| 1. |
- Bagaria, Sanjay P., et al.
(author)
-
Morbidity and Outcomes After Distal Pancreatectomy for Primary Retroperitoneal Sarcoma : An Analysis by the Trans-Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group
- 2021
-
In: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681. ; 28:11, s. 6882-6889
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Multi-visceral resection often is used in the treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). The morbidity after distal pancreatectomy for primary pancreatic cancer is well-documented, but the outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS are not. This study aimed to evaluate morbidity and oncologic outcomes after distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS. Methods: In this study, 26 sarcoma centers that are members of the Trans-Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) retrospectively identified consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS from 2008 to 2017. The outcomes measured were 90-day severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rate, and oncologic outcomes. Results: Between 2008 and 2017, 280 patients underwent distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS. The median tumor size was 25 cm, and the median number of organs resected, including the pancreas, was three. In 96% of the operations, R0/R1 resection was achieved. The 90-day severe complication rate was 40 %. The grades B and C POPF complication rates were respectively 19% and 5% and not associated with worse overall survival. Administration of preoperative radiation and factors to mitigate POPF did not have an impact on the risk for the development of a POPF. The RPS invaded the pancreas in 38% of the patients, and local recurrence was doubled for the patients who had a microscopic, positive pancreas margin (hazard ratio, 2.0; p = 0.042). Conclusion: Distal pancreatectomy for primary RPS has acceptable morbidity and oncologic outcomes and is a reasonable approach to facilitate complete tumor resection.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Forni, Claudia, et al.
(author)
-
Trabectedin (ET-743) promotes differentiation in myxoid liposarcoma tumors.
- 2009
-
In: Molecular cancer therapeutics. - 1535-7163. ; 8:2, s. 449-57
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Differentiation is a complex set of events that can be blocked by rearrangements of regulatory genes producing fusion proteins with altered properties. In the case of myxoid liposarcoma (MLS) tumors, the causative abnormality is a fusion between the CHOP transcription factor and the FUS or EWS genes. CHOP belongs to and is a negative regulator of the large CAAT/enhancer binding protein family whose alpha, beta, and delta members are master genes of adipogenesis. Recent clinical data indicate a peculiar sensitivity of these tumors to the natural marine compound trabectedin. One hypothesis is that the activity of trabectedin is related to the inactivation of the FUS-CHOP oncogene. We find that trabectedin causes detachment of the FUS-CHOP chimera from targeted promoters. Reverse transcription-PCR and chromatin immunoprecipitation analysis in a MLS line and surgical specimens of MLS patients in vivo show activation of the CAAT/enhancer binding protein-mediated transcriptional program that leads to morphologic changes of terminal adipogenesis. The activity is observed in cells with type 1 but not type 8 fusions. Hence, the drug induces maturation of MLS lipoblasts in vivo by targeting the FUS-CHOP-mediated transcriptional block. These data provide a rationale for the specific activity of trabectedin and open the perspective of combinatorial treatments with drugs acting on lipogenic pathways.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kasper, Bernd, et al.
(author)
-
Working to improve the management of sarcoma patients across Europe : A policy checklist
- 2018
-
In: BMC Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2407. ; 18:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients. Main body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources. Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level.
|
|
