Abstract
Background: We performed this study to define distinctive clinical features of leiomyosarcoma by assessing prognostic factors. Methods: Between 1988 and 2011, 129 leiomyosarcoma patients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Of the 129 leiomyosarcoma patients, the distribution of anatomic locations was: extremity (n = 25), pelvis (n = 40), thoracic cavity (n = 11), intra-abdomen (n = 19), retroperitoneum (n = 23), and head/neck (n = 11). We classified the anatomic locations into two categories as abdominal (intra-abdomen and retroperitoneum, n = 42) and extra-abdominal (extremity, pelvis, thoracic cavity, and head/neck, n = 87). Prognosis was worse for the abdominal group than for the extra-abdominal group (median DFS 2.9 9.0 years, P = 0.04). Similarly, overall survival (OS) was also significantly worse for abdominal group (P = 0.027). Independent prognostic factors for survival were primary site (P = 0.041, hazard ratio (HR) 1.7; 95 % CI 1.2–2.8), tumor size (P = 0.038, HR 1.9; 95 % CI 1.13–3.38), margin status (P = 0.019, HR 2.1; 95 % CI 1.13–3.88), and histology grade (P = 0.01, HR 3.59; 95 % CI 1.64–7.87). We identified four different risk groups with different survival outcome: group 1 (n = 8), no adverse factors; groups 2 (n = 37) and 3 (n = 61) with one and two adverse factors, and group 4 (n = 23) with 3 or 4 adverse factors. Conclusion: Primary site, tumor size, resection margin, and histology subtype were independently associated with survival outcome. A prognostic model for leiomyosarcoma patients revealed four distinct groups of patients with good prognostic discrimination.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1226-1232 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | International Journal of Clinical Oncology |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 Dec 1 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Surgery
- Hematology
- Oncology
Cite this
}
Leiomyosarcoma : investigation of prognostic factors for risk-stratification model. / Kim, Hyun Ju; Cho, Yong Jin; Kim, Soo Hee; Rha, Sun Young; Ahn, Joong Bae; Yang, Woo Ick; Lee, Young Han; Suh, Jin Suck; Roh, Jae Kyung; Kim, Kyung Sik; Choi, Young Deuk; Shin, Kyoo Ho; Kim, Hyo Song.
In: International Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 20, No. 6, 01.12.2015, p. 1226-1232.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Leiomyosarcoma
T2 - investigation of prognostic factors for risk-stratification model
AU - Kim, Hyun Ju
AU - Cho, Yong Jin
AU - Kim, Soo Hee
AU - Rha, Sun Young
AU - Ahn, Joong Bae
AU - Yang, Woo Ick
AU - Lee, Young Han
AU - Suh, Jin Suck
AU - Roh, Jae Kyung
AU - Kim, Kyung Sik
AU - Choi, Young Deuk
AU - Shin, Kyoo Ho
AU - Kim, Hyo Song
PY - 2015/12/1
Y1 - 2015/12/1
N2 - Background: We performed this study to define distinctive clinical features of leiomyosarcoma by assessing prognostic factors. Methods: Between 1988 and 2011, 129 leiomyosarcoma patients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Of the 129 leiomyosarcoma patients, the distribution of anatomic locations was: extremity (n = 25), pelvis (n = 40), thoracic cavity (n = 11), intra-abdomen (n = 19), retroperitoneum (n = 23), and head/neck (n = 11). We classified the anatomic locations into two categories as abdominal (intra-abdomen and retroperitoneum, n = 42) and extra-abdominal (extremity, pelvis, thoracic cavity, and head/neck, n = 87). Prognosis was worse for the abdominal group than for the extra-abdominal group (median DFS 2.9 9.0 years, P = 0.04). Similarly, overall survival (OS) was also significantly worse for abdominal group (P = 0.027). Independent prognostic factors for survival were primary site (P = 0.041, hazard ratio (HR) 1.7; 95 % CI 1.2–2.8), tumor size (P = 0.038, HR 1.9; 95 % CI 1.13–3.38), margin status (P = 0.019, HR 2.1; 95 % CI 1.13–3.88), and histology grade (P = 0.01, HR 3.59; 95 % CI 1.64–7.87). We identified four different risk groups with different survival outcome: group 1 (n = 8), no adverse factors; groups 2 (n = 37) and 3 (n = 61) with one and two adverse factors, and group 4 (n = 23) with 3 or 4 adverse factors. Conclusion: Primary site, tumor size, resection margin, and histology subtype were independently associated with survival outcome. A prognostic model for leiomyosarcoma patients revealed four distinct groups of patients with good prognostic discrimination.
AB - Background: We performed this study to define distinctive clinical features of leiomyosarcoma by assessing prognostic factors. Methods: Between 1988 and 2011, 129 leiomyosarcoma patients who underwent surgical resection with curative intent were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Of the 129 leiomyosarcoma patients, the distribution of anatomic locations was: extremity (n = 25), pelvis (n = 40), thoracic cavity (n = 11), intra-abdomen (n = 19), retroperitoneum (n = 23), and head/neck (n = 11). We classified the anatomic locations into two categories as abdominal (intra-abdomen and retroperitoneum, n = 42) and extra-abdominal (extremity, pelvis, thoracic cavity, and head/neck, n = 87). Prognosis was worse for the abdominal group than for the extra-abdominal group (median DFS 2.9 9.0 years, P = 0.04). Similarly, overall survival (OS) was also significantly worse for abdominal group (P = 0.027). Independent prognostic factors for survival were primary site (P = 0.041, hazard ratio (HR) 1.7; 95 % CI 1.2–2.8), tumor size (P = 0.038, HR 1.9; 95 % CI 1.13–3.38), margin status (P = 0.019, HR 2.1; 95 % CI 1.13–3.88), and histology grade (P = 0.01, HR 3.59; 95 % CI 1.64–7.87). We identified four different risk groups with different survival outcome: group 1 (n = 8), no adverse factors; groups 2 (n = 37) and 3 (n = 61) with one and two adverse factors, and group 4 (n = 23) with 3 or 4 adverse factors. Conclusion: Primary site, tumor size, resection margin, and histology subtype were independently associated with survival outcome. A prognostic model for leiomyosarcoma patients revealed four distinct groups of patients with good prognostic discrimination.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948713500&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84948713500&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10147-015-0847-y
DO - 10.1007/s10147-015-0847-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 26123311
AN - SCOPUS:84948713500
VL - 20
SP - 1226
EP - 1232
JO - International Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - International Journal of Clinical Oncology
SN - 1341-9625
IS - 6
ER -