Advertisement

Clinical Implications of Soft Tissue Sarcomas

  • Ioannis P. Boukovinas
Chapter

Abstract

The therapeutic strategy depends on disease stage at baseline, tumor grade, and histological subtype. Ultrasounds, plain X-rays, CT and MRI scans, angiography, and bone scans are the main diagnostic tools used in the diagnosis and staging of the disease [1].

References

  1. 1.
    Panicek DM, Gatsonis C, Rosenthal DI et al (1997) CT and MR imaging in the local staging of primary malignant musculoskeletal neoplasms: report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 202:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noebauer-Huhmann IM, Weber MA, Bloem JL et al (2015) Soft tissue tumors in adults: ESSR-approved guidelines for diagnostic imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 19(5):475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rizer M, Singer AD, Subhawong TK et al (2016) The histological variants of liposarcoma: predictive MRI findings with prognostic implications, management, follow-up, and differential diagnosis. Skelet Radiol 45(9):1193–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scola D, Bahoura L, Copelan A, Sokhandon F (2017) Getting the GIST: a pictorial review of the various patterns of presentation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors on imaging. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(5):1350–1364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-1025-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group (2014) Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol (Suppl 3):iii102–iii112Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group (2014) Bone sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol (Suppl 3):iii113–iii123Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crim JR, Seeger LL, Yao L et al (1992) Diagnosis of soft tissue masses with MR imaging: can benign masses be differentiated from malignant ones. Radiology 185:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rimondi E, Benassi M, Vanel D et al (2016) Translational research in diagnosis and management of soft tissue tumours. Cancer Imaging 16:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Etchebehere EC et al (2015) Assessing the role of 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of soft tissue musculoskeletal malignancies—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43(5):860–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher SM, Joodi R, Chhabra A et al (2016) Current utilities of imaging in grading musculoskeletal soft tissue sarcomas. Eur J Radiol 85(7):1336–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J et al (2009) New response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45:228–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michaelis LC, Ratain MJ (2006) Measuring response in a post-RECIST world: from black and white to shades of grey. Nat Rev Cancer 6:409–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baheti AD, Jagannathan JP, Tirumani SH et al (2017) Current concepts in non-gastrointestinal stromal tumor soft tissue sarcomas: a primer for radiologists. Korean J Radiol 18(1):94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blanke C, Demetri G, von Mehren M et al (2008) Long-term results from a randomized phase II trial of standard-versus higher-dose imatinib mesylate for patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors expressing KIT. J Clin Oncol 26(4):620–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dhani N, Tu D, Sargent DJ, Seymour L et al (2009) Alternate endpoints for screening phase II studies. Clin Cancer Res 15:1873–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group (2014) Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol (Suppl 3):iii21–iii26Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalkmann J, Zeile M, Stattaus J et al (2012) Consensus report on the radiological management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST): recommendations of the German GIST Imaging Working Group. Cancer Imaging 12(1):126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van den Abbeele AD, Badawi RD (2002) Use of positron emission tomography in oncology and its potential role to assess response to imatinib mesylate therapy in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). Eur J Cancer 38:S60–S65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Choi H, Charnsangavej C, Faria SC et al (2007) Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria. J Clin Oncol 25:1753–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stacchiotti S, Verderio P, Gronchi A et al (2012) Tumor response assessment by modified Choi criteria in localized high-risk soft tissue sarcoma treated with chemotherapy. Cancer 118(23):5857–5866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poveda A, del Muro XG, Martín-Broto J et al (2014) GEIS 2013 guidelines for gastrointestinal sarcomas (GIST). Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 74(5):883–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prior J, Montemurro M, Orcurto MV et al (2008) Early prediction of response to sunitinib after imatinib failure by 18F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Clin Oncol 27:439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M et al (2003) 18FDG-positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer 39:2012–2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gayed I, Vu T, Iyer R et al (2004) The role of 18F-FDG PET in staging and early prediction of response to therapy of recurrent gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med 45:17–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tirumani SH, Jagannathan JP, Ramaiya NH et al (2013) Imatinib and beyond in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a radiologist’s perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(4):801–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Desai J, Shankar S, Heinrich MC et al (2007) Clonal evolution of resistance to imatinib in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer Res 13:5398–5405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lassau N, Lamuraglia M, Chami L et al (2006) Gastro-intestinal stromal tumours treated with imatinib: monitoring response with contrast enhanced ultrasound. Am J Roentgenol 187:1267–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hayashida Y, Yakushiji T, Awai K et al (2006) Monitoring therapeutic responses of primary bone tumors by diffusion-weighted image: initial results. Eur Radiol 16:2637–2643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eilber F, Rosen G, Eckardt J et al (2001) Treatment-induced pathologic necrosis: a predictor of local recurrence and survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy for high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcomas. J Clin Oncol 19:3203–3209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amini B, Jessop AC, Madewell JE et al (2015) Contemporary imaging of soft tissue sarcomas. J Surg Oncol 111(5):496–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Collin C, Godbold J, Hajdu S et al (1987) Localized extremity soft tissue sarcoma: an analysis of factors affecting survival. J Clin Oncol 5:601–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gaynor JJ, Tan CC, Casper ES et al (1992) Refinement of clinicopathologic staging for localized soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity: a study of 423 adults. J Clin Oncol 10:1317–1329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Evilevitch V, Weber WA, Tap WD et al (2008) Reduction of glucose metabolic activity is more accurate than change in size at predicting histopathologic response to neoadjuvant therapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 14:715–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Benz MR, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach MS et al (2009) FDG-PET/CT imaging predicts histopathologic treatment responses after the initial cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas. Clin Cancer Res 15:2856–2863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, Strauss LG, Egerer G et al (2010) Impact of dynamic 18F-FDG PET on the early prediction of therapy outcome in patients with high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a feasibility study. J Nucl Med 51:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tateishi U, Kawai A, Chuman H et al (2011) PET/ CT allows stratification of responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-grade sarcoma: a prospective study. Clin Nucl Med 36:526–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Herrmann K, Benz M, Czernin J et al (2012) 18-FDG-PET/CT imaging as an early survival predictor in patients with primary high-grade soft tissue sarcomas undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. Clin Cancer Res 18:2024–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grosso F, Jones R, Demetri G et al (2007) Efficacy of trabectedin (ecteinascidin-743) in advanced pretreated myxoid liposarcomas: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol 8:595–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Casali PG, Messina A, Stacchiotti S et al (2004) Imatinib mesylate in chordoma. Cancer 101:2086–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Partovi S, Chalian M, Robbin MR et al (2014) Magnetic resonance/positron emission tomography (MR/PET) oncologic applications: bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Semin Roentgenol 49(4):345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vanel D, Shapeero LG, De Baere T et al (1994) MR imaging in the follow up of malignant and aggressive soft tissue tumors: results of 511 examinations. Radiology 190:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Panicek D, Schwartz L (1999) MR imaging of bone marrow in patients with musculoskeletal tumors. Sarcoma 3:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Joensuu H, Martin-Broto J, Maki RG et al (2015) Follow-up strategies for patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour treated with or without adjuvant imatinib after surgery. Eur J Cancer 51(12):1611–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bioclinic Oncology UnitThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations