Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 667–675 | Cite as

Establishing Prognosis in Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: A New Histology-Based Paradigm

  • Daniel A. Anaya
  • Guy Lahat
  • Xuemei Wang
  • Lianchun Xiao
  • Daniel Tuvin
  • Peter W. Pisters
  • Dina C. Lev
  • Raphael E. Pollock
Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas



Retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging applies to primary tumors only; due to specific RPS disease characteristics, staging is driven primarily by grade, stratifying patients into only two distinct prognostic subsets. The objective of this study was to help improve currently available staging for RPS by establishing a new, more robust histology-based prognostic system.


A RPS database of 1,118 patients seen at our institution (1996–2006) identified 343 patients treated for resectable primary or recurrent disease; a histologic subtype-based RPS prognostic system was designed and evaluated for prognostic accuracy in comparison with the current AJCC staging system.


Histology stratified patients into three groups by prognosis (P < 0.0002): atypical lipomatous tumor (ALT), non-ALT liposarcoma (LPS), and “other,” an improvement compared with AJCC staging which could only identify two distinct prognostic groups. In contrast to AJCC staging, this prognostic stratification was reproducible for both primary and recurrent RPS (P < 0.0001). After multivariate analysis, LPS (P = 0.0004) and “other” histologies (P < 0.0001) were found to be independent predictors of worse survival. The concordance ratio of this model was 0.74, equivalent to that of the model using the AJCC staging system.


A histology-based RPS prognostic system has two advantages over AJCC staging: it can stratify into three versus two distinct prognostic groups, and it can be used for both primary and recurrent RPS. Distinct risk stratification is critical for specific assessment of prognosis as well as decisions regarding individualized adjuvant therapies, hence the advantage of a three-tiered histology-based system applicable in both primary and recurrent RPS.



This study was partially supported by an AJCC grant awarded to Raphael E. Pollock towards the soft tissue sarcoma staging.


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(1):43–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kotilingam D, Lev DC, Lazar AJ, Pollock RE. Staging soft tissue sarcoma: evolution and change. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(5):282–91; quiz 314–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Windham TC, Pisters PW. Retroperitoneal sarcomas. Cancer Control. 2005;12(1):36–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendenhall WM, Zlotecki RA, Hochwald SN, et al. Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 2005;104(4):669–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Katz MH, Choi EA, Pollock RE. Current concepts in multimodality therapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2007;7(2):159–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raut CP, Pisters PW. Retroperitoneal sarcomas: Combined-modality treatment approaches. J Surg Oncol. 2006;94(1):81–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greene FL PDFI, Fritz A, Balch CM, Haller DG, Morrow M. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J, et al. Analysis of prognostic factors in 1,041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(5):1679–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brennan MF. Staging of soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6(1):8–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis JJ, Leung D, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma: analysis of 500 patients treated and followed at a single institution. Ann Surg. 1998;228(3):355–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gronchi A, Casali PG, Fiore M, et al. Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas: patterns of recurrence in 167 patients treated at a single institution. Cancer. 2004;100(11):2448–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stoeckle E, Coindre JM, Bonvalot S, et al. Prognostic factors in retroperitoneal sarcoma: a multivariate analysis of a series of 165 patients of the French Cancer Center Federation Sarcoma Group. Cancer. 2001;92(2):359–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaques DP, Coit DG, Hajdu SI, Brennan MF. Management of primary and recurrent soft-tissue sarcoma of the retroperitoneum. Ann Surg. 1990;212(1):51–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferrario T, Karakousis CP. Retroperitoneal sarcomas: grade and survival. Arch Surg. 2003;138(3):248–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hassan I, Park SZ, Donohue JH, et al. Operative management of primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: a reappraisal of an institutional experience. Ann Surg. 2004;239(2):244–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Evans HL. Liposarcoma: a study of 55 cases with a reassessment of its classification. Am J Surg Pathol. 1979;3(6):507–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans HL. Atypical lipomatous tumor, its variants, and its combined forms: a study of 61 cases, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lahat G, Anaya DA, Wang X, et al. Resectable well-differentiated versus dedifferentiated liposarcomas: two different diseases possibly requiring different treatment approaches. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(6):1585–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singer S, Antonescu CR, Riedel E, Brennan MF. Histologic subtype and margin of resection predict pattern of recurrence and survival for retroperitoneal liposarcoma. Ann Surg. 2003;238(3):358–70; discussion 370–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neuhaus SJ, Barry P, Clark MA, et al. Surgical management of primary and recurrent retroperitoneal liposarcoma. Br J Surg. 2005;92(2):246–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fabre-Guillevin E, Coindre JM, Somerhausen Nde S, et al. Retroperitoneal liposarcomas: follow-up analysis of dedifferentiation after clinicopathologic reexamination of 86 liposarcomas and malignant fibrous histiocytomas. Cancer. 2006;106(12):2725–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dalal KM, Kattan MW, Antonescu CR, et al. Subtype specific prognostic nomogram for patients with primary liposarcoma of the retroperitoneum, extremity, or trunk. Ann Surg. 2006;244(3):381–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trojani M, Contesso G, Coindre JM, et al. Soft-tissue sarcomas of adults; study of pathological prognostic variables and definition of a histopathological grading system. Int J Cancer. 1984;33(1):37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coindre JM, Nguyen BB, Bonichon F, et al. Histopathologic grading in spindle cell soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer. 1988;61(11):2305–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coindre JM. Pathology and grading of soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Treat Res. 1993;67:1–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coindre JM. Grading of soft tissue sarcomas: review and update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(10):1448–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Dalen T, Hennipman A, Van Coevorden F, et al. Evaluation of a clinically applicable post-surgical classification system for primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2004;11(5):483–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anaya DA, Lahat G, Liu J, et al. Multifocality in retroperitoneal sarcoma: a prognostic factor critical to surgical decision-making. Ann Surg. 2008 (in press).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coindre JM, Terrier P, Guillou L, et al. Predictive value of grade for metastasis development in the main histologic types of adult soft tissue sarcomas: a study of 1240 patients from the French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group. Cancer. 2001;91(10):1914–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gaynor JJ, Tan CC, Casper ES, et al. Refinement of clinicopathologic staging for localized soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity: a study of 423 adults. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10(8):1317–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Coindre JM, Terrier P, Bui NB, et al. Prognostic factors in adult patients with locally controlled soft tissue sarcoma. A study of 546 patients from the French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(3):869–77.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pisters PW, O’Sullivan B, Maki RG. Evidence-based recommendations for local therapy for soft tissue sarcomas. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(8):1003–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Coindre JM, Trojani M, Contesso G, et al. Reproducibility of a histopathologic grading system for adult soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 1986;58(2):306–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alvegard TA, Berg NO. Histopathology peer review of high-grade soft tissue sarcoma: the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group experience. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7(12):1845–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guillou L, Coindre JM, Bonichon F, et al. Comparative study of the National Cancer Institute and French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group grading systems in a population of 410 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(1):350–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jones C, Liu K, Hirschowitz S, et al. Concordance of histopathologic and cytologic grading in musculoskeletal sarcomas: can grades obtained from analysis of the fine-needle aspirates serve as the basis for therapeutic decisions? Cancer. 2002;96(2):83–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Anaya
    • 1
  • Guy Lahat
    • 1
  • Xuemei Wang
    • 2
  • Lianchun Xiao
    • 2
  • Daniel Tuvin
    • 1
  • Peter W. Pisters
    • 1
  • Dina C. Lev
    • 3
  • Raphael E. Pollock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgical Oncology, Unit 444The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics and Applied MathematicsThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Cancer BiologyThe University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations