1
|
Lawrenz JM, Johnson SR, Hajdu KS, Chi A, Bendfeldt GA, Kang H, Halpern JL, Holt GE, Schwartz HS. Is the Number of National Database Research Studies in Musculoskeletal Sarcoma Increasing, and Are These Studies Reliable? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2023; 481:491-508. [PMID: 35767810 PMCID: PMC9928832 DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002282] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2022] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Large national databases have become a common source of information on patterns of cancer care in the United States, particularly for low-incidence diseases such as sarcoma. Although aggregating information from many hospitals can achieve statistical power, this may come at a cost when complex variables must be abstracted from the medical record. There is a current lack of understanding of the frequency of use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) over the last two decades in musculoskeletal sarcoma research and whether their use tends to produce papers with conflicting findings. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES (1) Is the number of published studies using the SEER and NCDB databases in musculoskeletal sarcoma research increasing over time? (2) What are the author, journal, and content characteristics of these studies? (3) Do studies using the SEER and the NCDB databases for similar diagnoses and study questions report concordant or discordant key findings? (4) Are the administrative data reported by our institution to the SEER and the NCDB databases concordant with the data in our longitudinally maintained, physician-run orthopaedic oncology dataset? METHODS To answer our first three questions, PubMed was searched from 2001 through 2020 for all studies using the SEER or the NCDB databases to evaluate sarcoma. Studies were excluded from the review if they did not use these databases or studied anatomic locations other than the extremities, nonretroperitoneal pelvis, trunk, chest wall, or spine. To answer our first question, the number of SEER and NCDB studies were counted by year. The publication rate over the 20-year span was assessed with simple linear regression modeling. The difference in the mean number of studies between 5-year intervals (2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2016-2020) was also assessed with Student t-tests. To answer our second question, we recorded and summarized descriptive data regarding author, journal, and content for these studies. To answer our third question, we grouped all studies by diagnosis, and then identified studies that shared the same diagnosis and a similar major study question with at least one other study. We then categorized study questions (and their associated studies) as having concordant findings, discordant findings, or mixed findings. Proportions of studies with concordant, discordant, or mixed findings were compared. To answer our fourth question, a coding audit was performed assessing the concordance of nationally reported administrative data from our institution with data from our longitudinally maintained, physician-run orthopaedic oncology dataset in a series of patients during the past 3 years. Our orthopaedic oncology dataset is maintained on a weekly basis by the senior author who manually records data directly from the medical record and sarcoma tumor board consensus notes; this dataset served as the gold standard for data comparison. We compared date of birth, surgery date, margin status, tumor size, clinical stage, and adjuvant treatment. RESULTS The number of musculoskeletal sarcoma studies using the SEER and the NCDB databases has steadily increased over time in a linear regression model (β = 2.51; p < 0.001). The mean number of studies per year more than tripled during 2016-2020 compared with 2011-2015 (39 versus 13 studies; mean difference 26 ± 11; p = 0.03). Of the 299 studies in total, 56% (168 of 299) have been published since 2018. Nineteen institutions published more than five studies, and the most studies from one institution was 13. Orthopaedic surgeons authored 35% (104 of 299) of studies, and medical oncology journals published 44% (130 of 299). Of the 94 studies (31% of total [94 of 299]) that shared a major study question with at least one other study, 35% (33 of 94) reported discordant key findings, 29% (27 of 94) reported mixed key findings, and 44% (41 of 94) reported concordant key findings. Both concordant and discordant groups included papers on prognostic factors, demographic factors, and treatment strategies. When we compared nationally reported administrative data from our institution with our orthopaedic oncology dataset, we found clinically important discrepancies in adjuvant treatment (19% [15 of 77]), tumor size (21% [16 of 77]), surgery date (23% [18 of 77]), surgical margins (38% [29 of 77]), and clinical stage (77% [59 of 77]). CONCLUSION Appropriate use of databases in musculoskeletal cancer research is essential to promote clear interpretation of findings, as almost two-thirds of studies we evaluated that asked similar study questions produced discordant or mixed key findings. Readers should be mindful of the differences in what each database seeks to convey because asking the same questions of different databases may result in different answers depending on what information each database captures. Likewise, differences in how studies determine which patients to include or exclude, how they handle missing data, and what they choose to emphasize may result in different messages getting drawn from large-database studies. Still, given the rarity and heterogeneity of sarcomas, these databases remain particularly useful in musculoskeletal cancer research for nationwide incidence estimations, risk factor/prognostic factor assessment, patient demographic and hospital-level variable assessment, patterns of care over time, and hypothesis generation for future prospective studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, therapeutic study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joshua M. Lawrenz
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Samuel R. Johnson
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Katherine S. Hajdu
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Andrew Chi
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Gabriel A. Bendfeldt
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Hakmook Kang
- Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jennifer L. Halpern
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Ginger E. Holt
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Herbert S. Schwartz
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Traweek RS, Martin AN, Rajkot NF, Guadagnolo BA, Bishop AJ, Lazar AJ, Keung EZ, Torres KE, Hunt KK, Feig BW, Roland CL, Scally CP. Re-excision After Unplanned Excision of Soft Tissue Sarcoma is Associated with High Morbidity and Limited Pathologic Identification of Residual Disease. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:480-489. [PMID: 36085392 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12359-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with unplanned excision (UPE) of trunk and extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) present a significant management challenge for sarcoma specialists. Oncologic re-resection has been considered standard practice after UPE with positive or uncertain margins. A strategy of active surveillance or "watch and wait" has been suggested as a safe alternative to routine re-excision. In this context, the current study sought to evaluate short-term outcomes and morbidity after re-resection to better understand the risks and benefits of this treatment strategy. METHODS A retrospective, single-institution study reviewed patients undergoing oncologic re-resection after UPE of an STS during a 5-year period (2015-2020), excluding those with evidence of gross residual disease. Short-term clinical outcomes were evaluated together with final pathologic findings. RESULTS The review identified 67 patients undergoing re-resection after UPE of an STS. Of these 67 patients, 45 (67%) were treated with a combination of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) and surgery. Plastic surgery was involved for reconstruction in 49 cases (73%). The rate of wound complications after re-resection was 45 % (n = 30), with 15 % (n = 10) of the patients experiencing a major wound complication. Radiation therapy and plastic surgery involvement were independently associated with wound complications. Notably, 45 patients (67%) had no evidence of residual disease in the re-resection specimen, whereas 13 patients (19 %) had microscopic disease, and 9 patients (13%) had indeterminate pathology. CONCLUSION Given the morbidity of re-resection and limited identification of residual disease, treatment plans and discussions with patients should outline the expected pathologic findings and morbidity of surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raymond S Traweek
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Allison N Martin
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Nikita F Rajkot
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - B Ashleigh Guadagnolo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Andrew J Bishop
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Alexander J Lazar
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.,Department of Genomic Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Emily Z Keung
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Keila E Torres
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Kelly K Hunt
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Barry W Feig
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Christina L Roland
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Christopher P Scally
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rauch M, Agaimy A, Semrau S, Willner A, Ott O, Fietkau R, Hohenberger W, Croner RS, Grützmann R, Fechner K, Vassos N. Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Treatment Modalties for Soft Tissue Sarcomas of the Extremities. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13205244. [PMID: 34680391 PMCID: PMC8534061 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13205244] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2021] [Revised: 10/03/2021] [Accepted: 10/14/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neoadjuvant treatment modalities in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremities have become more popular in recent years, but because of the rarity and heterogeneity of STS, there are yet few studies on the long-term impact of neoadjuvant treatment modalities, especially in terms of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy. METHODS The study enrolled 136 patients with primary STS of the extremities who underwent surgery with curative intent or neoadjuvant therapy, followed by surgery in a 15-year period. Neoadjuvant treatment consisted of radiotherapy (RT) with 60 Gy and in most cases simultaneous chemotherapy (CTx) with ifosfamide (1.5 g/m2/d, d1-5, q28) and doxorubicine (50 mg/m2/d, d3, q28). We investigated the clinical, (post)-operative and histopathological data and the oncological follow-up as well. The median follow-up period was 82 months (range 6-202). RESULTS A total of 136 patients (M:F = 73:63) with a mean age of 62 years (range; 21-93) was observed. Seventy-four patients (54.4%) received neoadjuvant therapy (NT), 62 patients (45.6%) received primary surgery (PS). When receiving NT, patients with high-risk STS had a lower risk to develop distant metastasis (p = 0.025). Age, histological type, tumor size and surgical margins (R0 vs. R1) had no influence on any survival rates. There was an association between NT and the occurrence of postoperative complications (p = 0.001). The 5-year local recurrence free survival (LRFS), metastasis free survival (MFS), disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rate of the whole cohort was 89.9%, 77.0%, 70.6% and 72.6%; whereas the 5-year LRFS, MFS, DFS and OS rate was 90.5%, 67.2%, 64.1% and 62.8% for the NT group and 89.5%, 88.3%. 78.4% and 83.8% for the PS group. CONCLUSIONS Multimodal treatment strategies in patients with STS of extremities lead to excellent oncological outcomes. Patients with high-risk STS had a significantly better MFS when receiving NT than patients with low-risk STS. NT was associated with a higher probability of postoperative but well-manageable complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miriam Rauch
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.R.); (W.H.); (R.G.); (K.F.)
- Faculty of Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| | - Abbas Agaimy
- Department of Pathology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany;
| | - Sabine Semrau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (S.S.); (A.W.); (O.O.); (R.F.)
| | - Alexander Willner
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (S.S.); (A.W.); (O.O.); (R.F.)
| | - Oliver Ott
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (S.S.); (A.W.); (O.O.); (R.F.)
| | - Rainer Fietkau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (S.S.); (A.W.); (O.O.); (R.F.)
| | - Werner Hohenberger
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.R.); (W.H.); (R.G.); (K.F.)
| | - Roland S. Croner
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany;
| | - Robert Grützmann
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.R.); (W.H.); (R.G.); (K.F.)
| | - Katja Fechner
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.R.); (W.H.); (R.G.); (K.F.)
| | - Nikolaos Vassos
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany; (M.R.); (W.H.); (R.G.); (K.F.)
- Mannheim University Medical Center, Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Heidelberg, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +49-621-383-3921; Fax: +49-621-383-1479
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van der Merwe M, van Niekerk G, Fourie C, du Plessis M, Engelbrecht AM. The impact of mitochondria on cancer treatment resistance. Cell Oncol (Dordr) 2021; 44:983-995. [PMID: 34244972 DOI: 10.1007/s13402-021-00623-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The ability of cancer cells to develop treatment resistance is one of the primary factors that prevent successful treatment. Although initially thought to be dysfunctional in cancer, mitochondria are significant players that mediate treatment resistance. Literature indicates that cancer cells reutilize their mitochondria to facilitate cancer progression and treatment resistance. However, the mechanisms by which the mitochondria promote treatment resistance have not yet been fully elucidated. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES Here, we describe various means by which mitochondria can promote treatment resistance. For example, mutations in tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle enzymes, i.e., fumarate hydratase and isocitrate dehydrogenase, result in the accumulation of the oncometabolites fumarate and 2-hydroxyglutarate, respectively. These oncometabolites may promote treatment resistance by upregulating the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) pathway, inhibiting the anti-tumor immune response, or promoting angiogenesis. Furthermore, stromal cells can donate intact mitochondria to cancer cells after therapy to restore mitochondrial functionality and facilitate treatment resistance. Targeting mitochondria is, therefore, a feasible strategy that may dampen treatment resistance. Analysis of tumoral DNA may also be used to guide treatment choices. It will indicate whether enzymatic mutations are present in the TCA cycle and, if so, whether the mutations or their downstream signaling pathways can be targeted. This may improve treatment outcomes by inhibiting treatment resistance or promoting the effectiveness of anti-angiogenic agents or immunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle van der Merwe
- Department of Physiological Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
| | - Gustav van Niekerk
- Department of Physiological Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - Carla Fourie
- Department of Physiological Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - Manisha du Plessis
- Department of Physiological Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - Anna-Mart Engelbrecht
- Department of Physiological Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Xu G, Aiba H, Yamamoto N, Hayashi K, Takeuchi A, Miwa S, Higuchi T, Abe K, Taniguchi Y, Araki Y, Saito S, Yoshimura K, Murakami H, Tsuchiya H, Kawai A. Efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy for synovial sarcoma: a retrospective analysis of a Nationwide database in Japan. BMC Cancer 2021; 21:773. [PMID: 34217231 PMCID: PMC8255009 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08485-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/14/2020] [Accepted: 06/04/2021] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Synovial sarcoma is an aggressive but chemosensitive soft-tissue tumor. We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy for synovial sarcoma with data from the nationwide database, Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Registry in Japan. METHODS This study included 316 patients diagnosed with synovial sarcoma between 2006 and 2012. Oncologic outcomes were analyzed using a Cox-hazard regression model. Moreover, the effects of perioperative chemotherapy on outcomes were evaluated using a matched-pair analysis. The oncologic outcomes of patients who did or did not receive chemotherapy were compared (cx + and cx-). RESULTS Multivariate analysis revealed significant correlations of age (over 40, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61, p = 0.043), margin status (marginal resection, HR = 0.18, p < 0.001 and intralesional resection, HR = 0.30, p = 0.013 versus wide resection) with overall survival; surgical margin type (marginal resection, HR = 0.14, p = 0.001 and intralesional resection, HR = 0.09, p = 0.035 versus wide resection) with local recurrence; and postoperative local recurrence (HR = 0.30, p = 0.027) and surgical margin (marginal resection, HR = 0.31, p = 0.023 versus wide resection) with distant relapse-free survival. Before propensity score matching, perioperative chemotherapy was mainly administered for young patients and patients with deeper tumor locations, larger tumors, more advanced-stage disease, and trunk location. The 3-year overall survival, local control, and distant relapse-free survival rates were 79.8%/89.3% (HR = 0.64, p = 0.114), 89.6%/93.0% (HR = 0.37, p = 0.171) and 71.4%/84.5% (HR = 0.60, p = 0.089) in the cx+/cx- groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, 152 patients were selected such that the patient demographics were nearly identical in both groups. The 3-year overall survival, local control, and distant relapse-free survival rates were 71.5%/86.0% (HR = 0.48, p = 0.055), 92.5%/93.3% (HR = 0.51, p = 0.436) and 68.4%/83.9% (HR = 0.47, p = 0.046) in the cx+/cx- groups, respectively. CONCLUSION This large-sample study indicated that the margin status and postoperative disease control were associated directly or indirectly with improved oncologic outcomes. However, the efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy for survival outcomes in synovial sarcoma patients was not proven in this Japanese database analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gang Xu
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
- Department of Musculoskeletal Tumor, First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China
| | - Hisaki Aiba
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Norio Yamamoto
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Katsuhiro Hayashi
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Akihiko Takeuchi
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Shinji Miwa
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Takashi Higuchi
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Kensaku Abe
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Yuta Taniguchi
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Yoshihiro Araki
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Shiro Saito
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Kenichi Yoshimura
- Department of Biostatistics, Medical Center for Translational and Clinical Research, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan
| | - Hideki Murakami
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa, Japan
| | - Akira Kawai
- Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology and Rehabilitation, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Toward a Personalized Therapy in Soft-Tissue Sarcomas: State of the Art and Future Directions. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13102359. [PMID: 34068344 PMCID: PMC8153286 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13102359] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2021] [Revised: 05/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Soft-tissue sarcomas are rare tumors characterized by pathogenetic, morphological, and clinical intrinsic variability. Median survival of patients with advanced tumors are usually chemo- and radio-resistant, and standard treatments yield low response rates and poor survival results. The identification of defined genomic alterations in sarcoma could represent the premise for targeted treatments. Summarizing, soft-tissue sarcomas can be differentiated into histotypes with reciprocal chromosomal translocations, with defined oncogenic mutations and complex karyotypes. If the latter are improbably approached with targeted treatments, many suggest that innovative therapies interfering with the identified fusion oncoproteins and altered pathways could be potentially resolutive. In most cases, the characteristic genetic signature is discouragingly defined as "undruggable", which poses a challenge for the development of novel pharmacological approaches. In this review, a summary of genomic alterations recognized in most common soft-tissue sarcoma is reported together with current and future therapeutic opportunities.
Collapse
|
7
|
Pathologic Response Rates after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Sarcoma: A Single Institution Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13051074. [PMID: 33802383 PMCID: PMC7959282 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13051074] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2021] [Revised: 02/12/2021] [Accepted: 02/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
(1) Background: Pathologic necrosis of soft tissue sarcomas (STS) has been used to determine treatment response, but its relationship to neoadjuvant treatments remains indeterminate. In this retrospective, single institution study, we hypothesized that neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NA-CRT) yields higher rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) than neoadjuvant radiation (NA-XRT) or chemotherapy (NA-CT) alone. (2) Methods: Patients with extremity STS between 2011-2020 who received neoadjuvant treatment were included. pCR was defined as percent necrosis of the surgical specimen greater than or equal to 90%. (3) Results: 79 patients were analyzed. 51.9% of the population were male with a mean age of 58.4 years. 49.4% identified as Non-Hispanic White. Twenty-six (32.9%) patients achieved pCR while 53 (67.1%) did not. NA-CT (OR 15.82, 95% CI = 2.58-96.9, p = 0.003 in univariate (UVA) and OR 24.7, 95% CI = 2.88-211.2, p = 0.003 in multivariate (MVA), respectively) and NA-XRT (OR 5.73, 95% CI = 1.51-21.8, p = 0.010 in UVA and OR 7.95, 95% CI = 1.87-33.7, p = 0.005 in MVA, respectively) was significantly associated with non- pCR when compared to NA-CRT. The analysis also demonstrated that grade 3 tumors, when using grade 2 as reference, also had significantly higher odds of achieving pCR (OR 0.23, 95% CI = 0.06-0.80, p = 0.022 in UVA and OR 0.16, 95% CI = 0.04-0.70, p = 0.015 in MVA, respectively). (4) Conclusion: NA-CRT yields superior pCR compared to other neoadjuvant regimens. This extends to higher grade tumors.
Collapse
|
8
|
Liang Y, Guo T, Hong D, Xiao W, Zhou Z, Zhang X. Time to Local Recurrence as a Predictor of Survival in Patients With Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Extremity and Abdominothoracic Wall. Front Oncol 2020; 10:599097. [PMID: 33251152 PMCID: PMC7672181 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.599097] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2020] [Accepted: 10/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective The purpose of this retrospective study was to identify the prognostic significance of time to local recurrence (TLR) with regard to overall survival (OS) and survival after local recurrence (SAR) in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity and abdominothoracic wall. Methods We identified 477 patients who underwent R0 resection for localized STS of the extremity and abdominothoracic wall, from January 1995 to December 2016, of whom 190 patients developed local recurrence as their first recurrent event. Based on TLR, patients were divided into two groups: early local recurrence (ELR, <12 months) and late local recurrence (LLR, ≥12 months). The Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to estimate the OS and SAR, and to identify factors associated with patient outcomes. Results The median follow-up time for the entire cohort was 118.4 months, and was 118.5 months for the 190 patients who developed local recurrence. Deep tumor location (HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27–2.37, P = 0.001) and tumor grade ≥2 (G2 vs. G1: HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.21–2.53, G3 vs. G1: HR 2.57, 95% CI 1.66–3.98, P < 0.001) were associated with a higher rate of local recurrence. There were 99 patients in the ELR group and 91 in the LLR group, with a median TLR of 10.8 months for the entire cohort. Patients from the ELR group had a shorter OS and a lower 5-year OS rate than the LLR group. Univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated TLR as an independent prognostic factor for SAR and OS, in addition to tumor grade. Also, surgical treatment and absence of metastasis after local recurrence were associated with longer SAR. Conclusions In patients with STS of the extremity and abdominothoracic wall, ELR after R0 resection indicated a worse prognosis than those with LLR, and TLR can be considered an independent prognostic factor for OS and SAR. Furthermore, local recurrence was significantly influenced by the depth and the histopathological grading of the primary tumor, and reoperation after local recurrence could improve survival, which means salvage surgery may still be the preferred treatment when there are surgical indications after recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yao Liang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Tianhui Guo
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Medical Melanoma and Sarcoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Dongchun Hong
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Medical Melanoma and Sarcoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wei Xiao
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Medical Melanoma and Sarcoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhiwei Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xing Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.,Department of Medical Melanoma and Sarcoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Khan Y, Carey-Smith R, Taylor M, Woodhouse J, Jacques A, Wood D, Long A. Treatment and outcomes for synovial sarcoma patients in Western Australia: the role of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Rep (Hoboken) 2020; 3:e1268. [PMID: 32881345 PMCID: PMC7941415 DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2020] [Revised: 06/09/2020] [Accepted: 06/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background This is a retrospective review of synovial sarcoma (SS) patients treated over the last 12 years in Western Australia (WA). SS is both chemo and radiotherapy sensitive. Results of trials in adjuvant chemotherapy are conflicting and there is limited support for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The use of combined chemoradiotherapy is based on institutional preferences. Aim We reviewed the outcomes for SS patients treated in WA over a 12 year period focusing on patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT). Methods Patient details including demographics, histopathology, treatment details, were obtained from the WA sarcoma database (2006‐2018). Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were derived for whole cohort. Results Twenty seven patients were identified with SS with equal gender incidence. Median age of the cohort was 36 (14‐76) years. The most common primary site of disease was extremity (81.5%). 22/27 patients presented with only localized disease and 59.2% of these received neo‐adjuvant treatment. Of those who received neoadjuvant treatment, 56.2% had NACRT, while 25.0% and 18.7% of patients had chemotherapy and radiotherapy respectively. Mesna, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, dacarbazine (MAID) was the most commonly used chemotherapy regimen as neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment while ifosfamide (93.7%) was the most commonly used chemotherapy drug in any setting. There was no reported case of disease progression in group of patients who received NACRT apart from one patient who had oligometastatic disease at diagnosis. Median OS of the whole cohort was 38 months while median PFS was 24 months. Bone marrow toxicity was the most commonly reported high grade toxicity in NACRT group (55.5%) but there were no treatment related deaths. Conclusion NACRT is not widely adopted and treatment is based on institutional preferences, however our data shows that NACRT is a feasible therapy option. NACRT should be evaluated prospectively in a randomized trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasir Khan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Richard Carey-Smith
- Department of Orthopaedics, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.,Perth Orthopaedic & Sports Medicine Centre, West Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Mandy Taylor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Jennifer Woodhouse
- Hollywood Functional Rehab Clinic, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Angela Jacques
- Department of Research, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.,Institute for Health Research, The University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, Western Australia, Australia
| | - David Wood
- Faculty of Medicine, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Anne Long
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Primary High-Grade Extremity and Trunk Soft Tissue Sarcoma. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12092389. [PMID: 32846908 PMCID: PMC7564235 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12092389] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2020] [Revised: 08/18/2020] [Accepted: 08/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
The use of upfront chemotherapy for primary localized soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity and trunk is debated. It remains unclear if chemotherapy adds clinical benefit, which patients are likely to benefit, and whether the timing of therapy affects outcomes. We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to examine the association between overall survival (OS) and chemotherapy in 5436 patients with the five most common subtypes of STS with primary disease localized to the extremity or trunk, mirroring the patient population of a modern phase 3 clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We then examined associations between timing of multi-agent chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant) and OS. We used a Cox proportional hazards model and propensity score matching (PSM) to account for covariates including demographic, patient, clinical, treatment, and facility factors. In the overall cohort, we observed no association between multi-agent chemotherapy or its timing and improved OS. Multi-agent chemotherapy was associated with improved OS in several subgroups, including patients with larger tumors (>5 cm), those treated at high-volume centers, or those who received radiation. We also identified an OS benefit to multi-agent chemotherapy among the elderly (>70 years) and African American patients. Multi-agent chemotherapy was associated with improved survival for patients with tumors >5 cm, who receive radiation, or who receive care at high-volume centers. Neither younger age nor chemotherapy timing was associated with better outcomes. These 'real-world' findings align with recent randomized trial data supporting the use of multi-agent chemotherapy in high-risk patients with localized STS.
Collapse
|
11
|
Tagliaferri L, Vavassori A, Lancellotta V, Sanctis VD, Vidali C, Casà C, Aristei C, Genovesi D, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Morganti AG, Kovács G, Guinot JL, Rembielak A, Greto D, Gambacorta MA, Valentini V, Donato V, Corvò R, Magrini SM, Livi L. INTERACTS (INTErventional Radiotherapy ACtive Teaching School) consensus conference on sarcoma interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) endorsed by AIRO (Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology). J Contemp Brachytherapy 2020; 12:397-404. [PMID: 33293980 PMCID: PMC7690224 DOI: 10.5114/jcb.2020.98120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To report the results of INTERACTS (INTErventional Radiotherapy ACtive Teaching School) consensus conference on sarcoma interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy). MATERIAL AND METHODS An international board of multidisciplinary experts was invited to a consensus conference on the state-of-the-art of sarcoma interventional oncology during the 9th Rome INTER-MEETING (INTERventional Radiotherapy Multidisciplinary Meeting), proposing 3 statements for each one speech. At the end of each lecture, the entire group of experts was invited to vote with an electronic device. The preliminary results were presented and discussed at the end of the meeting, during a dedicated session. After the meeting, a survey was distributed within the consensus conference board to share and definitively vote the statements. RESULTS All the invited authors of the consensus conference board completed the final survey. All the 38 statements received more than 70% of agreement, 31 statements (82%) obtained an agreement of level higher or equal to 90%, 6 statements (15.8%) received an agreement level between 80% and 90%, and 1 statement (2.6%) had less than 80% of agreement. CONCLUSIONS The consensus conference demonstrated that interventional radiotherapy must be considered by a multidisciplinary management of patients affected by sarcoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luca Tagliaferri
- UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy,
| | - Andrea Vavassori
- Department of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy,
| | - Valentina Lancellotta
- UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy,
- Address for correspondence: Valentina Lancellotta, MD, UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy, e-mail:
| | - Vitaliana De Sanctis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicina e Psicologia, Sant’Andrea Hospital, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy,
| | - Cristiana Vidali
- Former Deputy Chair of Interventional Radiotherapy AIRO working Group – IntraOperative RadioTherapy, Trieste, Italy,
| | | | - Cynthia Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgery and Biomedical Science, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy,
| | - Domenico Genovesi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Santissima Annunziata Hospital, Gabriele D’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy,
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Department of Radiotherapy, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy,
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy,
| | - Alessio Giuseppe Morganti
- Department of Experimental, Diagnostic and Specialty Medicine – DIMES, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy,
| | | | - Jose Luis Guinot
- Foundation Instituto Valenciano de Oncologia (I.V.O.), Valencia, Spain,
| | - Agata Rembielak
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester and Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom,
| | - Daniela Greto
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy,
| | - Maria Antonietta Gambacorta
- UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy,
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy,
| | - Vincenzo Valentini
- UOC Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy,
- Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy,
| | - Vittorio Donato
- Radiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma, Italy,
| | - Renzo Corvò
- Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino and Department of Health Science, University of Genoa, Italy,
| | - Stefano Maria Magrini
- Radiation Oncology Department, Ospedali Civili Hospital and Brescia University, Brescia, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy,
| | - Consensus Conference Board
- Consensus Conference Board: Rosa Autorino (radiation oncologist, Rome), Carmelo Caldarella (nuclear medicine physician, Rome), Annamaria Cerrotta (radiation oncologist, Milan), Antonino De Paoli (radiation oncologist, Aviano), Vitaliana De Sanctis (radiation oncologist, Rome), Nicola Dinapoli (radiation oncologist, Rome), Vittorio Donato (radiation oncologist, Rome), Martina Ferioli (radiation oncologist, Bologna), Vincenzo Fusco (radiation oncologist, Rionero in Vulture), Maria Antonietta Gambacorta (radiation oncologist, Rome), Domenico Genovesi (radiation oncologist, Chieti), Daniela Greto (radiation oncologist, Florence), Jose Luis Guinot (radiation oncologist, València), Roberto Iezzi (interventional radiologist, Rome), Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa (radiation oncologist, Milan), György Kovács (radiation oncologist, Rome and Lübeck), Valentina Lancellotta (radiation oncologist, Rome), Antonio Leone (radiologist, Rome), Giulio Maccauro (orthopedic surgeon, Rome), Stefano Maria Magrini (radiation oncologist, Brescia), Alessio Giuseppe Morganti (radiation oncologist, Bologna), Michela Quirino (medical oncologist, Rome), Agata Rembielak (clinical and radiation oncologist, Manchester), Umberto Ricardi (radiation oncologist, Turin), Vittoria Rufini (nuclear medicine physician, Rome), Giuseppe Sanguineti (radiation oncologist, Rome), Luca Tagliaferri (radiation oncologist, Rome), Andrea Vavassori (radiation oncologist, Milan), Cristiana Vidali (radiation oncologist, Trieste)
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hou T, Guo T, Nie R, Hong D, Zhou Z, Zhang X, Liang Y. The prognostic role of the preoperative systemic immune-inflammation index and high-sensitivity modified Glasgow prognostic score in patients after radical operation for soft tissue sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020; 46:1496-1502. [PMID: 32576479 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.05.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2020] [Revised: 05/20/2020] [Accepted: 05/28/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The prognostic values of nutritional and immune-inflammatory indicators in non-metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients are not clear. We investigated the utility of systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and the high-sensitivity modified Glasgow prognostic score (Hs-mGPS) in the prediction of STS patient's prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients admitted between January 2000 and December 2016, who underwent R0 resection for STS at SYSUCC were carefully retrospectively reviewed, and 454 patients were enrolled. The laboratory data and clinical data were collected from the patient's record. ROC analysis is used to determine the optimal cutoff value. Survival curves were analysed by Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard model was used to find out prognostic variables. RESULTS Increased SII and Hs-mGPS values were significantly related to larger tumour size, deep tumour location, higher tumour grade and more advanced American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage. Patients with an elevated SII had a shorter median survival time and a lower 5-year OS rate than those with a low SII. And patients with low Hs-mGPS had longer median OS and DFS. Multivariate analysis revealed that both the SII and the Hs-mGPS were independent predictive indicators for OS. And a joint model containing both the Hsm-GPS and the SII appeared to have the strongest predictive ability. CONCLUSION Our findings indicated that malnutrition and systemic inflammation are risk factors for the survival of STS patients after operation, and early recognition and intervention of malnutrition and systemic inflammation may help to improve the survival of the patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tao Hou
- Department of Oncology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China
| | - Tianhui Guo
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China; Department of Medical Melanoma and Sarcoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Runcong Nie
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China; Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Dongchun Hong
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China; Department of Medical Melanoma and Sarcoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhiwei Zhou
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China; Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xing Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China; Department of Medical Melanoma and Sarcoma, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
| | - Yao Liang
- State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China; Department of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|