New Perspectives for Staging and Prognosis in Soft Tissue Sarcoma
- First Online:
- 396 Downloads
Data suggest that the current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) soft tissue sarcoma (STS) staging criteria merit further evaluation. We sought to identify and validate factors as enhanced descriptors of STS clinical behavior.
Prospectively accrued data were analyzed for 1,091 AJCC stage I to III primary STS patients who had complete macroscopic resection at our institution from 1996 to 2007. Study factors were examined by univariable and multivariable analyses to identify independent prognostic factors for disease related mortality and overall survival (OS).
In contrast to the current AJCC STS staging system, which stratifies size into T1 (≤5 cm) and T2 (>5 cm) groups, we demonstrated three distinct cohorts (P < 0.0001): T1 (≤5 cm; 5-year OS 85%), T2 (5 to 15 cm; OS 68%), and T3 (>15 cm; OS 52%). A two-category system of histologic grade was demonstrably as informative as the current four histologic grade AJCC system. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model identified tumor size (5 to 15 cm vs. ≤5 cm, P = 0.03; or >15 cm vs. ≤5 cm; P < 0.0001), nonextremity primary site (P = 0.0016), disease of high histologic grade (P = 0.001), specific histology (P = 0.001), and margin positivity (P < 0.0001) as statistically significant adverse independent prognostic factors. Recurrence during follow-up was the most significant risk factor for STS-specific mortality (P < 0.0001).
Tumor size and grade in the AJCC STS staging system need revision; moreover, primary site, histologic subtype, margin status, and recurrence offer additional relevant prognostic insight. Incorporation of these factors may enhance the AJCC staging system, thereby further facilitating individualized therapeutic strategies for STS patients.
KeywordsSoft tissue sarcoma Staging Prognostic factors Recurrence Survival
- 2.Lahat G, Lazar AJ, Lev D. Sarcoma epidemiology and etiology: potential environmental and genetic factors. Surg Oncol Clin N Am (in press)Google Scholar
- 3.Fletcher CD, Unni KK, Mertens F. (2002) World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics. Tumors of soft tissue and bone. Lyon: IARC Press.Google Scholar
- 6.Collin C, Godbold J, Hajdu S, et al. Localized extremity soft tissue sarcoma: an analysis of factors affecting survival. Ann Surg Oncol 1987; 5:601–12.Google Scholar
- 10.Rydholm A, Berg NO, Gullberg B, et al. Prognosis for soft-tissue sarcoma in the locomotor system. A retrospective population-based follow-up study of 237 patients. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand 1984; 92:375–86.Google Scholar
- 33.Gray B. Cmprsk: subdistribution analysis of competing risks. Version 2.1-7. Available at: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cmprsk/index.html. Accessed May 16, 2008
- 34.The Mianalyze procedure. SAS onlineDocTM. Chapter 10. Version 8. Available at: http://support.sas.com/rnd/app/papers/mianalyzev802.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2008
- 37.Fleming ID, Cooper JS, Henson DE. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997.Google Scholar
- 38.Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID. (2002) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th edn. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 40.Rubin BP, Fletcher CD, Inwards C, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with soft tissue tumors of intermediate malignant potential, malignant soft tissue tumors, and benign/locally aggressive and malignant bone tumors. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130:1616–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.Pisters PWT, Brennan MF. (1995) Sarcomas of soft tissue. In: Abeloff MAJ, Lichter A, et al. (ed) Clinical oncology. New York: Churchill Livingstone. pp 1799–832Google Scholar
- 43.Devita VT, Rosenberg SASH. (2004) Cancer: Principles and practice of oncology. 7th edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar