| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Contact Us |  
top_img
Radiation Oncology Journal > Volume 29(4); 2011 > Article
Lee, Song, Kwon, Yook, Kim, Han, Kim, Ahn, Chang, Ahn, Jwa, Lee, Kim, Choi, Shin, and Ahn: Treatment outcome of postoperative radiotherapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the treatment outcome and prognostic factor after postoperative radiotherapy in retroperitoneal sarcoma.

Materials and Methods

Forty patients were treated with surgical resection and postoperative radiotherapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma from August 1990 to August 2008. Treatment volume was judged by the location of initial tumor and surgical field, and 45-50 Gy of radiation was basically delivered and additional dose was considered to the high-risk area.

Results

The median follow-up period was 41.4 months (range, 3.9 to 140.6 months). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 51.8% and disease free survival was 31.5%. The 5-year locoregional recurrence free survival was 61.9% and distant metastasis free survival was 50.6%. In univariate analysis, histologic type (p = 0.006) was the strongest prognostic factor for the OS and histologic grade (p = 0.044) or resection margin (p = 0.032) had also effect on the OS. Histologic type (p = 0.004) was unique significant prognostic factor for the actuarial local control.

Conclusion

Retroperitoneal sarcoma still remains as a poor prognostic disease despite the combined modality treatment including surgery and postoperative radiotherapy. Selective dose-escalation of radiotherapy or combination of effective chemotherapeutic agent must be considered to improve the treatment result especially for the histopathologic type showing poor prognosis.

Introduction

Retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is a rare tumor with approximately 5 to 15% of entire soft tissue sarcomas [1,2]. Diagnosis on many RPS are delayed due to absence of specific early subjective symptom, thus patients visit the hospital mainly complaining abdominal pain or dyspepsia as the enlarged tumor compresses adjacent organs [3]. For this reason, many cases found in more than half of patients with RPS larger than 10 cm at the time of diagnosis but with rare distant metastasis [4,5]. The most effective treatment for RPS known so far is a surgical resection [6-9]. It has been known that complete resection of RPS having sufficient resection margin through radical excision or en bloc resection can improve survival rate [2,3,10,11]. However RPS present difficulties in their complete resections because of the large tumor mass and the complexity of the anatomy where the tumor is located as major organs as well as blood vessels and nerves are distributed inside such as kidney, urinary tract, adrenal gland, small intestines. According to some reports, the complete resection requires also resection of more than one organ approximately in 70 to 90% of patients [3,11,12]. Moreover, even if the surgical resection is to be performed, the prognosis would be poor with 5-year local control rate with the range of 40 to 71% and 5-year survival rate as being 51 to 60% [10,13,14].
For RPS, the death from local recurrence is more prevalent than that from distant metastasis therefore, it is important to decrease local recurrences [5,7,13]. As one of efforts to reduce the local recurrences, the preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy are being tried and some retrospective studies had reported on the local control effects of radiotherapy [4-6]. But their effectiveness is controversial. Thereby the radiotherapy is still being performed in some patients only. Therefore we had conducted the retrospectively analysis on local control rate, survival rate as well as prognostic factors of the patients with RPS, who underwent the postoperative radiotherapy in order to identify on the role of radiotherapy in treating RPS.

Materials and Methods

Forty patients with RPS underwent the postoperative radiotherapy after complete resection between August 1990 and August 2008. The criteria of study subjects inclusion is as follows: 1) patients whose ages were ≥20 years old when diagnoses were made, 2) patient underwent complete resection, 3) patients with no distant metastasis at the time diagnoses were made, 4) patients received the postoperative radiotherapy with dose ≥30 Gy, and 5) patients who had been followed-up over 1 year as out-patient. Other than aforementioned patients, those with gastrointestinal stromal tumor or those with leiomyosarcoma in uterus were excluded. The histological grades were classified into the low grade and the high grade. The size of tumor was defined using the longer diameter of tumor on the axial images taken from the examination with abdominal computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
The postoperative radiotherapy was performed as 3-dimensional computerized dosimetry by mainly using 15 MV X-ray. Depending on the resection margins, when the complete resection was achieved, the radiotherapy was performed with total dose from 45 to 50 Gy at 1.8 Gy daily for 5 times a week. When the complete resection was not achieved, the additional radiotherapy was performed at 1.8-2 Gy daily for 5 to 10 times on the area suspected for any remaining tumor.
Gross target volume was defined with either the remaining postoperative mass or the surgical resection margins referring to the preoperative imaging examination whereas clinical target volume was defined with either redundancy of 3-5 cm at the resection range of tumor or with consideration of anatomical risky areas, and except any special cases, the regional lymph nodes were deliberately excluded. Planning target volume was defined by adding 1-1.5 cm to clinical target volume.
Local recurrence was defined as the case of recurrence within the region surgically dissected or the region treated by radiation. In addition, all of recurrences outside the radiation field including retroperitoneal recurrence or abdominal recurrence were considered as distant metastases.
The survival period was defined as from the day of surgery to the date of death or the date of final follow-up observation, and the disease-free survival period was defined as from the day of surgery to the date of initial local or distant recurrence. Kaplan-Meier method was used for analysis of survival rates and Cox Proportional Hazards Model was used for significance verification and prognostic factor assessment. For statistical processing, the study had used SPSS ver. 12 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) program, with significance level defined within 0.05. The prognostic factors of tumor had included gender, location and size of tumor, histological grades, histological subtypes, surgical resection margins, radiotherapy timing, volume of irradiation dose, and chemotherapy.

Results

The follow-up period of all patients was ranged from 3.9 to 140.6 months (median, 41.4 months). The most common histological subtype diagnosed was liposarcoma as being found from 40% of the entire patients followed by leiomyosarcoma (27.5%) and malignant fibrous histiocytoma (17.5%). Seven patients had received the radiotherapy after surgical resection of locally recurred tumor. Any other clinical features of patients are as shown in Table 1.
Among 12 patients who underwent the chemotherapy, 3 patients had received the chemotherapy after undergoing the radiotherapy while 9 patients had received the chemotherapy for 3 to 6 times before undergoing the radiotherapy. The median radiotherapy period was 44.5 days (range, 29 to 55 days) and the median of total irradiation dose was 55.9 Gy (range, 36.0 to 65.0 Gy).
Nineteen patients (47.5%) were alive at the time when analysis had been performed and 14 patients of them (35%) were with the absence of metastatic disease. Twenty-one patients (52.5%) had died, and among them 16 patients (42.0%) had died of the recurrence of disease. Five-year survival rate of all patients was 51.8%, while 5-year disease free survival was 31.5% (Fig. 1).
Local recurrences were found from 11 patients (27.5%) in total within the period range from day of surgery to the onset of local recurrence as 3.5 to 58.4 months (median, 14.2 months). Distant metastases were found from 21 patients (52.5%) with the period range from the day of surgery to the onset of distant metastasis as 3.5 to 89.6 months (median, 15.5 months). Five-year local control rate and 5-year distant metastasis free survival rate were 61.9% and 50.6%, respectively. Five patients had been found with local recurrence only, 15 patients were found with distant metastasis only, and 6 patients were found with both of local recurrence and distant metastasis. Among 6 patients who had both of local recurrence and distant metastasis, 1 patient had been found with onset of local recurrence after 18.3 months of distant metastasis while 1 patient had been found the onset of distant metastasis after 7.9 months of local recurrence. Remaining 4 patients were found with distant metastasis diagnosed together with onset of local recurrence. The radiation fields of 11 patients with local recurrences were reviewed. Seven of them had the recurrence inside the radiation field whereas 3 of them had the recurrences at adjacent area of the radiation field. One of them had the local recurrence inside the surgery margin but it was external area of the radiation field. The clinical features of these patients are as shown in Table 2. Among 21 patients to whom distant metastasis had diagnosed, 8 patients had retroperitoneal and abdominal cavity metastases outside radiation field and resection site, 7 patients had pulmonary metastases, 4 patients had hepatic metastases, 3 patients had shown metastases to abdominal organs except the liver, and 2 patients had shown metastases to femur. Among these, 3 patients had been found with distant metastases to more than 2 sites.
The results of a univariate analysis on prognostic factors had shown that histological grades (p = 0.044), histological subtypes (p = 0.006) (Fig. 2A), and the resection margin (p = 0.032) were the factors having significant effects on survival rates. The low-grade sarcomas had shown better prognosis compared to the high-grade sarcomas or the tumors with grades unidentifiable. Liposarcoma also had shown better prognosis compared to other histological subtypes. On the contrary, the results presented that malignant fibrous histiocytoma decreased the survival rates with statistical significance (p = 0.001). Histological subtypes (p = 0.004) (Fig. 2B) was identified as the factor having significant effects on the local control rates. Likewise with the prognostic factors of survival rates, liposarcoma was identified as the factor improving the local control whereas malignant fibrous histiocytoma was identified as the factor raising the local recurrence (p = 0.002). The resection margin had shown a tendency of factor that had effects on the local control rates (p = 0.051) (Table 3). Histological grades (p = 0.006), histological subtypes (p = 0.009) (Fig. 2C) were identified as the prognostic factors for distant metastasis.

Discussion and Conclusion

Two prospective studies had verified the local control effects of radiotherapy on the extremity sarcomas which is the most common type of soft tissue sarcomas [15,16]. Nonetheless, the radiotherapy in RPS is still subjected to debates. But, from various retrospective studies, its role had reported on the rising of local control rates through the preoperative radiotherapy and postoperative radiotherapy [4-6,8,9,11]. Converse to the extremity soft tissue sarcomas, in which the presence of distant metastasis has the largest effects on the survival rates [17], in RPS in which the local failure had been closely related to the survival rates [5,7,18], the rising of local control rates can make it possible to expect the improving of the survival rates [5,11,19]. However, it should be noted that there are also a lot of skeptical opinions on the radiotherapy. The underlying cause of such skeptical opinions is that there have been no prospective study available up to now and it is very rare practically to see that the improving of local control by the radiotherapy had been led to the rising of survival rates [5,6,9]. The fact that radiotherapy is being performed in approximately 20-30% of all patients who underwent the surgical resection indicates that such opinions are really existing substantially [5,8,12,20,21]. In such setting, those studies reported the results of radiotherapy were conducted in rather small sample population around 37 to 86 patients [2,13,14,22,23]. Five-year local control rates of them were in the range of 40-71%, presenting similar levels to the results of this study (Table 4).
This study was conducted only in the patients who underwent the postoperative radiotherapy. Currently there is no optimal time of radiotherapy for RPS but the postoperative radiotherapy is being performed in more than half of patients [5,13,20,21,24]. The postoperative radiotherapy is widely used for its advantages that it does not delay the surgery, and it can provide selective treatment in the high risk group depending on the biopsy results or when the complete resection is failed [25]. Therefore, it is performed mainly in the cases of high grades, incomplete resection or that could not obtain sufficient resection margin [8,19]. However, according to the study report of Zhou et al. [8], the radiotherapy was performed mainly American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage II and III whereas the local control effects of radiotherapy was presented significantly from patients of stage I only. Tseng et al. [20] also had reported that the local control effects of radiotherapy had been presented more notably from the medium grade than the high grade, indicating further studies are required on the patient group who responded to the radiotherapy effectively. The preoperative radiotherapy is more advantageous as it can more clearly define the treatment region than the postoperative treatment and as the tumor pushed small intestine out to peripheral sides so that gastrointestinal complication during the radiotherapy can be minimized [26,27]. Also, it can reduce the size of tumor before surgery enabling the complete resection so as to raise the local control rates [19]. In fact, according to the study of Ballo et al. [2], 33 patients had received the postoperative radiotherapy among 83 patients who had received both of surgery and radiotherapy, and 5 (23%) of those 33 patients had onset of gastrointestinal complications, whereas no complications had incurred in 50 patients who had received the preoperative radiotherapy, reporting that there was no difference in the local control rates between two treatment groups. Zlotecki et al. [22] also reported that among those patients who has undergone both surgery and radiotherapy, 15 patients had received the postoperative radiotherapy and 7 (47%) of them were identified with local recurrence whereas 4 (16%) were identified with local recurrence out of 25 patients who had received the preoperative radiotherapy, implicating the effects of preoperative radiotherapy in improving the local control. However the most studies were included in small sample sizes, therefore further studies would be required for identified the effective radiotherapy timing.
The radiation dose being used in the RPS is approximately 40 to 50 Gy (Table 4). In case of the extremity soft tissue sarcomas, it is recommended to perform the initial radiotherapy dose range between 40-50 Gy, and then perform additional radiotherapy dose range between 16-20 Gy after reducing the radiation field [28]. However, RPS is practically difficult to irradiate over 60 Gy, taken the potential complications at the surrounding major organs such as stomach, kidney, and small intestine into consideration [2]. In particular, because the small intestine is dislocated when performing the postoperative radiotherapy, the complication rates get even higher. Nevertheless, some studies report that it is possible to expect higher the radiation dose is raised the local control rates. Fein et al. [29] reported 2 (25%) of 8 patients who had received the radiotherapy with dose >55.2 Gy were identified with local recurrence whereas 5 (38%) of 13 patients who had received the radiotherapy with dose ≤55.2 Gy were identified with local recurrence. With this report they recommend the radiation dose ≥55.2 Gy. Tzeng et al. [30] also had performed the preoperative radiotherapy in 16 patients with radiation dose up to 57.5 Gy by intensity modulated radiation therapy, which had resulted in comparatively good outcome with the 2-year local control rate of 80%, thereby it would be required to have further study on optimal radiation dose.
Some institutions perform the intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT) to increase the radiation dose while to minimize the radiation dose of small intestine. Sindelar et al. [31] had compared the local control rates between 15 patients who had received IORT (20 Gy) combined with the external-beam radiation therapy (35-40 Gy) and 20 patients who only received the external-beam radiation therapy (35-40 Gy + 15 Gy). They reported the differences in the date of local recurrence free survival that those patients who underwent IORT was >127 months while those who did not undergo IORT was 8 months. Also Gieschen et al. [23] had performed the preoperative radiotherapy at dose range of 45-50 Gy in 37 patients, thereafter performed IORT only in 20 patients. They has shown better results by presenting the local control rates as 83.3% and the overall survival rate as 74.4% in patients who received IORT among those underwent the complete resection, in comparison to the patients who did not receive IORT (Local control rates, 60.6%; Overall survival rate, 30%). However, with additional IORT, it shows tendency that gastrointestinal complications are reduced but urological and neurological adverse effects are increased [23,31]. Therefore, there should be sufficient further studies on those adverse effects for additional IORT.
In this study, the margins of surgical resection, histological grades and subtypes were identified as the prognostic factors that have effects on the survival rates and the local control rates. Many studies had already reported that these three factors are related with the prognosis [4-7,11,13,22]. Among them, it was identified that liposarcoma as the most commonly encountered histological subtype of RPS has better prognosis in comparison to other histological subtypes from several studies [3,5,6,20]. Liposarcoma is characterized with more frequent local recurrences but with rare incidences of distant metastasis [7,18]. The reason for good survival rates in spite of frequent local recurrences is considered as that it is possible to increase the survival rates by the salvage surgery after recurrence [32]. Leiomyosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma have poorer prognosis compared to liposarcoma, having higher prevalence of distant metastasis than local recurrence [3,11]. In this study, the malignant fibrous histiocytoma had shown very poor prognosis both in the local recurrence and the survival rates. It might be possible to find the underlying cause of such poor prognosis through reports saying the malignant fibrous histiocytoma is a dedifferentiated or undifferentiated liposarcoma [33,34].
From the results of this study, even the surgical resection and the adjuvant radiotherapy could not bring satisfactory treatment outcomes in connection to the survival rates as well as the local control rates for the RPS. The study also indicates that further studies would be required to identify methods of increasing the radiation dose selectively for the histological subtypes with low local control rates and survival rates and also on effective combination with chemotherapy.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant (2009-472) from the Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul, Korea.

Notes

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

1. Clark JA, Tepper JE. Role of radiation therapy in retroperitoneal sarcomas. Oncology (Williston Park) 1996;10:1867–1872, PMID: 8985970.
pmid
2. Ballo MT, Zagars GK, Pollock RE, et al. Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: an analysis of radiation and surgical treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;67:158–163, PMID: 17084545.
crossref pmid
3. Hassan I, Park SZ, Donohue JH, et al. Operative management of primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: a reappraisal of an institutional experience. Ann Surg 2004;239:244–250, PMID: 14745333.
crossref pmid pmc
4. Stoeckle E, Coindre JM, Bonvalot S, et al. Prognostic factors in retroperitoneal sarcoma: a multivariate analysis of a series of 165 patients of the French Cancer Center Federation Sarcoma Group. Cancer 2001;92:359–368, PMID: 11466691.
crossref pmid
5. Sampath S, Hitchcock YJ, Shrieve DC, Randall RL, Schultheiss TE, Wong JY. Radiotherapy and extent of surgical resection in retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma: multi-institutional analysis of 261 patients. J Surg Oncol 2010;101:345–350, PMID: 20119974.
crossref pmid
6. Heslin MJ, Lewis JJ, Nadler E, et al. Prognostic factors associated with long-term survival for retroperitoneal sarcoma: implications for management. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2832–2839, PMID: 9256126.
crossref pmid
7. Lewis JJ, Leung D, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma: analysis of 500 patients treated and followed at a single institution. Ann Surg 1998;228:355–365, PMID: 9742918.
crossref pmid pmc
8. Zhou Z, McDade TP, Simons JP, et al. Surgery and radiotherapy for retroperitoneal and abdominal sarcoma: both necessary and sufficient. Arch Surg 2010;145:426–431, PMID: 20479339.
crossref pmid
9. Catton CN, O'Sullivan B, Kotwall C, Cummings B, Hao Y, Fornasier V. Outcome and prognosis in retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994;29:1005–1010, PMID: 8083069.
crossref pmid
10. Ferrario T, Karakousis CP. Retroperitoneal sarcomas: grade and survival. Arch Surg 2003;138:248–251, PMID: 12611567.
crossref pmid
11. Gronchi A, Lo Vullo S, Fiore M, et al. Aggressive surgical policies in a retrospectively reviewed single-institution case series of retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma patients. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:24–30, PMID: 19047283.
crossref pmid
12. Bonvalot S, Miceli R, Berselli M, et al. Aggressive surgery in retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma carried out at high-volume centers is safe and is associated with improved local control. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:1507–1514, PMID: 20393803.
crossref pmid
13. Youssef E, Fontanesi J, Mott M, et al. Long-term outcome of combined modality therapy in retroperitoneal and deep-trunk soft-tissue sarcoma: analysis of prognostic factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;54:514–519, PMID: 12243830.
crossref pmid
14. Gilbeau L, Kantor G, Stoeckle E, et al. Surgical resection and radiotherapy for primary retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Radiother Oncol 2002;65:137–143, PMID: 12464441.
crossref pmid
15. Pisters PW, Harrison LB, Leung DH, Woodruff JM, Casper ES, Brennan MF. Long-term results of a prospective randomized trial of adjuvant brachytherapy in soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:859–868, PMID: 8622034.
crossref pmid
16. Yang JC, Chang AE, Baker AR, et al. Randomized prospective study of the benefit of adjuvant radiation therapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:197–203, PMID: 9440743.
crossref pmid
17. Wunder JS, Healey JH, Davis AM, Brennan MF. A comparison of staging systems for localized extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer 2000;88:2721–2730, PMID: 10870054.
crossref pmid
18. Gronchi A, Casali PG, Fiore M, et al. Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas: patterns of recurrence in 167 patients treated at a single institution. Cancer 2004;100:2448–2455, PMID: 15160351.
crossref pmid
19. Van De Voorde L, Delrue L, van Eijkeren M, De Meerleer G. Radiotherapy and surgery-an indispensable duo in the treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma. Cancer 2011;117:4355–4364, PMID: 21446048.
crossref pmid
20. Tseng WH, Martinez SR, Do L, Tamurian RM, Borys D, Canter RJ. Lack of survival benefit following adjuvant radiation in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma: a SEER analysis. J Surg Res 2011;168:e173–e180, PMID: 21470630.
crossref pmid
21. Porter GA, Baxter NN, Pisters PW. Retroperitoneal sarcoma: a population-based analysis of epidemiology, surgery, and radiotherapy. Cancer 2006;106:1610–1616, PMID: 16518798.
crossref pmid
22. Zlotecki RA, Katz TS, Morris CG, Lind DS, Hochwald SN. Adjuvant radiation therapy for resectable retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: the University of Florida experience. Am J Clin Oncol 2005;28:310–316, PMID: 15923806.
crossref pmid
23. Gieschen HL, Spiro IJ, Suit HD, et al. Long-term results of intraoperative electron beam radiotherapy for primary and recurrent retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;50:127–131, PMID: 11316555.
crossref pmid
24. Jang NY, Kim IH, Choi JH, Park CI. Postoperative external beam radiotherapy for retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. J Korean Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 2008;26:135–141.
crossref
25. Strander H, Turesson I, Cavallin-Stahl E. A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in soft tissue sarcomas. Acta Oncol 2003;42:516–531, PMID: 14596510.
crossref pmid
26. Jones JJ, Catton CN, O'Sullivan B, et al. Initial results of a trial of preoperative external-beam radiation therapy and postoperative brachytherapy for retroperitoneal sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:346–354, PMID: 11986186.
crossref pmid
27. Pawlik TM, Pisters PW, Mikula L, et al. Long-term results of two prospective trials of preoperative external beam radiotherapy for localized intermediate- or high-grade retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:508–517, PMID: 16491338.
crossref pmid
28. Davis AM, O'Sullivan B, Turcotte R, et al. Late radiation morbidity following randomization to preoperative versus postoperative radiotherapy in extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Radiother Oncol 2005;75:48–53, PMID: 15948265.
crossref pmid
29. Fein DA, Corn BW, Lanciano RM, Herbert SH, Hoffman JP, Coia LR. Management of retroperitoneal sarcomas: does dose escalation impact on locoregional control? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;31:129–134, PMID: 7995743.
crossref pmid
30. Tzeng CW, Fiveash JB, Popple RA, et al. Preoperative radiation therapy with selective dose escalation to the margin at risk for retroperitoneal sarcoma. Cancer 2006;107:371–379, PMID: 16752414.
crossref pmid
31. Sindelar WF, Kinsella TJ, Chen PW, et al. Intraoperative radiotherapy in retroperitoneal sarcomas: final results of a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Arch Surg 1993;128:402–410, PMID: 8457152.
crossref pmid
32. van Dalen T, Hoekstra HJ, van Geel AN, et al. Locoregional recurrence of retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: second chance of cure for selected patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2001;27:564–568, PMID: 11520090.
crossref pmid
33. Coindre JM, Mariani O, Chibon F, et al. Most malignant fibrous histiocytomas developed in the retroperitoneum are dedifferentiated liposarcomas: a review of 25 cases initially diagnosed as malignant fibrous histiocytoma. Mod Pathol 2003;16:256–262, PMID: 12640106.
crossref pmid
34. Meis JM. "Dedifferentiation" in bone and soft-tissue tumors: a histological indicator of tumor progression. Pathol Annu 1991;26 Pt 1:37–62, PMID: 2014144.
pmid
Fig. 1
Kaplan-Meier estimates of disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).
roj-29-260-g001.jpg
Fig. 2
Survival rates according to histologic type. (A) Overall survival rate according to histologic type. (B) Local recurrence free survival rate according to histologic type. (C) Distant metastasis free survival rate according to histologic type. MFH, malignant fibrous histiocytoma.
roj-29-260-g002.jpg
Table 1
Patient, disease, and treatment characteristics (n = 40)
roj-29-260-i001.jpg
Table 2
Characteristics of recurrent patient
roj-29-260-i002.jpg

RM, resection margin; RT, radiotherapy; LR, local recurrence; LRFS, local recurrence free survival; MFH, malignant fibrous histiocytoma.

Table 3
Univariate analysis for actuarial survival and locoregional recurrence (n = 40)
roj-29-260-i003.jpg

OS, overall survival; LRFS, locoregional free survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; RT, radiotherapy.

Table 4
Treatment results of postoperative radiotherapy
roj-29-260-i004.jpg

OS, overall survival; LC, locoregional control; EBRT, external beam radiotherapy; IORT, intraoperative radiotherapy; BT, brachytherapy; OP, operation; DDS, disease specific survival.

Editorial Office
Department of Radiation Oncology,
Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,
81 Irwon-Ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea
TEL: +82-2-3410-2612  E-mail: rojeditor@gmail.com
Copyright © The Korean Society for Radiation Oncology. All rights reserved.                      developed in m2community
Close layer
prev next