Prognostic relevance of the TNM classification 8th edition and new criteria of staging for retroperitoneal liposarcoma

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

For the first time a section appeared for staging of non-organ retroperitoneal tumors in the UICC TNM classification 8th edition.

Aim. To assess the prognostic significance of the TNM classification eighth edition for the most common retroperitoneal tumors-liposarcoma.

Materials and methods. The distribution of patients by stages and survival in accordance with the TNM-8 classification were studied in 192 patients with retroperitoneal non-organ liposarcoma (RLPS).

Results. In the TNM-8 classification, only the degree of malignancy of the tumor has a prognostic value, and the T-category does not reflect the actual size of the RLPS and is considered T4 in 93%, which leads to inadequate staging. During the 15-year period, there were no cases with stages II and IIIA, and the survival rate was estimated only in patients with stages I and IIIB. A TNM classification with new values of the T-category was proposed, which demonstrated a more adequate distribution of patients by stages and the reliability of intergroup differences in the survival rate.

Conclusion. It is advisable to create a special TNM classification for RLPS, which makes up more than half of all retroperitoneal sarcomas.

About the authors

S. N. Nered

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology; Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education

Email: nered@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 4588-3230

D. Sci. (Med.), Prof., Blokhin National Medical Research Centre of Oncology, Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education

Russian Federation, Moscow

A. Yu. Volkov

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: 79164577128@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4412-2256
SPIN-code: 3013-4392

Graduate Student, Blokhin National Medical Research Centre of Oncology

Russian Federation, Moscow

N. А. Kozlov

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology

Email: newbox13@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 1847-6530

Cand. Sci. (Med.), Blokhin National Medical Research Centre of Oncology

Russian Federation, Moscow

I. S. Stilidi

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology; Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education

Author for correspondence.
Email: istilidi@front.ru
SPIN-code: 9622-7106

D. Sci. (Med.), Prof., Acad. RAS, Blokhin National Medical Research Centre of Oncology, Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education

Russian Federation, Moscow

P. P. Archery

Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology; Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education

Email: arhiri@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 6880-4902

Cand. Sci. (Med.), Blokhin National Medical Research Centre of Oncology, Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2017 году. М., 2018.
  2. [Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. The state of cancer care for the population of Russia in 2017. Moscow, 2018 (in Russian).]
  3. Liles JS, Tzeng CW, Short JJ et al. Retroperitoneal and intra-abdominal sarcoma. Curr Probl Surg 2009; 46 (6): 445–503. doi: 10.1067/j.cpsurg.2009.01.004
  4. 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. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000234795.98607.00
  5. Fletcher CD, Bridge JA, Hogendoorn P, Mertens F. WHO Classification of Tumours of soft tissue and bone. 4th Ed. IARC. 2013; 33–44.
  6. Собин Л.Х., Господарович М.К., Виттекинд К. TNM: Классификация злокачественных опухолей. 2003; 6: 254.
  7. [Sobin L.Kh., Gospodarovich M.K., Vittekind K. TNM: Klassifikatsiya zlokachestvennykh opukholey. 2003; 6: 254 (in Russian).]
  8. Собин Л.Х., Господарович М.К., Виттекинд К. TNM: Классификация злокачественных опухолей. 2011; 7: 288.
  9. [Sobin L.Kh., Gospodarovich M.K., Vittekind K. TNM: Klassifikatsiya zlokachestvennykh opukholey. 2011; 7: 288 (in Russian).]
  10. Raut CP, Miceli R, Strauss DC et al. External validation of a multi-institutional retroperitoneal sarcoma nomogram. Cancer. 2016;122 (9):1417–24. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29931
  11. Неред С.Н., Стилиди И.С., Клименков А.А. и др. Клинико-морфологические особенности и результаты хирургического лечения забрюшинных неорганных липосарком. Вопр. онкологии. 2012; 58 (1): 94–100.
  12. [Nered S.N., Stilidi I.S., Klimenkov A.A. et al. Kliniko-morfologicheskiye osobennosti i rezul’taty khirurgicheskogo lecheniya zabryushinnykh neorgannykh liposarkom. Voprosy onkologii. 2012; 58 (1): 94–100 (in Russian).]
  13. Matthyssens LE, Creytens D, Ceelen WP. Retroperitoneal liposarcoma: current insights in diagnosis and treatment. Front Surg 2015; 2: 4. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00004
  14. Setsu N, Miyake M, Wakai S et al. Primary Retroperitoneal Myxoid Liposarcomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40 (9): 1286–90. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000657. PMID: 27158758; PMCID: PMC5029446.
  15. Liles JS, Tzeng CWD, Short JJ at al. Retroperitoneal and intra-abdominal sarcoma. Curr Probl Surg 2009; 46 (6): 445–503. doi: 10.1067/j.cpsurg.2009.01.004
  16. Bonvalot S, Rivoire M, Castaing M et al. Primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: a multivariate analysis of surgical factors associated with local control. J Clin Oncol 2009; 1; 27 (1): 31–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.0802. PMID: 19047280.
  17. Strauss DC, Hayes AJ, Thway K et al. Surgical management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma. Br J Surg 2010; 97 (5): 698–706. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6994
  18. Ardoino I, Miceli R, Berselli M et al. Histology-specific nomogram for primary retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer 2010; 116 (10): 2429–36. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25057. PMID: 20209615.
  19. Gronchi A, Miceli R, Shurell E et al. Outcome prediction in primary resected retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: histology-specific overall survival and disease-free survival nomograms built on major sarcoma center data sets. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (13): 1649–55. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.3747
  20. Abbott AM, Habermann EB, Parsons HM et al. Prognosis for primary retroperitoneal sarcoma survivors: a conditional survival analysis. Cancer 2012; 118 (13): 3321–29. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26665
  21. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind Ch. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 8th ed New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.
  22. Волков А.Ю., Неред С.Н., Любченко Л.Н. Забрюшинные неорганные липосаркомы: современный взгляд на проблему. Сиб. онкол. журнал. 2019; 18 (5): 86–96. doi: 10.21294/1814-4861-2019-18-5-86-96
  23. [Volkov A.Yu., Nered S.N., Lyubchenko L.N. Zabryushinnyye neorgannyye liposarkomy: sovremennyy vzglyad na problemu. Sib. onkologicheskiy zhurn. 2019; 18 (5): 86–96. doi: 10.21294/1814-4861-2019-18-5-86-96 (in Russian).]
  24. Antonescu CR, Tschernyavsky SJ, Decuseara R et al. Prognostic impact of P53 status, TLS-CHOP fusion transcript structure, and histological grade in myxoid liposarcoma: a molecular and clinicopathologic study of 82 cases. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7 (12): 3977–87.
  25. Geethamani V, Savithri R, Suguna BV, Niveditha SR. Cytomorphology of dedifferentiated liposarcoma of the subcutis of the upper back with axillary lymph node metastasis: a case report. Acta Cytol 2010; 54: 333–6.
  26. Gritli S, Khamassi K, Lachkhem A et al. Head and neck liposarcomas: a 32 years experience. Auris Nasus Larynx 2010; 37: 347–51.
  27. Schofer MD, Abu-Safieh MY, Paletta J et al. Liposarcoma of the forearm in a man with type 1 neurofibromatosis: a case report. J Med Case Reports 2009; 3: 7071.
  28. Correia de Sá IB, Carvalho J, Silva R et al. Liposarcoma with lymph node spread: a case presentation and a systematic review of the literature. Euro Surg 2015; 47: 94–100.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Fig. 1. The comparison of the overall survival (OS) in patients in accordance with the status of «T» (the 8th edition of the TNM) in case of retroperitoneal non-organ liposarcomas (NRLS) with low grade (G1). The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (9KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 2. The comparison of disease-free survival (DFS) in patients in accordance with the status of «T» (the 8th edition of the TNM) in case of NRLS with low grade (G1). The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (9KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 3. The comparison of the OS in patients suffering from NRLS with high grade (G2-3) and low grade (G1). The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (10KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 4. The comparison of the DFS in patients with NRLS with high grade (G2-3) and low grade (G1). The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (10KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 5. The OS in patients in accordance with the stage of NRLS. The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (10KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 7. The OS in patients in accordance with the extent of surgery and the presence or absence of organ invasion in case of NRLS. The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (12KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 8. The DFS in patients in accordance with the extent of surgery and the presence or absence of organ invasion in case of NRLS. The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (14KB)
Indexing metadata
9. Fig. 9. The comparison of the OS in patients in accordance with the proposed «T» status in case of NSLS with low grade (G1). The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (10KB)
Indexing metadata
10. Fig. 10. The comparison of the DFS in patients in accordance with the proposed «T» status in case of NSLS with low grade (G1). The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (12KB)
Indexing metadata
11. Fig. 11. The comparison of the OS in patients in accordance with the proposed «T» status in case of NSLS with high grade. The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (10KB)
Indexing metadata
12. Fig. 12. The comparison of the DFS in patients in accordance with the proposed «T» status in case of NSLS with high grade. The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (9KB)
Indexing metadata
13. Fig. 13. The OS in patients in accordance with the proposed TNM classification of NRLS. The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (15KB)
Indexing metadata
14. Fig. 14. The DFS in patients in accordance with the proposed TNM classification of NRLS. The Kaplan–Meier method.

Download (16KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2020 Consilium Medicum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
 


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies