Institut Bergonié

1

MULTICENTRIC EVALUATION OF THE FRENCH SURGICAL SYSTEM IN SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA (STS).

E. Stoeckle, S. Bonvalot, JY Blay, L. Guillou, J. Fraisse, JL.

Verhaeghe, JM. Coindre, BN Bui

From the French Sarcoma Group

Institut Bergonié

2

Why another classification?

Surgery is no more the only treatment for STS: Formerly, subjectivity of surgeon-based definitions of quality of

surgery had no impact on treatment modalities: wait and see Actually, multimodality treatment needs to know: -

who will recur - to whom give additional treatment and how

Furthermore, homogenous treatment reporting is needed

However, quality of surgery remains subjective: Surgeon – dependent or Pathologist - dependent

Institut Bergonié

3

The UICC classification

The UICC recommends the R - classification in STS: R0: resection in sano R1: microscopic residual disease R2: macroscopic residual disease

But it does not give instructions how to determine R!

Usually, Enneking’s classification is transposed into the R - classification

Institut Bergonié

4

Individual appreciation of quality of surgery is not

appropriate!

Surgeons overestimate excision Almost large German registry (Junginger 2001):

Extremity sarcoma 82% R0 Retroperitoneal sarcoma 64% R0

Local recurrences remain elevated Pathologists underestimate excision

Retraction of tissue Negative specimen after re-excision in 50%

Institut Bergonié

5

The FSG system (I)

1. 1995: OP reports review in 8 participating centers: missing information

2. 1995 - 1996: multicentric feasibility study of items for OP reporting:

Only describe Important issues: tumor seen?

tumor rupture?3. 1998: Recommendations for pathology

reporting (Ghnassia).4. Determination of resection type (UICC R

system) by surgeon and pathologist.

Institut Bergonié

6

The FSG system (II)

4. 1996 - 1999: prospective validation in a single center (Bordeaux):

109 consecutive patients with trunk wall + extremity, conservative surgery, 68% R0 , 56 months FU:

3% R0Local recurrence:8% (P < 0,01)

19% R1

Negative predictive value of R0: 97%

5. Actual study: multicentric evaluation

Institut Bergonié

7

Methods

Methods: FSG data base - multivariate prognostic factor analysis

Patients’ selection: resection type (R) informed: 423 pts. 325 pts. with

trunk wall or extremity STS 302 pts. N0 M0 Inclusion and follow-up:

1995 - 2002, FU: 21 months (1 – 104 months) Accrual by center: Bordeaux 88

Villejuif 52 Lyon 52 Lausanne 24 Nancy 22 0ther centers 64

Institut Bergonié

8

Patients’ characteristics

M/F: 150/152 pts. Localizations:

Shoulder girdle 12 4% Upper extremity 36 12% Trunk wall 31 10% Pelvic girdle 24

8% Lower extremity 199 66%

Institut Bergonié

9

Tumor extension

Superficial tumors: 56 pts. (18,5%) Median size : 9 cm (1 – 26 cm) Multifocality: 31 pts. (10,3%) Vasc./nerve involvement: 47 pts. (15,6%) AJC/UICC stage 1979:

I: 14% II: 28% III: 33% IV: 15% NP: 10% AJC/UICC stage 2002:

IA: 15% IB: 35% IIA: 13% IIB: 2% III: 29% NP: 5%

Institut Bergonié

10

Pathology

Histological subtypes: Liposarcoma 70 (23%) Leiomyosarcoma 46 (15%) MFH 44 (15%) Synovialosarcoma 25 (8%) MPNST + RhabdoS. 15 (5%) Unclassified S. 39 (13%) Others + NP 63 (21%)

Grade I: 17% II: 34% III: 45% NP: 5%

Institut Bergonié

11

Treatments

302 operated patients: First-line surgery: 83% Resection types :

R0 220 (73%)R1 68 (22%)

R2 14 (5%) Radiotherapy: 62% Chemotherapy: 40%

Institut Bergonié

12

Treatment results

R0 213

CR: 272 (90%) R1 54

R2 5

Survivors: 240 (80%) actuarial 65%

LR: crude 34 (13%) actuarial 21%

Institut Bergonié

13

Overall survival

TSURV

60483624120

Sur

vie

cum

ulée

1,0

,9

,8

,7

,6

,5

,4

,3

,2

,1

0,0

Institut Bergonié

14

Resection-type according to center (NS)

Center N R0

Bordeaux 88 73%Villejuif 52 73%Lyon 52 64%Lausanne 24 83%Nancy 22 64%Others 64 80%

Institut Bergonié

15

Resection type according to localization (NS)

Localization N R0

Shoulder girdle 12 75%Upper extremity 36 56%Trunk wall 31 71%Pelvic girdle 24 67%Lower extremity 199 77%

Institut Bergonié

16

Local recurrence-free interval

TRLOC

60544842363024181260

Su

rvie

cu

mu

lée

1,0

,9

,8

,7

,6

,5

,4

,3

,2

,1

0,0

Institut Bergonié

17

Local recurrence according to R

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 12 24 36 48 60 72

R0

R1+R2

P = 0,004

R0

R1 + R2

Institut Bergonié

18

Local recurrence according to grade

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 12 24 36 48 60 72

grade1 et2

grade3

P = 0,019

Grade 1 + 2

Grade 3

Institut Bergonié

19Local recurrence according to T3 (1979 UICC

classification)

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 12 24 36 48 60 72

T1T2

T3

P = 0,049

T1 + T2

T3

Institut Bergonié

20

Local recurrence according to stage AJC/UICC 1979

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 12 24 36 48 60 72

stade I ajc

stade 2 ajc

stade3 ajc

stade4 ajc

P = 0,0045

Institut Bergonié

21

Local recurrence according to stage AJC/UICC 2002

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

0 12 24 36 48 60 72

stade IA2002

stade IB2002

Stade II 2002

Stade3 2002

P = 0,042

Institut Bergonié

22

Prognostic factors/LR

Variable RL N p

R R0 20 213 0,004R1+R2 14 59

Grade 1 3 46 0,022 7 923 23 122

T T1 +T2 23 218 0,05T3 8 37

Histotype, Size (+/- 5 cm), Localization,Depth, Center, Radiotherapy: NS

Institut Bergonié

23

Independent prognostic factors for local recurrence

Variables p RR CI

No R0 0,003 3,06 1,47 - 6,38

Grade 3 0,004 3,35 1,48 - 7,55

Institut Bergonié

24

Conclusion

Resection type (R) as defined by FSG predicts independently local recurrence

FSG criteria are reproducible and can

be used in a multicentric setting Treatment results in the multicenter

study are lower than in the single center: progress still needed.