Clear Cell Sarcoma (Malignant Melanoma) of Soft Parts: A Clinicopathologic Study of 52 Cases

Clear cell sarcomas are aggressive, rare soft tissue tumors and their classification among melanoma or sarcoma is still undetermined due to their clinical, pathologic, and molecular properties found in both types of tumors. This is a retrospective study of 52 patients with CCS seen between April 1979 and April 2005 in two institutions. The EWS-ATF-1 fusion transcript was studied in 31 patients and an activating mutation of the BRAF or NRAS gene was researched in 22 patients. 30 men and 22 women, with a mean age of 33 were studied. Forty-three tumors (82.69%) were located in the extremities, specially the foot (19 tumors). Median initial tumor size was 4.8 cm (1 to 15 cm). Necrosis involving more than 50% of the tumor cells was found in 14 cases (26.92%). High mitotic rate (>10) was found in 25 cases (48.07%). The EWS/ATF-1 translocation was found in 28 (53.84%) of 31 patients studied, and mutation of BRAF or NRAS was found in only 2 of 22 patients analyzed cases (3.84%). Among the tumor-associated parameters, only tumor size (>4 cm) emerged as a significant prognostic factor. Forty-nine patients had a localized disease at diagnosis (94.23%) and underwent surgical resection immediately (90%) or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) (10%). Various CT regimens were used in 37 patients (71.15%) with no significant efficacy. The 5- and 10-year OS rates were 59% and 41%, respectively. Tumor size was the only emerging prognosis factor in our series. Complete surgical resection remains the optimal treatment for this aggressive chemoresistant tumor

The human telomerase RNA gene (hTERC) is regulated during carcinogenesis but is not dependent on DNA methylation

Telomerase, the ribonucleoprotein complex involved in telomere maintenance, is composed of two main components: hTERT and hTERC. hTERT seems to be the rate-limiting factor for telomerase activity, although hTERC expression was also shown to correlate to a certain extent with telomerase reactivation. To determine whether the absence of hTERC expression could be the consequence of DNA methylation, we quantified hTERC RNA in 60 human samples (19 telomerase-negative normal tissues, nine telomerase-positive and 22 telomerase-negative tumor tissues, eight telomerase-positive and two telomerase-negative cell lines) using a quantitative dot blot on RT-PCR products. Most of the normal tissues did not express hTERC whereas, in telomerase-positive cell lines and in telomerase-positive tumor tissues, a strong up-regulation was observed, suggesting that hTERC transcription is up-regulated during tumorigenesis. The two telomerase-negative cell lines did not express hTERC. In a series of 22 telomerase-negative soft tissue sarcomas (STS), half did not express hTERC at all, or only weakly, whereas a wide range of expression was observed in the other half. As methylation might be involved in hTERC silencing, we examined the methylation pattern in all samples by direct sequencing and methylation-specific single stand conformation analysis after bisulfite modification. hTERC methylation was never observed, neither in normal nor in tumor tissues. Furthermore, there was no correlation between hTERC expression and proliferation, telomere length or hTERT expression in telomerase-negative STS. In contrast, three of eight telomerase-positive cell lines and the two telomerase negative cell lines were found to be hypermethylated, suggesting that the methylation observed may occur during cell line establishment. In conclusion, this study shows that hTERC expression is indeed regulated during carcinogenesis, but this regulation is unlikely to depend on hTERC methylation, cell proliferation rate, telomere length or hTERT expressio

Should tumor depth be included in prognostication of soft tissue sarcoma?

BACKGROUND: Most staging systems for soft tissue sarcoma are based on histologic malignancy-grade, tumor size and tumor depth. These factors are generally dichotomized, size at 5 cm. We believe it is unlikely that tumor depth per se should influence a tumor's metastatic capability. Therefore we hypothesized that the unfavourable prognostic importance of depth could be explained by the close association between size and depth, deep-seated tumors on average being larger than the superficial ones. When tumor size is dichotomized, this effect should be most pronounced in the large size (>5 cm) group in which the size span is larger. METHODS: We analyzed the associations between tumor size and depth and the prognostic importance of grade, size and depth in a population-based series of 490 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity or trunk wall with complete, 4.5 years minimum, follow-up. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed no major prognostic effect of tumor depth when grade and size were taken into account. The mean size of small tumors was the same whether superficial or deep but the mean size of large and deep-seated tumors were one third larger than that of large but superficial tumors. Tumor depth influenced the prognosis in the subset of high-grade and large tumors. In this subset deep-seated tumors had poorer survival rate than superficial tumors, which could be explained by the larger mean size of the deep-seated tumors. CONCLUSION: Most of the prognostic value of tumor depth in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity or trunk wall can be explained by the association between tumor size and depth

Neo/adjuvant chemotherapy does not improve outcome in resected primary synovial sarcoma: a study of the French Sarcoma Group

Background: There are only scarce data about the benefit of adjunctive chemotherapy in patients with localized synovial sarcoma (SS). Patients and methods: Data from 237 SS patients recorded in the database of the French Sarcoma Group were retrospectively analyzed. The respective impact of radiotherapy, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) were assessed after adjustment to prognostic factors. Results: The median follow-up was 58 months (range 1-321). Adjuvant, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and postoperative radiotherapy were administered in 112, 45 and 181 cases, respectively. In all, 59% of patients treated with chemotherapy received an ifosfamide-containing regimen. The 5-year OS, LRFS and DRFS rates were 64.0%, 70% and 57%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, age >35 years old, grade 3 and not-R0 margins were highly significant independent predictors of worse OS. After adjustment to prognostic factors, radiotherapy significantly improved LRFS but not DRFS or OS. Neither neo-adjuvant nor adjuvant chemotherapy had significant impact on OS, LRFS or DRFS. Conclusion: As for other high-grade soft-tissue sarcomas, well-planned wide surgical excision with adjuvant radiotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for SS. Neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy should not be delivered outside a clinical trial settin

Soft tissue sarcomas of the trunk wall (STS-TW): a study of 343 patients from the French Sarcoma Group (FSG) database

Background: Soft tissue sarcomas of the trunk wall (STS-TW) are usually studied together with soft tissue sarcomas of other locations. We report a study on STS-TW forming part of the French Sarcoma Group database. Patients and methods: Three hundred and forty-three adults were included. We carried out univariate and multivariate analysis for overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Results: Tumor locations were as follows: thoracic wall, 82.5%; abdominal wall, 12.3% and pelvic wall, 5.2%. Median tumor size was 6.0 cm. The most frequent tumor types were unclassified sarcoma (27.7%) and myogenic sarcoma (19.2%). A total of 44.6% of cases were grade 3. In all, 21.9% of patients had a previous medical history of radiotherapy (PHR). Median follow-up was 7.6 years. The 5-year OS, MFS and LRFS rates were 60.4%, 68.9% and 58.4%, respectively. Multivariate analysis retained PHR and grade for predicting LRFS and PHR, size and grade as prognostic factors of MFS. Factors influencing OS were age, size, PHR, depth, grade and surgical margins. The predictive factors of incomplete response were PHR, size and T3. Conclusions: Our results suggest similar classical prognostic factors as compared with sarcomas of other locations. However, a separate analysis of STS-TW revealed a significant poor prognosis subgroup of patients with PH