Desmoid tumor (DT; other synonymously used terms: Desmoid-type fibromatosis, aggressive fibromatosis) is a rare and locally aggressive monoclonal, fibroblastic proliferation characterised by a variable and often unpredictable clinical course. Previously surgery was the standard primary treatment modality; however, in recent years a paradigm shift towards a more conservative management has been introduced and an effort to harmonise the strategy amongst clinicians has been made. We present herein an evidence-based, joint global consensus guideline approach to the management of this disease focussing on: molecular genetics, indications for an active treatment, and available systemic therapeutic options. This paper follows a one-day consensus meeting held in Milan, Italy, in June 2018 under the auspices of the European Reference Network for rare solid adult cancers, EURACAN, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) as well as Sarcoma Patients Euro-Net (SPAEN) and The Desmoid tumour Research Foundation (DTRF). The meeting brought

No abstract

PURPOSE To determine whether the administration of histology-tailored neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HT) was superior to the administration of standard anthracycline plus ifosfamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy (A+I) in high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of an extremity or the trunk wall. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Patients had localized high-risk STS (grade 3; size, ≥ 5 cm) of an extremity or trunk wall, belonging to one of the following five histologic subtypes: high-grade myxoid liposarcoma (HG-MLPS); leiomyosarcoma (LMS), synovial sarcoma (SS), malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST), and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive three cycles of A+I or HT. The HT regimens were as follows: trabectedin in HG-MLPS; gemcitabine plus dacarbazine in LMS; high-dose prolonged-infusion ifosfamide in SS; etoposide plus ifosfamide in MPNST; and gemcitabine plus docetaxel in UPS. Primary and secondary end points were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using Cox models adjusted for treatment and stratification factors. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01710176 ). RESULTS Between May 2011 and May 2016, 287 patients (UPS: n = 97 [33.8%]; HG-MLPS: n = 65 [22.6%]; SS: n = 70 [24.4%]; MPNST: n = 27 [9.4%]; and LMS: n = 28 [9.8%]) were randomly assigned to either A+I or HT. At the final analysis, with a median follow-up of 52 months, the projected DFS and OS probabilities were 0.55 and 0.47 (log-rank P = .323) and 0.76 and 0.66 (log-rank P = .018) at 60 months in the A+I arm and HT arm, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were observed. CONCLUSION In a population of patients with localized high-risk STS, HT was not associated with a better DFS or OS, suggesting that A+I should remain the regimen to choose whenever neoadjuvant chemotherapy is used in patients with high-risk STS.

Tumor size and surgical margins affected outcome only on initial presentation. However, wide surgery was feasible in a minority of cases. Most patients died of local-regional disease even when metastases occurred. Indeed, long-term prognosis was such that disease-free survival at 10 years was only 26%.

No abstract