Search

Background: Undifferentiated small round cell sarcomas (URCSs) represent a diagnostic challenge, and their optimal treatment is unknown. We aimed to define the clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcome of URCS patients., Methods: URCS patients treated from 1983 to 2019 at 21 worldwide sarcoma reference centres were retrospectively identified. Based on molecular assessment, cases were classified as follows: (1) CIC-rearranged round cell sarcomas, (2) BCOR::CCNB3-rearranged round cell sarcomas, (3) unclassified URCSs. Treatment, prognostic factors and outcome were reviewed., Results: In total, 148 patients were identified [88/148 (60%) CIC-rearranged sarcoma (median age 32 years, range 7-78), 33/148 (22%) BCOR::CCNB3-rearranged (median age 17 years, range 5-91), and 27/148 (18%) unclassified URCSs (median age 37 years, range 4-70)]. One hundred-one (68.2%) cases presented with localised disease; 47 (31.8%) had metastases at diagnosis. Male prevalence, younger age, bone primary site, and a low rate of synchronous metastases were observed in BCOR::CCNB3-rearranged cases. Local treatment was surgery in 67/148 (45%) patients, and surgery + radiotherapy in 52/148 (35%). Chemotherapy was given to 122/148 (82%) patients. At a 42.7-month median follow-up, the 3-year overall survival (OS) was 92.2% (95% CI 71.5-98.0) in BCOR::CCNB3 patients, 39.6% (95% CI 27.7-51.3) in CIC-rearranged sarcomas, and 78.7% in unclassified URCSs (95% CI 56.1-90.6; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: This study is the largest conducted in URCS and confirms major differences in outcomes between URCS subtypes. A full molecular assessment should be undertaken when a diagnosis of URCS is suspected. Prospective studies are needed to better define the optimal treatment strategy in each URCS subtype., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Bone tumours are relatively rare and, as a consequence, treatment in a centre with expertise is required. Current treatment guidelines also recommend review by a specialised pathologist. Here we report on international consensus-based datasets for the pathology reporting of biopsy and resection specimens of bone sarcomas. The datasets were produced under the auspices of the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR), a global alliance of major (inter-)national pathology and cancer organisations., Methods and Results: According to the ICCR's process for dataset development, an international expert panel consisting of pathologists, an oncologic orthopaedic surgeon, a medical oncologist, and a radiologist produced a set of core and noncore data items for biopsy and resection specimens based on a critical review and discussion of current evidence. All professionals involved were bone tumour experts affiliated with tertiary referral centres. Commentary was provided for each data item to explain the rationale for selecting it as a core or noncore element, its clinical relevance, and to highlight potential areas of disagreement or lack of evidence, in which case a consensus position was formulated. Following international public consultation, the documents were finalised and ratified, and the datasets, including a synoptic reporting guide, were published on the ICCR website., Conclusion: These first international datasets for bone sarcomas are intended to promote high-quality, standardised pathology reporting. Their widespread adoption will improve the consistency of reporting, facilitate multidisciplinary communication, and enhance comparability of data, all of which will help to improve management of bone sarcoma patients., (© 2022 The Authors. Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Undifferentiated small round cell sarcomas (SRCSs) of bone and soft tissue comprise a heterogeneous group of highly aggressive tumours associated with a poor prognosis, especially in metastatic disease. SRCS entities mainly occur in the third decade of life and can exhibit striking disparities regarding preferentially affected sex and tumour localization. SRCSs comprise new entities defined by specific genetic abnormalities, namely EWSR1-non-ETS fusions, CIC-rearrangements or BCOR genetic alterations, as well as EWSR1-ETS fusions in the prototypic SRCS Ewing sarcoma. These gene fusions mainly encode aberrant oncogenic transcription factors that massively rewire the transcriptome and epigenome of the as yet unknown cell or cells of origin. Additional mutations or copy number variants are rare at diagnosis and, depending on the tumour entity, may involve TP53, CDKN2A and others. Histologically, these lesions consist of small round cells expressing variable levels of CD99 and specific marker proteins, including cyclin B3, ETV4, WT1, NKX3-1 and aggrecan, depending on the entity. Besides locoregional treatment that should follow standard protocols for sarcoma management, (neo)adjuvant treatment is as yet ill-defined but generally follows that of Ewing sarcoma and is associated with adverse effects that might compromise quality of life. Emerging studies on the molecular mechanisms of SRCSs and the development of genetically engineered animal models hold promise for improvements in early detection, disease monitoring, treatment-related toxicity, overall survival and quality of life., (© 2022. Springer Nature Limited.)

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare, translocated, vascular sarcoma. EHE clinical behavior is variable, ranging from that of a low-grade malignancy to that of a high-grade sarcoma and it is marked by a high propensity for systemic involvement. No active systemic agents are currently approved specifically for EHE, which is typically refractory to the antitumor drugs used in sarcomas. The degree of uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate therapy for EHE patients and the lack of guidelines on the clinical management of the disease make the adoption of new treatments inconsistent across the world, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for many EHE patients. To address the shortcoming, a global consensus meeting was organized in December 2020 under the umbrella of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) involving >80 experts from several disciplines from Europe, North America and Asia, together with a patient representative from the EHE Group, a global, disease-specific patient advocacy group, and Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN). The meeting was aimed at defining, by consensus, evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to primary and metastatic EHE. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication., Competing Interests: Disclosure SS: Honoraria, consultancy or advisory role: Adaptimmune, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Glaxo, Immune Design, Karyopharm, MaxiVAX, Novartis, PharmaMar; Institutional financial interests: Advenchen, Amgen Dompè, Bayer, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks. AMF: Institutional financial interests: Advenchen, Amgen Dompè, Bayer, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaxo, Hutchison MediPharma, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, SpringWorks. AC: Advisory board: Angelini Holding S.p.A, Shionogi B.V., L. Molteni & C., Kyowa Kirin S.r.l.; invited speaker King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center. JB: Uncompensated advisory board: Novartis; research funding (institutional) from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd, Paxman Coolers Ltd, Sun Pharma. SB: Personal fees from Bayer, Deciphera, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Plexxikon, Exelixis, PharmaMar, Lilly, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); grants from Incyte, grants and personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, Novartis; research funding (institutional) Pfizer. SB: Research support from Novartis, Incyte, Blueprint Medicines; honoraria or consultation fees from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Bayer. JYB: Research support and honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, Bayer, Novartis, GSK, Deciphera, OSE Pharma, AstraZeneca. Member of the supervisory board: Innate Pharma. SB: Honoraria from PharmaMar. JVMGB: Research funding from TRACON Pharmaceuticals; Royalties from UptoDate and Wolters Kluwer. KB: Advisory: Bayer; expert testimony: Bayer; invited speaker: Lilly; institutional research funding: Lilly. TB: Advisory board from Bayer; honoraria: Novartis, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly. ME: Consultant for Blueprint Medicines; advisory boards for Clinigen and Bayer. AF; Honoraria: Amgen, Lilly, Roche, MSD; research funding; MSD, Roche, Clovis, AstraZeneca. BMS; Abbvie. VF: Consulting or advisory role: BMS, MSD, Novartis; speakers' bureau: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. XGdM: Advisory boards for Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, PharmaMar; honoraria from Lilly, Astellas Pharma, Eisai, Pfizer. HG: Reports institutional funding from Novartis, Deciphera. FG: Honoraria from Deciphera, Amgen; stock ownership from Atlanthera; royalties from Zimmer. GG: Grants/research supports: PharmaMar, Novartis, Bayer; honoraria or consultation fees: PharmaMar, Bayer, Merck, Eisai, Novartis, Glaxo. NH: Research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis; honoraria and travel grants from PharmaMar; and research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. PH: Honoraria for consultations and speaker's fees from Roche, GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Lilly, Nanobiotix, Novartis, EISAI, Nektar, Sirtex and Pekkip Oncology; research funding and educational grants from Novartis, Siemens, Boehringer, Merck, BLUMedicine and Springer; trial support to my institution by Novartis and Siemens. PH: Advisory roles for Sarcoma UK and National Leiomyosarcoma Foundation; research grants from Sarcoma UK, Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation, Children's Cancer and Leukemia Group and Cancer Research UK, funding from EHE Rare Cancer Charity (UK). HJ: Chair of the Orion Pharma Scientific Advisory Board, chair of Neutron Therapeutics Advisory Board; he has been employed by Orion Pharma, and owns stocks of Orion Pharma and Sartar Therapeutics. RJ: Advisory board Adaptimmune, Athenex, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii, Deciphera, Immune Design, Lilly, Merck, PharmaMar, SpringWorks, TRACON, UptoDate; honoraria: BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi. CJ: Travel grants from PharmaMar, Ipsen. BK: Reports advisory board Bayer, Blueprint, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, PharmaMar, SpringWorks; research funding (institutional) PharmaMar, SpringWorks. AK: Advisory board Otsuka; invited speaker for Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Taiho. ALC: Advisory boards with Lilly, PharmaMar, Deciphera, Blueprint. AL: Reports institutional financial interest, and educational grant from Alphamed, ImplanTec, Johnson & Johnson, Medacta. JMB: Research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis; honoraria from PharmaMar, Lilly, Bayer, Eisai, Daichii. Travel grants from PharmaMar; advisory board: Roche, Lilly, PharmaMar; research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, Adaptimmune Therapeutics, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen, Celgene, Pfizer, BMS, and Daiichi Sankyo. OMe: Consultation fees from MSD, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Megapharm, Medison, Progenetics; supported lecture: MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS. OMi: Consultancy for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Lundbeck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Vifor Pharma; Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Roche, Servier; Stock ownership: Amplitude Surgical, Ipsen, Transgene. EP: Advisory boards for Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Deciphera, EUSA Pharma, and SynOx Therapeutics; research support from BMS, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Daiichi Sankyo, Incyte; travel support from Lilly, PharmaMar and Takeda. MAP: Advisory board Lilly, Pfizer, Roche. SP: Consultant: Deciphera, Daichi Sankyo, Dova, Epizyme, MaxiVAX; Research/Grant Support: Blueprint Medicines, Hutchison MediPharma. SPN: Advisory board for Immunocore. AR: Consulting role with Lilly, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim; research funding from CASI Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Deciphera, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Boston Biomedical, BMS, MedImmune, Amgen, GSK, Blueprint Medicines, Merck, AbbVie, Adaptimmune. PRe: Advisory roles for Bayer, Clinigen, Roche, MSD, Deciphera, PharmaMar, Mundibiopharma, and speaker's honoraria from Lilly, PharmaMar. BPR: Reports advisory board from Deciphera. PRu: Advisory board MSD, BMS, Merck, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Blueprint Medicines; honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Merck, Sanofi. MS: Travel grant from PharmaMar. SJS: Advisory boards for Lilly and GSK. WDT: Reports fees from Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Eisai, Mundipharma, C4 Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Blueprint, GSK, Agios Pharmaceuticals, NanoCarrier, Deciphera; patent Companion Diagnostic for CDK4 inhibitors - 14/854 329 pending to MSKCC/SKI, and patent Enigma and CDH18 as companion Diagnostics for CDK4 inhibition – SKI2016-021-03 pending to MSKCC/SKI and Scientific Advisory Board - Certis Oncology Solutions, Stock Ownership Üo-Founder - Atropos Therapeutics; Stock Ownership/scientific advisory board Innova Therapeutics. WTAWDG: Reports consultancy from SpringWorks to her institute; research grant support from Novartis and Lilly to her institute; advisory for Bayer to her institute. AJW: Consulting: Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Epizyme, Mundipharma; research support to my Institution: Aadi Bioscience, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm, Plexxikon. PGC: Honoraria, consultancy or advisory role: Bayer, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer. Institutional financial interest: Advenchen Laboratories, Amgen Dompé, AROG Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, Glaxo, Hutchinson MediPharma, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar. APDT: Honoraria: Roche, Bayer, Pharmamar, MSD. AG: Compensations for Advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Lilly, PharmaMar, SpringWorks, Nanobiotix; honoraria from Lilly and PharmaMar; institutional research grants from PharmaMar. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sarcomas exhibit low expression of factors related to immune response, which could explain the modest activity of PD-1 inhibitors. A potential strategy to convert a cold into an inflamed microenvironment lies on a combination therapy. As tumor angiogenesis promotes immunosuppression, we designed a phase Ib/II trial to test the double inhibition of angiogenesis (sunitinib) and PD-1/PD-L1 axis (nivolumab)., Methods: This single-arm, phase Ib/II trial enrolled adult patients with selected subtypes of sarcoma. Phase Ib established two dose levels: level 0 with sunitinib 37.5 mg daily from day 1, plus nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously on day 15, and then every 2 weeks; and level -1 with sunitinib 37.5 mg on the first 14 days (induction) and then 25 mg per day plus nivolumab on the same schedule. The primary endpoint was to determine the recommended dose for phase II (phase I) and the 6-month progression-free survival rate, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 (phase II)., Results: From May 2017 to April 2019, 68 patients were enrolled: 16 in phase Ib and 52 in phase II. The recommended dose of sunitinib for phase II was 37.5 mg as induction and then 25 mg in combination with nivolumab. After a median follow-up of 17 months (4-26), the 6-month progression-free survival rate was 48% (95% CI 41% to 55%). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events included transaminitis (17.3%) and neutropenia (11.5%)., Conclusions: Sunitinib plus nivolumab is an active scheme with manageable toxicity in the treatment of selected patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with almost half of patients free of progression at 6 months. Trial registration number NCT03277924., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JM-B reports research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work; honoraria for advisory board participation and expert testimony from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, Bayer and Eisai; and research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. NH reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from PharmaMar, personal fees from Lilly, and grants from Eisai and Novartis, outside the submitted work, and research funding for clinical studies (institutional) from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, AROG, Bayer, Eisai, Lixte, Karyopharm, Deciphera, GSK, Novartis, Blueprint, Nektar, Forma, Amgen and Daiichi Sankyo. GG reports grants and personal fees from PharmaMar, grants from Novartis, and personal fees from Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer and Eisai, outside the submitted work. AR reports grants and personal fees from PharmaMar, personal fees from Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca and Tesaro, grants and personal fees from Roche, and grants from Eisai, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, Lilly and PharmaMar, and grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EdA reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, BMS and PharmaMar, and personal fees from Bayer, outside the submitted work. ML-A declares institutional research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. DSM reports institutional research grants from PharmaMar, Eisai, Immix BioPharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work, and travel support from PharmaMar, Eisai, Celgene, Bayer and Pfizer. JAL-M reports honoraria for advisory board participation and travel support from PharmaMar, Eli Lilly and Company, Bayer, Eisai, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Roche, Celgene, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Chobani. All other authors declare no relevant relationship to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Recent studies revealed divergent gene expression patterns in Ewing sarcoma (EwS) with canonical EWSR1-ETS gene fusions and undifferentiated round cell sarcomas (URCS) with EWSR1 rearrangements fused to the non-ETS gene NFATc2. Thus, the question arises whether the latter tumors really belong to EwS., Methods: We collected five cases matching the group of URCS with EWSR1-NFATc2 fusion and performed DNA methylation and copy number profiling. Results were compared to methylation data of 30 EwS with various EWSR1-ETS fusions and one EwS with FUS-ERG fusion, 16 URCS with CIC rearrangement and 10 URCS with BCOR alteration and a total of 81 EWSR1-associated soft tissue sarcomas including 7 angiomatoid fibrous histiocytomas, 7 clear cell sarcomas of the soft tissue, 28 desmoplastic small round cell tumors, 10 extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcomas and 29 myxoid liposarcomas., Results: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering and t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding analysis of DNA methylation data revealed a homogeneous methylation cluster for URCS with EWSR1-NFATc2 fusion, which clearly segregated from EwS and the other subtypes. Copy number profiles of EWSR1-NFATc2 cases showed recurrent losses on chromosome 9q and segmental gains on 20q13 and 22q12 involving the EWSR1 and NFATc2 loci, respectively., Conclusion: In summary, URCS with EWSR1-NFATc2 fusion share a distinct DNA methylation signature and carry characteristic copy number alterations, which emphasizes that these sarcomas should be considered separately from EwS.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) constitute an uncommon and heterogeneous group of tumours, which require a complex and specialized multidisciplinary management. The diagnostic approach should include imaging studies and core needle biopsy performed prior to undertaking surgery. Wide excision is the mainstay of treatment for localized sarcoma, and associated preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy should be administered in high-risk patients. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a modest improvement in survival in a meta-analysis and constitutes a standard option in selected patients with high-risk STS. In metastatic patients, surgery must be evaluated in selected cases. In the rest of patients, chemotherapy and, in some subtypes, targeted therapy often used in a sequential strategy constitutes the treatment of election. Despite important advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of the disease, the advances achieved in therapeutic results may be deemed still insufficient. Moreover, due to the rarity and complexity of the disease, the results in clinical practice are not always optimal. For this reason, the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma (GEIS) has developed a multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines document, with the aim of facilitating the diagnosis and treatment of these patients in Spain. In the document, each practical recommendation is accompanied by level of evidence and grade of recommendation on the basis of the available data.

Adamantinomas of the long bones are low-grade malignant tumours. They seem to be related to osteofibrous dysplasia with a mesenchymal-to-epithelial transformation. We report a case of an adamantinoma with a revertant sarcomatoid transformation that showed a complete loss of epithelial differentiation. It corresponded to a 41-year-old male presented with an 8-cm multilobated lesion in the centre of the distal tibia. On the en bloc resection specimen, areas of classic adamantinoma were found but most of the tumor corresponded to a high-grade neoplasm with 2 histologic patterns: one made up by epithelial nests with a basaloid arrangement and positive for pankeratins and so-called glandular keratins, and a second sarcomatoid component, negative for these epithelial markers. Five months after surgery the patient had a massive relapse that consisted solely of the second sarcomatous component also negative for epithelial antibodies.Three cases of adamantinomas with sarcomatoid transformation of the epithelial component have been described but the tumours still preserved an epithelial immunophenotype. However, our case represents the extreme end of the sarcomatoid dedifferentiation of a classic adamantinoma with complete sarcomatoid transformation and total loss of epithelial markers. To our knowledge this has not been described previously.

Bone and soft tissue sarcomas are an infrequent and heterogeneous group of mesenchymal tumors including more than a hundred different entities attending to histologic patterns. Research into the molecular aspects of sarcomas has increased greatly in the last few years. This enormous amount of knowledge has allowed, for instance, to refine the classification of sarcomas, improve the diagnosis, and increase the number of therapeutical targets available, most of them under preclinical evaluation. However, other important key issues, such as sarcomagenesis and the cell of origin of sarcomas, remain unresolved. From a molecular point of view, these neoplasias are grouped into 2 main types: (a) sarcomas showing relatively simple karyotypes and translocations, which originate gene fusions (eg, EWS-FLI1 in Ewing sarcoma) or point mutations (eg, c-kit in the gastrointestinal tumors) and (b) sarcomas showing unspecific gene alterations, very complex karyotypes, and no translocations. The discovery of the early mechanisms involved in the genesis of sarcomas, the more relevant signaling pathways, and the development of genetically engineered mouse models could also provide a new individualized therapeutic strategy against these tumors. This review describes the clinical application of some of the molecular alterations found in sarcomas, some advances in the field of sarcomagenesis, and the development of animal models.

Desmoplastic spindle cell tumor of the liver is a recently described and extremely unusual neoplasm that affects children and young adults. We report 1 case in a 33-year-old man. The patient had abdominal pain and dyspepsia. Abdominal examination showed that the liver was enlarged and palpable until umbilical region. Laboratory studies demonstrated positive serologic markers to hepatitis B virus. All other analytical studies were irrelevant. Computed tomography revealed a large tumor mass in left hepatic lobe showing heterogeneous densities, with hyperdense peripheral areas, as multiple nodular calcifications of less than 1 cm. In the central part of the mass, a big hypodense area was observed. There was no evidence of extrahepatic disease. Grossly, the tumor was well circumscribed with multiple nodular calcifications. The tumor was characterized by the presence of cohesive nests of bland spindle cells arranged in short fascicles and surrounded by desmoplastic stroma, intermixed with epithelioid cells. Mitotic activity was very low. Extensive osteoid formation was seen inside the cell nests. The tumor cells showed cytoplasmic reactivity for vimentin and pan-cytokeratin. The cells of desmoplastic stroma were immunoreactive for actin. The biologic behavior is still uncertain with only 5 published cases, but current information suggests that they are low-grade tumors with an indolent course. The clinical and morphologic features of this tumor are very similar to those of tumors previously reported as "nested stromal-epithelial tumor of liver" and "ossifying stromal-epithelial tumor of liver." We describe the histologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic features of a case of desmoplastic spindle cell tumor of the liver and review the literature., (2010. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Despite complex genetics, aneuploid tumors like dedifferentiated liposarcoma have specific and reproducible chromosomal changes such as amplification of HDM2 and CDK4 that represent potential targets for systemic therapy. In addition, there are cancer cell survival pathways that may not be the target of chromosomal translocations or mutations that are still estimable targets for new systemic therapeutics, be it pathways involved in angiogenesis or apoptosis. In this review, we examine target selection for specific sarcoma subtypes, and demonstrate with a few examples new techniques being used to delineate novel therapeutic inroads for patients with sarcoma.

Bone and soft tissue sarcomas are an infrequent group of tumours with a prevalence of 4 in 100,000 people/year. Sarcomas, such as synovial sarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma and osteosarcoma, are more usual in adolescents or in young adults. Neoplasias such as leiomyosarcoma or liposarcoma are more frequent in patients over 55 years. One relevant topic is related to sarcomagenesis elucidation, a key for discovering the early molecular mechanisms involved in the development of sarcomas as well as the identification of reliable molecular markers and possible therapeutic targets. Today, it is known that the cellular context contributes to the phenotype. Analysis of gene expression profiling of human sarcomas revealed tightly clustered groups and could denote the existence of common signalling pathways for each branch. From the molecular point of view, these neoplasias are grouped into two main types: (a) sarcomas showing specific genetic alterations and relatively simple karyotypes, and translocations which originate gene fusions (e.g., EWS-FLI1 in Ewing's sarcoma); or specific genetic mutations (e.g., c-kit in the gastrointestinal stromal tumour), and (b) sarcomas showing unspecific gene alterations and very complex karyotypes, and very numerous gains and losses. This review points out the clinical projection of sarcomagenesis elucidation and knowledge of diverse types of molecular alterations.

Bone and soft tissue sarcomas are an infrequent and heterogeneous group of mesenchymal tumors, including more than a hundred different entities attending to histological patterns. Sarcomas are quite resistant to conventional chemotherapy (anthracycline and ifosfamide) with the exception of some subtypes, such as Ewing's sarcoma (ES). New drugs with proved efficacy against sarcomas include taxanes, gemcitabine, and ET-743. Preclinical studies have also identified key molecular events leading to the progression and development of sarcomas which are good candidates to targeted therapy. Inhibitors of the tyrosine kinase receptors, such as IGF-1R, c-kit, PDGFR, VEGFR, or the mTOR signaling pathway, proteasome, angiogenesis, and stress response proteins are under clinical evaluation against sarcomas. ES, a tumor characterized by chromosomal translocations that originate gene fusions (EWS-FLI1, EWS-ERG), is an example of a good chemotherapy responder tumor whose survival rate shows a plateau in recent years. Preclinical studies have identified that new targets such as HSP90 are of relevance to ES. On the other hand, recent studies showed the role of cancer stem cells (CSCs) in sarcomas and the relevance of the identification of reliable molecular markers and possible therapeutic targets. New therapeutic approaches could be directed against CSCs. This review describes more recent targeted therapy in sarcomas, with special emphasis on ES and the role of CSCs. We also emphasize the role of high throughput proteomic techniques in identifying new therapeutic targets.

Bone and soft tissue sarcomas are an infrequent group of tumours. Their prevalence is 4 in 100,000 people/year, making the disease quite rare. Some of these tumours, such as synovial sarcoma, Ewing tumour and osteosarcoma, are more usual in adolescents or in young adults; there are, though, some neoplasias such as leiomyosarcoma or liposarcoma that are more frequent in patients over 55 years. There are more than a hundred different types of sarcomas from the histological point of view. This is the main limitation at the time of finding major clinic essays on patients with specific types of sarcomas. From the molecular point of view, these neoplasias are grouped into two main types: (a) sarcomas showing specific genetic alterations and relatively simple karyotypes, and translocations which originate gene fusions (e.g., EWS-FLI1 in Ewing tumour); or specific genetic mutations (e.g., c-kit in the gastrointestinal stromal tumour), and (b) sarcomas showing unspecific gene alterations and very complex karyotypes, and very numerous gains and losses. This review describes diverse types of molecular alterations as well, their utility in the clinical domain, as well as implications for the pathologist in translational research in sarcomas.

The family of tumors derived from mesenchymal perivascular epithelioid cells (so-called PEComas) includes angiomyolipoma, lymphangioleiomyomatosis, clear cell sugar tumor of the lung, clear cell myomelanocytic tumor of ligamentum teres/falciform ligament, and abdominopelvic sarcoma of perivascular epithelioid cells. These tumors were characterized by coexpression of melanocytic (HMB-45) and muscle markers. MyoD1 transcription factor has crucial role in commitment and differentiation of mesenchymal progenitor cells to myogenic lineage. Antibodies to MyoD1 protein (nuclear immunoreactivity) have been shown highly valuable adjuncts in the diagnosis of rhabdomyosarcomas. To evaluate expression of the transcription factor MyoD1 in PEComas, we performed immunohistochemistry. Monoclonal antibody 5.8A for MyoD1 was used on a series of cases of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded angiomyolipoma (n = 19), lymphangioleiomyomatosis (n = 3), clear cell sugar tumor of the lung (n = 1), and abdominopelvic sarcoma of perivascular epithelioid cells (n = 2). All cases showed strong granular immunostaining in the tumor cell cytoplasm with the anti-MyoD1 antibody. Cytoplasmic reactivity was noted in the spindle cells, fat cells, and epithelioid cells. Nuclei were negative in all tumors studied, and a clean background was obtained. Several normal and neoplastic human tissues have also been immunostained for MyoD1 without any positive cytoplasmic staining, with the exception of 2 alveolar soft part sarcomas. Cytoplasmic immunostaining with monoclonal antibody 5.8A for MyoD1 in PEComas may correspond to cross-reactivity with an undetermined cytoplasmic protein. Great caution should be exercised in interpreting the immunostaining results with anti-MyoD1 antibody 5.8A.

Amphotericin B enhances the cytotoxicity of certain antineoplastic agents in vitro and in vivo. A phase II study was designed to evaluate whether this effect can be produced in the treatment of metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). The program AIDAB consisted of ADM 50 mg/m2 i.v. bolus at day 1; ifosfamide (IFX) 1.5 g/m2 in 1 hour i.v. infusion/day x 3 days; mesna 300 mg/m2 i.v. bolus before and 4 and 8 hours after IFX; dacarbazine (DTIC) 400 mg/m2 i.v. in 6 hours infusion/day x 3 days; and amphotericin B 25 mg/m2 i.v. in 6 hours infusion/day x 3 days; repeated every 4 weeks. There were 25 patients evaluable for response and toxicity, 22 with no previous chemotherapy. The median age was 44, (range: 16-64); 14 males, 11 females with a Karnofsky range of 40 to 90%. The response rate was 48% (4% complete response and 44% partial response). The median duration of response was 6.6 months. Of these 25 patients, 17 (68%) have died; the median survival was 12 months (range: 3-51 months). A total of 175 cycles were given to the 25 patients, with a mean of 7 cycles per patient. Toxicities encountered were leukopenia and/or thrombocytopenia, grade IV (WHO), in 9 patients (36%); fever and chills during amphotericin B infusion in 40%; vomiting, grade III (WHO), in 56%; mild mucositis in 12%, and a symptomatic decrease in cardiac ejection fraction in one patient. There was one toxic death due to severe thrombocytopenia. We can conclude that AIDAB is effective in the treatment of metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. The addition of amphotericin B did not improve the response rate or survival above what is expected from chemotherapy alone.

Background: Ewing sarcoma is a paradigm of solid tumour -bearing chromosomal translocations resulting in fusion proteins that act as deregulated transcription factors. Ewing sarcoma translocations fuse the EWS gene with an ETS transcription factor, mainly FLI1. Most of the EWS-FLI1 target genes still remain unknown and many have been identified in heterologous model systems.Methods: We have developed a stable RNA interference model knocking down EWS-FLI1 in the Ewing sarcoma cell line TC71. Gene expression analyses were performed to study the effect of RNA interference on the genetic signature of EWS-FLI1 and to identify genes that could contribute to tumourigenesis.Results: EWS-FLI1 inhibition induced apoptosis, reduced cell migratory and tumourigenic capacities, and caused reduction in tumour growth. IGF-1 was downregulated and the IGF-1/IGF-1R signalling pathway was impaired. PBK/TOPK (T-LAK cell-originated protein kinase) expression was decreased because of EWS-FLI1 inhibition. We showed that TOPK is a new target gene of EWS-FLI1. TOPK inhibition prompted a decrease in the proliferation rate and a dramatic change in the cell's ability to grow in coalescence.Conclusion: This is the first report of TOPK activity in Ewing sarcoma and suggests a significant role of this MAPKK-like protein kinase in the Ewing sarcoma biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]