An update on the management of sporadic desmoid-type fibromatosis: A European Consensus Initiative between Sarcoma PAtients EuroNet (SPAEN) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)/Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG)

Desmoid-type fibromatosis is a rare and locally aggressive monoclonal, fibroblastic proliferation characterized by a variable and often unpredictable clinical course. Currently, there is no established or evidence-based treatment approach available for this disease. Therefore, in 2015 the European Desmoid Working Group published a position paper giving recommendations on the treatment of this intriguing disease. Here, we present an update of this consensus approach based on professionals' AND patients' expertise following a round table meeting bringing together sarcoma experts from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group with patients and patient advocates from Sarcoma PAtients EuroNet. In this paper, we focus on new findings regarding the prognostic value of mutational analysis in desmoid-type fibromatosis patients and new systemic treatment options

Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO-EURACAN-GENTURIS Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) comprise ∼80 entities defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) classification based on a combination of distinctive morphological, immunohistochemical and molecular features.1 These ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS (European Society for Medical Oncology; European Reference Network for Rare Adult Solid Cancers; European Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) will cover STSs, with the exception of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) that are covered in the ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS GIST CPGs.2 EURACAN and GENTURIS are the European Reference Networks connecting European institutions, appointed by their governments, to cover rare adult solid cancers and genetic cancer risk syndromes, respectively. Extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma, round cell sarcoma with EWSR1-non-ETS fusion and sarcomas with CIC rearrangements and BCOR genetic alterations are covered by the ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS–ERN PaedCan (European Reference Network for Paediatric Oncology) bone sarcomas CPG.3 Kaposi's sarcoma, embryonal and alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma are not discussed in this manuscript, while pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma is viewed as a high-grade, adult-type STS. Finally, extraskeletal osteosarcoma is also a considered a high-grade STS, whose clinical resemblance with osteosarcoma of bone is doubtful. The methodology followed during the consensus meeting is specified at the end of the manuscript in a dedicated paragraph

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO-EURACAN-GENTURIS Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are malignant mesenchymal tumours with a variable clinical behaviour, marked by differentiation towards the interstitial cells of Cajal. GISTs belong to the family of soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) but are treated separately due to their peculiar histogenesis, clinical behaviour and specific therapy. This European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)–European Reference Network for Rare Adult Solid Cancers (EURACAN)–European Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (GENTURIS) Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) will cover GISTs while other STSs are covered in the ESMO–EURACAN–European Reference Network for Paediatric Oncology (ERN PaedCan)–GENTURIS STS CPG

Bone sarcomas: ESMO–EURACAN–GENTURIS–ERN PaedCan Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Production costs have been covered by ESMO from central funds

Bone sarcomas: ESMO-EURACAN-GENTURIS-ERN PaedCan Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

This Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations on the management of bone sarcomas. // Recommendations have been agreed following a consensus meeting of representatives from ESMO, EURACAN, GENTURIS and ERNPaedCan. // Authorship includes a multidisciplinary group of experts from different institutions and countries worldwide

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)