Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 475, Issue 5, pp 1427–1435 | Cite as

Can Multistate Modeling of Local Recurrence, Distant Metastasis, and Death Improve the Prediction of Outcome in Patients With Soft Tissue Sarcomas?

  • Florian Posch
  • Lukas Leitner
  • Marko Bergovec
  • Angelika Bezan
  • Michael Stotz
  • Armin Gerger
  • Martin Pichler
  • Herbert Stöger
  • Bernadette Liegl-Atzwanger
  • Andreas Leithner
  • Joanna Szkandera
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Exploration of the complex relationship between prognostic indicators such as tumor grade and size and clinical outcomes such as local recurrence and distant metastasis in patients with cancer is crucial to guide treatment decisions. However, in patients with soft tissue sarcoma, there are many gaps in our understanding of this relationship. Multistate analysis may help us in gaining a comprehensive understanding of risk factor-outcome relationships in soft tissue sarcoma, because this methodology can integrate multiple risk factors and clinical endpoints into a single statistical model. To our knowledge, no study of this kind has been performed before in patients with soft tissue sarcoma.

Questions/purposes

We implemented a multistate model of localized soft tissue sarcoma to statistically evaluate the relationship among baseline risk factors, recurrence, and death in patients with localized soft tissue sarcoma undergoing curative surgery.

Methods

Between 1998 and 2015, our center treated 539 patients for localized soft tissue sarcoma with surgery as curative intent. Of those, 96 patients (18%) were not included in this single-center retrospective study owing to missing baseline histopathology data (n = 3), not yet observed followup (n = 80), or because a neoadjuvant treatment approach in the presence of synchronous distant metastasis was used (n = 13), leaving 443 patients (82%) for the current analysis, of which 40 were lost to followup during the first year after surgery. All patients had tumors of the stages I to III according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Stages. The median age of the patients was 62 years (range, 16–96 years), and 217 patients (49%) were female. Three hundred-forty-six patients (78%) had tumors of high grade (Grades 2 and 3), and 310 (70%) tumors were greater than 5 cm in maximum diameter. Patients who had died during the first year of followup were included in this analysis. Median followup for the 443 study patients was 6 years, with 84%, 52%, and 23% of patients being followed for more than 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. The 15-year cumulative incidences of local recurrence, distant metastasis, and death from any cause, using a competing risk analysis, were 16% (95% CI, 11%–22%), 21% (95% CI, 17%–26%), and 55% (95% CI, 44%–67%), respectively. Wide resection with a margin of 1 mm was the preferred treatment for all patients, except for those with Grade 1 liposarcoma where a marginal resection was considered adequate. Multistate models were implemented with the mstate library in R.

Results

In multistate analysis, patients who experienced a local recurrence were more likely to have distant metastasis develop (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.4; 95% CI, 4.3–16.5; p < 0.001), and to die (HR = 3.4; 95% CI, 2.1–5.6; p < 0.001). The occurrence of distant metastasis was associated with a strong increase in the risk of death (HR = 12.6; 95% CI, 8.7–18.3; p < 0.001). Distant metastasis occurring after a long tumor-free interval was not associated with a more-favorable prognosis with respect to mortality than distant metastasis occurring early after surgery (estimated relative decrease in the adverse effect of distant metastasis on mortality for 1-year delay in the occurrence of distant metastasis = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.7-1.1; p = 0.28). High-grade histology (Grades 2 and 3) was associated with a higher risk of overall recurrence (defined as a composite of local recurrence and distant metastasis, HR = 3.8; 95% CI, 1.8–7.8; p = 0.0003) and a higher risk of death after recurrence developed (HR = 4.4; 95% CI, 1.1–18.2; p = 0.04). Finally, the multistate model predicted distinct outcome patterns depending on baseline covariates and how long a patient has remained free from recurrence after surgery.

Conclusions

In patients with localized soft tissue sarcoma undergoing resection, the occurrence of local recurrence and distant metastasis contributes to a dramatically impaired long-term survival outcome. Local recurrences are a substantial risk factor for distant metastasis. Multistate modeling is a very powerful approach for analysis of sarcoma cohorts, and may be used in the future to obtain highly personalized, dynamic predictions of outcomes in patients with localized soft tissue sarcoma.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study

References

  1. 1.
    Callegaro D, Miceli R, Bonvalot S, Ferguson P, Strauss DC, Levy A, Griffin A, Hayes AJ, Stacchiotti S, Pechoux CL, Smith MJ, Fiore M, Dei Tos AP, Smith HG, Mariani L, Wunder JS, Pollock RE, Casali PG, Gronchi A. Development and external validation of two nomograms to predict overall survival and occurrence of distant metastases in adults after surgical resection of localised soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:671–680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Wreede LC, Fiocco M, Putter H. The mstate package for estimation and prediction in non- and semi-parametric multi-state and competing risks models. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2010;99:261–274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eichinger S, Heinze G, Kyrle PA. D-dimer levels over time and the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism: an update of the Vienna prediction model. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3:e000467.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gronchi A, Lo Vullo S, Colombo C, Collini P, Stacchiotti S, Mariani L, Fiore M, Casali PG. Extremity soft tissue sarcoma in a series of patients treated at a single institution: local control directly impacts survival. Ann Surg. 2010;251:506–511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ESMO/European Sarcoma Neteork Working Group. Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(suppl 3):iii102-112.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kainhofer V, Smolle MA, Szkandera J, Liegl-Atzwanger B, Maurer-Ertl W, Gerger A, Riedl J, Leithner A. The width of resection margins influences local recurrence in soft tissue sarcoma patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:899–906.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The Statistical Analysis of Failure Time Data. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1980.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewis JJ, Leung D, Heslin M, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Association of local recurrence with subsequent survival in extremity soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:646–652.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parsons HM, Habermann EB, Tuttle TM, Al-Refaie WB. Conditional survival of extremity soft-tissue sarcoma: results beyond the staging system. Cancer. 2011;117:1055–1060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J, Shi W, Brennan MF. Analysis of prognostic factors in 1,041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1679–1689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB. Tutorial in biostatistics: competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med. 2007;26:2389–2430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:343–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sinha S, Peach AH. Diagnosis and management of soft tissue sarcoma. BMJ. 2010;341:c7170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Szkandera J, Gerger A, Liegl-Atzwanger B, Stotz M, Samonigg H, Friesenbichler J, Stojakovic T, Leithner A, Pichler M. The derived neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio predicts poor clinical outcome in soft tissue sarcoma patients. Am J Surg. 2015;210:111–116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Posch
    • 1
  • Lukas Leitner
    • 2
  • Marko Bergovec
    • 2
  • Angelika Bezan
    • 1
  • Michael Stotz
    • 1
  • Armin Gerger
    • 1
  • Martin Pichler
    • 1
  • Herbert Stöger
    • 1
  • Bernadette Liegl-Atzwanger
    • 3
    • 4
  • Andreas Leithner
    • 2
  • Joanna Szkandera
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center GrazMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Comprehensive Cancer Center GrazMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  3. 3.Center for Biomarker Research in MedicineMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  4. 4.Institute of Pathology, Comprehensive Cancer Center GrazMedical University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations