumours originating from musculoaponeurotic structures. Although benign, they may be locally aggressive, leading to pain and disability. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines recommend frontline watchful waiting and medical treatment in progressing tumours. Cryoablation is an interventional radiology technique that is suitable for DT patients (pts) on the basis of repeated cycles of freezing, leading to cell death., Methods: CRYODESMO-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02476305) is a prospective, open-label, non-randomised, non-comparative, multicenter study assessing cryoablation in non-abdominopelvic progressing DT. Inclusion criteria were: pts ≥18 y.o., confirmed DT accessible to cryoablation (≥90% destruction), measurable lesion conforming to modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (mRECIST), progressive disease after ≥2 lines of medical therapy or with functional symptoms/pain, adequate biological parameters, informed consent, and affiliation to a medical insurance scheme. The primary end-point was the non-progression rate at 12 months; secondary end-points included safety, quality of life (QoL), assessment of pain and functional status., Findings: 50 pts were enrolled (78% female) from four French centres and all were treated. The mean age was 41 y.o. (19-73). The median number of prior treatments was 2.00 [1-4] including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and anti-angiogenics. Tumour location included limbs (36%), trunk (60%), and cervical area (4%). The median tumour largest diameter was 89 mm. The rate of non-progressing disease at +12 months was 86% [confidence level (CI) 95% 73-94%]. Median PFS was not reached at a median follow-up of 31 months. Grade 1 and 2 toxicity occurred in 32.8% and 44.5% of patients, grade 3-4 in 22% and no Grade 5 toxicity was observed. Cryoablation significantly improved functional status and pain scores., Interpretation: Cryoablation demonstrated feasibility in progressive DT pts. The study met is primary end-point with 86% of non-progressive disease at +12 months, with reduced pain, better functional status, and encouraging long-term disease control., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Dr Buy received consulting fees from Galil-BTG; Dr Deschamps received grants from Boston Scientific; Dr Garnon received consulting fees from Boston-Galil, Johnson & Johnson, Canon Medical, Medtronic; Pr Gangi received consulting fees from BTG and has a patent from Apriomed., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In bone and soft tissue sarcomas (STS), surgery was to the only local curative treatment, but recently, radiation therapy and interventional radiology has evolved to potentially curative treatment, namely in small size tumours. Indication for local treatment in STS needs validation in multidisciplinary team. Most will agree on local treatment for single metastatic location in a well-controlled disease and for no local treatment in a rapidly evolving multi-metastatic disease. The challenge is in patients who are in between, for whom benefit of disease control on overall survival should be evaluated. Local treatment has been reported beneficial in some large retrospective series, regardless of the association with chemotherapy in selected patients with oligometastatic disease. Recent technical innovation in image guidance allows to deliver local treatment through needles inserted percutaneously, and image-guided thermal ablation of small tumour is now part of the treatment armamentarium in selected oligometastatic diseases, allowing for local destruction of small tumour. Radiofrequency ablation allows to control small size STS lung metastases in roughly 90% of attempts, thus providing an efficient and low-invasive local control with preservation of organ function. Small size bone deposit can be targeted with the same rate of efficacy when tumours are small. Ablation can be used in the liver when some tumour foci become resistant to systemic therapy, namely in gastrointestinal stromal tumour patients. In addition, interventional radiology can now provide efficient and rapid pain palliation as well as bone reconstruction with the use of cementoplasty and percutaneous osteosynthesis, alongside radiation therapy which has been a long time player for pain palliation in bone metastases., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To analyse the natural history of extra-abdominal wall desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF) and compare outcome in patients who underwent initial surgery with those who did not., Patients and Methods: All consecutive patients affected by primary sporadic extra-abdominal wall DF observed between January 1992 and December 2012 were included. Patients were divided into surgical (SG) or non-surgical groups (NSG) according to initial treatment. Relapse free survival was calculated for SG, and crude cumulative incidence (CCI) of switching to surgery or other treatments for NSG., Results: 216 patients were identified, 94 in SG (43%), 122 in NSG (57%). A shift towards a more systematic use of a conservative approach (78% of all comers) was observed in the latter years (2006-2012), although a small proportion of patients (28%) had been offered the conservative strategy even in the early period (1992-2005). Median follow-up (FU) was 49 mo. (interquartile (IQ), 20-89 mo.), 76 months for SG and 39 months for NSG. 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) for SG was 80% (95% confidence interval (CI), 72-89%). For the NSG, 5-year CCI of switching to surgery was 5% (95% CI: 1.7%, 14%), and 51% to other treatments (95% CI: 41%, 65%). 27 (20%) NSG patients underwent spontaneous regression., Conclusion: A non-surgical approach to extra-abdominal wall DF allowed surgery to be avoided in the majority of patients. This approach can be safely proposed and surgery offered as an option in selected cases., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The peritoneal cavity must be oncologically considered as an organ in its own right and peritoneal metastases (PM) must be treated with the same curative intent (and the same results) as liver metastases. The package combining complete cytoreductive surgery (CCRS) (treating the visible disease) plus hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) (treating the remaining non-visible disease) achieves cure in many patients. Twenty years of publication allow us to assemble sufficient background information and data to point out the good and poor indications for CCRS+HIPEC. HIPEC is the standard of care for the treatment of peritoneal pseudomyxomas and peritoneal mesotheliomas and also, recently for the treatment of colorectal PM with limited peritoneal extension. HIPEC is in the evaluation phase for gastric PM and ovarian PM after initially disappointing results, but it is highly probable that it will be useful in particular settings. PM from neuroendocrine tumours are in the same situation. HIPEC is not currently indicated for the treatment of PM from sarcomas, from GIST, and for small round-cell desmoplastic tumours, given the poor results obtained. HIPEC can be useful, on a case-by-case basis, to treat rare tumours complicated by isolated peritoneal diffusion (e.g. Frantz's tumours). HIPEC can be used in the prophylactic setting to prevent PM in patients with a high risk of developing PM, and the first results of the 'second-look' approach are promising. Finally, CCRS+HIPEC appear to be indispensable tools in the oncologist's armentarium., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiophrenic angle lymph nodes (CPALN) have been reported in patients with abdominopelvic malignancies. We aimed to assess whether the presence of CPALN is associated with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in colorectal cancer., Patients and Methods: Between 2007 and 2011, 550 patients with colorectal cancer, including 165 (30%) with PC, had undergone surgery with complete peritoneal exploration. We retrospectively reviewed preoperative CT scans for the presence of CPALN and assessed its association with confirmed PC by univariate and multivariate analyses., Results: CPALN were present in 123 (75%) patients with PC, but absent in 263 (68%) patients without PC (Se: 0.72; Sp: 0.68; PPV: 0.49; NPV: 0.85; [OR], 3.3; p<0.001). PC was the only factor independently associated with CPALN in the multivariate analysis. CPALN was not correlated with the presence of liver metastases. 99 of the 165 patients with PC (62%) had visible signs of PC on CT scan. Among the remaining 66 patients, CPALN were the only potential sign of PC in 41 (62%), (Se 0.62, Sp 0.68, PPV 0.24, and NPV 0.92)., Conclusion: The detection of CPALN on CT may be of valuable help for the diagnosis of PC in patients with CRC., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)