Effect of surgical margins on prognosis in aggressive fibromatosis: A single‑institutional analysis of 90 patients
- Authors:
- Published online on: September 1, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6864
- Pages: 5129-5134
-
Copyright: © Harati et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
Aggressive fibromatosis, also known as desmoid tumor, is a semi-malignant soft tissue neoplasm of clonal myofibroblastic origin that arises from the musculoaponeurotic structures, fascial planes and ligaments throughout the body. The incidence is estimated to be 3–4 cases/million people/year in Europe and the USA, accounting for ~3% of all soft-tissue tumors analyzed by biopsy (1,2). Aggressive fibromatosis can occur sporadically or be associated with familial adenomatous polyposis in Gardner syndrome. Among all cases of sporadic aggressive fibromatosis, >70% are associated with β-catenin mutations; however, the clinical implication of this finding has not been determined completely (3–5). Although aggressive fibromatosis does not have the ability to metastasize, it is characterized by locally aggressive growth with destructive infiltration of the surrounding tissues and high rates of local recurrence despite surgical resection, leading to significant functional impairments and morbidity.
Numerous analyses have been conducted to assess the prognostic factors that affect recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with aggressive fibromatosis (1,2,6–16). Among these factors, anatomical site, tumor size and patient age are considered to be the most significant for RFS (10,11). Notably, the prognostic significance of negative surgical margins on RFS remains a subject of debate, and inconsistent results have been presented in published studies investigating the clinical significance of surgical margins in aggressive fibromatosis, questioning the impact of curative surgical resection in general.
Prior to 1999, limb-sparing surgical resection with clear margins was considered the therapy of choice in the vast majority of cases, reflecting the standard approach for the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas. In 1998 and 1999, the Massachusetts General Hospital and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) reported improved RFS rates for patients with negative margins, following analyses of 92 and 168 patients, respectively (6,7). Shortly afterwards, Merchant et al (8) analyzed the outcomes of a series of 105 surgically treated patients with primary disease at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and were unable to detect any significant effect of positive margins on RFS. In 2003, Gronchi et al (10) from the Instituto Nazionale Tumori (INT) in Milan reported similar observations in 203 patients. A more recent analysis from the MDACC in 2007 was unable to reproduce the results from 1999, and margin positivity could no longer be substantiated as a significant prognostic factor (17). Thereafter, the MSKCC published its actualized data analyzing 495 patients, revealing no statistical association between surgical margin status and RFS (11); however, in the specific subgroup analysis of tumors measuring <5 cm, R1 margins were found to have an increased risk of local recurrence compared with R0. In 2011, a European multicenter-based study including 426 patients was unable to determine any significant differences in RFS when comparing patients with R0 and R1 margins (1).
The aforementioned findings have subsequently subverted the role of surgical resection as an initial treatment step, and have prompted the present review of our institutional experience. The aim of the current study was to identify the prognostic indicators of RFS in patients with primary aggressive fibromatosis who underwent surgical resection. The analysis focused particularly on the effect of surgical margins on disease outcome.
Patient and methods
Patients
Between June 2000 and July 2014, 114 patients with aggressive fibromatosis were treated surgically at BG-University Hospital Bergmannsheil (Bochum, Germany). Of the 114 patients, 82 presented with primary disease in our institution, while 32 patients were subsequently referred to our center following incomplete resection or the diagnosis of recurrence ≥3 months after definitive surgery on the primary tumor performed at other institutions. From this group of 114 patients, 17 patients were excluded due to the unavailability of data regarding the surgical margins of the initial surgical procedure. Furthermore, 7 patients were lost to follow-up. Thus, the current analyses were restricted to 90 participants with full information available on the surgical margins at the initial procedure. The clinicopathological characteristics of the patients are summarized in Tables I and II. Patient follow-up information was obtained from our database and from patient correspondence. The study was approved by the local ethics committee and all patients provided their written informed consent.
 | Table I.Results of univariate analyses to determine factors predictive of recurrence-free survival in 90 patients with aggressive fibromatosis. |
Treatment
The goal of surgical treatment for all patients was function-preserving and limb-sparing resection of the primary tumor with clear margins. The indication for adjuvant treatment was determined at the discretion of the interdisciplinary tumor board of our institution or the referring institutions.
A total of 27 patients received adjuvant radiotherapy following resection of the primary tumor, with a median overall dose of 59.7 Gy (range, 50.0–66.0 Gy), and a further 19 patients underwent first adjuvant radiotherapy subsequent to an initial recurrence, with a median overall dose of 53.7 Gy (range 50.0–64.0 Gy). Adjuvant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were administered following primary tumor resection in 19 patients, and a further 7 patients received NSAIDs following the initial recurrence (ibuprofen, 1,200–1,800 mg/day; or indomethacin, 150 mg/day. NSAIDs were given for a minimum of three months (range, 3–14 months). Two patients received tamoxifen following primary resection. Additionally, 4 patients were treated with imatinib and 1 patient with epirubicin.
Histopathological classification
All pathology slides were analyzed or reviewed for consensus diagnosis by experienced soft tissue pathologists.
Statistical analysis
All patients were retrospectively analyzed with regard to potential prognostic factors affecting RFS (Table I). RFS was defined as the period of time from the date of surgery for primary disease to the date of first recurrence. Survival rates were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier method with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and were compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Variables that were associated with P<0.10 in the univariate analysis were included in the multivariate regression to assess independent prognostic factors for RFS. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant result. All analyses were performed using Stata software (Version 11.2; StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).
Analysis of surgical margins
In order to determine the impact of surgical resection margins on RFS, the three following variables were analyzed. In ‘margin status after primary resection’ (Table II), RFS was assessed with regard to the resection status that was achieved following the resection of the primary tumor in our or the referring institution. In those patients with negative margins (R0 group) after primary resection, the effect of the clear surgical margin width was assessed as ‘distance of closest negative surgical margin at resection of the primary tumor (R0 group)’ (Table II). The variable ‘margin status after last resection in patients with ≥1 recurrence’ (Table II) concerned the prognostic influence of the surgical margin status that was attained at the final resection of the recurring tumor in patients who developed ≥1 recurrence following the resection of the primary tumor.
Results
Patient characteristics and surgical margins
The median age at the time of initial recurrence was 38.7 years (range, 16.1–74.2 years). The patient group included in the analysis consisted of 37 males (41.1%) and 53 females (58.9%). Tumors were located in the lower extremities in 30 patients (33.3%), in the upper extremities in 21 patients (23.3%), in the intra-abdominal cavity in 14 patients (15.6%), in the head and neck area in 7 patients (7.8%), and in the superficial trunk in 18 patients (20.0%). During follow-up, 45 patients (50%) developed ≥1 recurrence, whereas 23 patients (25.6%) had ≥2 local recurrences (range, 2–5 recurrences). Time-to-recurrence ranged from 3 months to 14 years (median, 17 months). No patient exhibited multifocal disease. Mortality occurred in 1 (female) patient with 5 recurrences and macroscopic residual disease subsequent to the last resection, following infiltration of the internal carotid artery at 6.1 years after the primary diagnosis. Only 2 patients had Gardner syndrome.
Plastic surgical tissue transfer was necessary in 21 patients following the resection of the primary tumor; specifically, 19 patients with soft tissue defects received local flaps, while 2 patients with mere skin defects were transplanted with split-thickness skin grafts. The R0 rates were 52.2% (36/69) for patients with primary closures and 66.7% (14/21) for patients who underwent plastic surgical tissue transfer.
Follow-up and survival
As of August 2014 (cut-off date), the reverse Kaplan-Meier estimate of median follow-up time following primary resection was 7.7 years (95% CI, 5.6–8.1 years) (18). The Kaplan-Meier-estimated rates of RFS for the entire group were 52.2% (95% CI, 40.9–62.3) at 5 years and 42.7% (95% CI, 28.8–55.9) at 10 years.
Univariate analysis of survival
In the entire series, patient age and gender were not found to be significant predictors of RFS (Table I). Similar to findings in previous studies (1,17), tumors arising in the extremities appeared to have a poorer prognosis compared with lesions at other sites [5-year RFS rates, 40.0% (95% CI, 25.9–53.8%) vs. 68.0% (95% CI, 50.4–80.4%), respectively]; however, this survival distribution failed to reach statistical significance in the univariate analysis (P=0.074). In contrast to the results of previous studies, tumor size did not exhibit any effect on RFS in the present series.
Univariate analysis identified only the surgical margin status attained at the resection of the primary tumor as a significant predictor of outcome. Patients who underwent complete R0 resection of their primary tumor had a significantly improved outcome (5-year RFS rate, 68.8%; 95% CI, 53.5–79.9%) when compared with patients in whom incomplete R1 or R2 resection was achieved (5-year RFS rate, 34.1%; 95% CI, 19.9–48.9%; P=0.001 vs. R0) (Table II; Fig. 1A). Furthermore, R0 status was associated with a more favorable RFS rate when compared only with R1 status (5-year RFS rate, 28.6%; 95% CI, 13.5–45.6%; P<0.001 vs. R0) (Fig. 1B). R1 and R2 status had comparably diminished RFS rates (P=0.341). Notably, surgical margin width did not influence the RFS rates in patients who underwent an R0 resection of their primary tumor (≤1 vs. >1 mm, P=0.301; and ≤5 vs. >5 mm, P=0.245)] (Table II; Fig. 1C).
However, surgical margins exhibited prognostic significance at the resection of the primary tumor only; patients who developed ≥1 recurrence did not gain a survival benefit from an R0 resection of the recurring tumor (5-year RFS rate, 77.9%; 95% CI, 54.5–90.2%) compared with an R1/2 resection of the recurring tumor (5-year RFS rate, 50.2%; 95% CI, 24.0–71.6%; P=0.269 vs. R0) (Table II; Fig. 1D).
Regarding adjuvant treatment modalities, radiation treatment did not result in an improved outcome compared with no radiation treatment [5-year RFS rates, 48.4% (95% CI, 27.8–66.3%) vs. 54.4% (95% CI, 41.1–65.9%), respectively; P=0.861). Adjuvant treatment with NSAIDs was associated with a marginally diminished RFS rate when compared with untreated patients [5-year RFS rates, 36.8% (95% CI, 16.5–57.5%) vs. 56.9% (95% CI, 44.0–67.8%), respectively; P=0.080] (Table II).
Multivariate analysis of survival
The only significant prognostic factor for RFS according to the Cox model was the margin status attained at the primary resection (Table III); the hazard ratio for recurrence was 2.73 (95% CI, 1.52–4.91; P=0.001) for patients with positive margins (R1/R2) vs. R0-resected patients. All other variables failed to reach statistical significance in the multivariate analysis.
| Table III.Results of multivariate analysis on recurrence-free survival according to Cox proportional hazards model. |
Discussion
In the present study, the surgical margin status attained at the resection of the primary tumor was the only factor that exhibited prognostic significance in the analysis of RFS; patients with R0 margins after primary resection had a significantly improved RFS rate compared with patients who underwent R1 or R2 resections. Notably, narrow and wide negative margins had similar outcomes within the R0-resected subset, supporting a surgical approach aiming to achieve more conservative resections, rather than radical and wide excisions. In the entirety of the present series of patients, 6 out of 50 patients within the R0 subgroup underwent resections with margins of >5 mm of healthy tissue, reflecting a less radical treatment policy. In the cases with positive margins, tumors had infiltrated critical anatomical structures, such as large nerves of the extremities, or were too advanced and widespread for complete resection, which would have resulted in functional loss and increased morbidity. Taken together, these findings suggest that a less radical surgical approach with function-sparing resections should be employed when feasible, without leaving microscopic or macroscopic positive margins. However, surgical margins did not influence RFS in patients in whom tumors had recurred.
In contrast to the current findings, none of the large retrospective studies previously conducted by the MDACC, MSKCC, INT and the French Sarcoma Group were able to determine a predictive role of positive surgical margins (1,8,10,17). A mere descriptive comparison of the four studies mentioned with the present study does not allow a further explanation for these contrasting results. Notably, a significant difference regarding the RFS rates obtained between the different studies can be detected: The overall 5-year RFS rates for patients treated surgically in the MDACC (80%) and in the INT (76%) were markedly higher compared with that in the present study, which reported a 5-year RFS rate of only 52.2% (95% CI, 40.9–62.3%) for the entire series. As three out of the four centers pooled the RFS rates of R0 and R1 patients, only the MDACC data can be compared; the MDACC study reported a 5-year RFS rate of 75% for R1/R2-resected patients, which is markedly higher than that in the current series, which reported a rate of 34.1% (95% CI, 19.9–48.9%) for the corresponding patient group. This observation leads to the question of why patients with positive margins had such poorer outcomes in the current series compared with other studies.
A potential reason for this may be related to the adjuvant treatments administered to patients with positive margins. Nevertheless, adjuvant treatment modalities were not less intense in the current patient population: From the 45 patients with positive margins at our center, 23 (51.2%) received adjuvant treatment (15 radiation only, 2 NSAIDs only, 2 tamoxifen only, and 4 combined treatment). The frequency of adjuvant treatment was similar in the MDACC series, in which 36 (52.9%) out of 68 patients with positive margins received adjuvant therapy.
A final potential explanation for the low RFS rates in the present study may be found in the time point of recurrence detection. It must be noted that patients at our institution are intensely followed-up with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging assessments every 3 months in the first 2 years, and then every 6 months for ≥3 further years, enabling the detection of recurrences relatively rapidly and prior to the development of symptoms. However, we are unable to determine the true reason for these marked outcome differences between the studies.
In conclusion, the data from the present study suggest an improved outcome for patients with completely resected primary tumors. Tumor biology may dictate the outcome; however, given the diminished outcome of patients retaining positive margins, surgical efforts must aim for function-sparing resections with negative margins wherever feasible. In this context, close negative margins, even those <1 mm, appear to be adequate. However, it cannot be retrospectively concluded whether the R0 resection itself or the characteristic of ‘R0 resectability’ at the initial surgical procedure leads to the improved outcome; it is probable that tumors that cannot be completely resected have more aggressive biological features than completely resectable tumors, thus impairing the outcome more substantially. Subsequently, a positive margin status could be a result, rather than a cause, of biological aggressiveness, and it may not itself influence the outcome directly.
Finally, the time point of surgical resection must be addressed. As proposed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) in 2015, a wait-and-see strategy for ~1 or 2 years appears to be reasonable for patients with asymptomatic primary tumors at non-critical sites as a frontline approach, and can prevent unnecessary resections that may result in lifelong morbidity (19,20). Currently, a prospective observational study (NCT01801176) by the Institut Gustave Roussy is underway to assess the outcome of different treatment arms formulating the role of the wait-and-see policy in more detail. To date, the EORTC recommends a surgical resection in cases of progression if the expected postoperative functional impairment is limited. However, as this can be highly subjective, the postoperative consequences must be clearly discussed with each patient before decisions are made.
Acknowledgements
The current study was supported by a FoRUM grant (grant no. K090-15) from Ruhr-University Bochum (Bochum, Germany).
References
|
Salas S, Dufresne A, Bui B, Blay JY, Terrier P, Ranchere-Vince D, Bonvalot S, Stoeckle E, Guillou L, Le Cesne A, et al: Prognostic factors influencing progression-free survival determined from a series of sporadic desmoid tumors: A wait-and-see policy according to tumor presentation. J Clin Oncol. 29:3553–3558. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
de Camargo VP, Keohan ML, D'Adamo DR, Antonescu CR, Brennan MF, Singer S, Ahn LS and Maki RG: Clinical outcomes of systemic therapy for patients with deep fibromatosis (desmoid tumor). Cancer. 116:2258–2265. 2010.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Dômont J, Salas S, Lacroix L, Brouste V, Saulnier P, Terrier P, Ranchère D, Neuville A, Leroux A, Guillou L, et al: High frequency of beta-catenin heterozygous mutations in extra-abdominal fibromatosis: A potential molecular tool for disease management. Br J Cancer. 102:1032–1036. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Mullen JT, DeLaney TF, Rosenberg AE, Le L, Iafrate AJ, Kobayashi W, Szymonifka J, Yeap BY, Chen YL, Harmon DC, et al: β-Catenin mutation status and outcomes in sporadic desmoid tumors. Oncologist. 18:1043–1049. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lazar AJ, Tuvin D, Hajibashi S, Habeeb S, Bolshakov S, Mayordomo-Aranda E, Warneke CL, Lopez-Terrada D, Pollock RE and Lev D: Specific mutations in the beta-catenin gene (CTNNB1) correlate with local recurrence in sporadic desmoid tumors. Am J Pathol. 173:1518–1527. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Spear MA, Jennings LC, Mankin HJ, Spiro IJ, Springfield DS, Gebhardt MC, Rosenberg AE, Efird JT and Suit HD: Individualizing management of aggressive fibromatoses. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 40:637–645. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ballo MT, Zagars GK, Pollack A, Pisters PW and Pollack RA: Desmoid tumor: Prognostic factors and outcome after surgery, radiation therapy, or combined surgery and radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol. 17:158–167. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Merchant NB, Lewis JJ, Woodruff JM, Leung DH and Brennan MF: Extremity and trunk desmoid tumors: A multifactorial analysis of outcome. Cancer. 86:2045–2052. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lewis JJ, Boland PJ, Leung DH, Woodruff JM and Brennan MF: The enigma of desmoid tumors. Ann Surg. 229:866–873. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gronchi A, Casali PG, Mariani L, Lo Vullo S, Colecchia M, Lozza L, Bertulli R, Fiore M, Olmi P, Santinami M and Rosai J: Quality of surgery and outcome in extra-abdominal aggressive fibromatosis: A series of patients surgically treated at a single institution. J Clin Oncol. 21:1390–1397. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Crago AM, Denton B, Salas S, Dufresne A, Mezhir JJ, Hameed M, Gonen M, Singer S and Brennan MF: A prognostic nomogram for prediction of recurrence in desmoid fibromatosis. Ann Surg. 258:347–353. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Colombo C, Miceli R, Le Péchoux C, Palassini E, Honoré C, Stacchiotti S, Mir O, Casali PG, Dômont J, Fiore M, et al: Sporadic extra abdominal wall desmoid-type fibromatosis: Surgical resection can be safely limited to a minority of patients. Eur J Cancer. 51:186–192. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Bonvalot S, Ternès N, Fiore M, Bitsakou G, Colombo C, Honoré C, Marrari A, Le Cesne A, Perrone F, Dunant A and Gronchi A: Spontaneous regression of primary abdominal wall desmoid tumors: More common than previously thought. Ann Surg Oncol. 20:4096–4102. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Briand S, Barbier O, Biau D, Bertrand-Vasseur A, Larousserie F, Anract P and Gouin F: Wait-and-see policy as a first-line management for extra-abdominal desmoid tumors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 96:631–638. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Eastley N, Aujla R, Silk R, Richards CJ, McCulloch TA, Esler CP and Ashford RU: Extra-abdominal desmoid fibromatosis-a sarcoma unit review of practice, long term recurrence rates and survival. Eur J Surg Oncol. 40:1125–1130. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Shin SH, Ko KR, Cho SK, Choi YL and Seo SW: Surgical outcome of desmoid tumors: Adjuvant radiotherapy delayed the recurrence, but did not affect long-term outcomes. J Surg Oncol. 108:28–33. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lev D, Kotilingam D, Wei C, Ballo MT, Zagars GK, Pisters PW, Lazar AA, Patel SR, Benjamin RS and Pollock RE: Optimizing treatment of desmoid tumors. J Clin Oncol. 25:1785–1791. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Schemper M and Smith TL: A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 17:343–346. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gronchi A, Colombo C, Le Péchoux C, Dei Tos AP, Le Cesne A, Marrari A, Penel N, Grignani G, Blay JY, Casali PG, et al: Sporadic desmoid-type fibromatosis: A stepwise approach to a non-metastasising neoplasm-a position paper from the Italian and the French Sarcoma Group. Ann Oncol. 25:578–583. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kasper B, Baumgarten C, Bonvalot S, Haas R, Haller F, Hohenberger P, Moreau G, van der Graaf WT and Gronchi A: Desmoid Working Group: Management of sporadic desmoid-type fibromatosis: A European consensus approach based on patients' and professionals' expertise-a sarcoma patients EuroNet and European organisation for research and treatment of cancer/Soft tissue and bone sarcoma group initiative. Eur J Cancer. 51:127–136. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI |
