ObjectivesEarly, accurate diagnosis is crucial for the prognosis of patients with soft tissue sarcomas. To this end, standardization of imaging algorithms, technical requirements, and reporting is... Show moreObjectivesEarly, accurate diagnosis is crucial for the prognosis of patients with soft tissue sarcomas. To this end, standardization of imaging algorithms, technical requirements, and reporting is therefore a prerequisite. Since the first European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR) consensus in 2015, technical achievements, further insights into specific entities, and the revised WHO-classification (2020) and AJCC staging system (2017) made an update necessary. The guidelines are intended to support radiologists in their decision-making and contribute to interdisciplinary tumor board discussions.Materials and methodsA validated Delphi method based on peer-reviewed literature was used to derive consensus among a panel of 46 specialized musculoskeletal radiologists from 12 European countries. Statements were scored online by level of agreement (0 to 10) during two iterative rounds. Either “group consensus,” “group agreement,” or “lack of agreement” was achieved.ResultsEight sections were defined that finally contained 145 statements with comments. Overall, group consensus was reached in 95.9%, and group agreement in 4.1%. This communication contains the first part consisting of the imaging algorithm for suspected soft tissue tumors, methods for local imaging, and the role of tumor centers.ConclusionUltrasound represents the initial triage imaging modality for accessible and small tumors. MRI is the modality of choice for the characterization and local staging of most soft tissue tumors. CT is indicated in special situations. In suspicious or likely malignant tumors, a specialist tumor center should be contacted for referral or teleradiologic second opinion. This should be done before performing a biopsy, without exception. Show less
Praag, V.M. van; Fiocco, M.; Bleckman, R.F.; Houdt, W.J. van; Haas, R.L.M.; Verhoef, C.; ... ; Sande, M.A.J. van de 2023
Introduction: Patients with locally extensive high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcomas (eSTS) are often presented in multidisciplinary teams to decide between ablative surgery (amputation) or limb... Show moreIntroduction: Patients with locally extensive high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcomas (eSTS) are often presented in multidisciplinary teams to decide between ablative surgery (amputation) or limb-salvage surgery supplemented with either neo-adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or induction isolated limb perfu-sion (ILP).In The Netherlands, ILP typically aims to reduce the size of tumors that would otherwise be considered irresectable, whereas neo-adjuvant RT aims mainly at improving local control and reducing morbidity of required marginal margins. This study presents a 15-year nationwide cohort to describe the oncological outcomes of both pre-operative treatment strategies.Methods: All consecutive patients with locally extensive primary high-grade eSTS surgically treated between 2000 and 2015 at five tertiary sarcoma centers that received neo-adjuvant ILP or RT were included. 169 patients met the inclusion criteria (89 ILP, 80 RT). Median follow-up was 7.3 years. Results: Limb salvage was achieved in 84% of cases in the ILP group (80% for patients with amputation indication) and 96% of cases in the RT group. 5-Year overall survival was 47% in the ILP group, 69% in the RT group. 5-Year local recurrence rate was 14% in the ILP group, 10% in the RT group. Distant metastasis rate was 55% in the ILP group, 36% in the RT group.Conclusion: We find oncological outcomes and limb salvage rates in line with existing literature for both treatment modalities. Whether the tumor was locally advanced with an indication for induction therapy to prevent amputation or morbid surgery appeared to be the main determinant in choosing between neo-adjuvant ILP or RT.(c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
