Leiomyosarcoma: investigation of prognostic factors for risk-stratification model

Hyun Ju Kim, Yong Jin Cho, Soo Hee Kim, Sun Young Rha, Joong Bae Ahn, Woo Ick Yang, Young Han Lee, Jin Suck Suh, Jae Kyung Roh, Kyung Sik Kim, Young Deuk Choi, Kyoo Ho Shin, Hyo Song Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1226-1232
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Clinical Oncology
Volume20
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Dec 1

Fingerprint

Leiomyosarcoma
Thoracic Cavity
Survival
Pelvis
Abdomen
Histology
Neck
Extremities
Head
Neoplasms

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Hematology
  • Oncology

Cite this

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. / Leiomyosarcoma : investigation of prognostic factors for risk-stratification model. In: International Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015 ; Vol. 20, No. 6. pp. 1226-1232.
@article{c548a32b91774c6d9fbd5b5e9b0b2628,
title = "Leiomyosarcoma: investigation of prognostic factors for risk-stratification model",
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.",
author = "Kim, {Hyun Ju} and Cho, {Yong Jin} and Kim, {Soo Hee} and Rha, {Sun Young} and Ahn, {Joong Bae} and Yang, {Woo Ick} and Lee, {Young Han} and Suh, {Jin Suck} and Roh, {Jae Kyung} and Kim, {Kyung Sik} and Choi, {Young Deuk} and Shin, {Kyoo Ho} and Kim, {Hyo Song}",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10147-015-0847-y",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "1226--1232",
journal = "International Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "1341-9625",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "6",

}

Kim, HJ, Cho, YJ, Kim, SH, Rha, SY, Ahn, JB, Yang, WI, Lee, YH, Suh, JS, Roh, JK, Kim, KS, Choi, YD, Shin, KH & Kim, HS 2015, 'Leiomyosarcoma: investigation of prognostic factors for risk-stratification model', International Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1226-1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0847-y

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 journalArticle

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 -