Conformity to clinical practice guidelines, multidisciplinary management and outcome of treatment for soft tissue sarcomas

I. Ray-Coquard1,3,*, P. Thiesse1, D. Ranchère-Vince1, F. Chauvin1,2, J.-Y. Bobin4, M.-P. Sunyach1, J.-P. Carret4, B. Mongodin5, P. Marec-Bérard1, T. Philip1,2,6 and J.-Y. Blay1,4

1 Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon; 2 UMRS 5823 CNRS Gressac Lyon; 3 Clinique Eugène André, Lyon; 4 Hospices Civils de Lyon; 5 Centre hospitalier Montélimar; 6 SOR – FNCLCC, Paris, France

Received 16 June 2003; revised 16 September 2003; accepted 30 September 2003


    ABSTRACT
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
Background:

The primary management of adult soft tissue sarcomas (STS) is characterized by heterogeneity across centers. Several studies suggest that it is improved when coordinated by specialized sarcoma centers.

Patients and methods:

This study, comparing STS patients of the Rhône–Alpes region treated within and outside the cancer network, retrospectively assesses the conformity of medical practice with ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EBM) reported under the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of the French Federation of Cancer Centers. Institutional records of 100 new STS patients seen between 1999 and 2001 in the regional comprehensive cancer center and Lyon University hospital were analyzed retrospectively (50/300 new files randomly selected in each institution). Medical decisions were checked for conformity with CPGs.

Results:

Median age was 58 years (range 18–88) and median tumor size was 9 cm (range 1–26). The most common primary sites were extremities, viscera or trunk. The most frequent histology was leiomyosarcoma (21%) or liposarcoma (12%). Only 7% of cases were reviewed by formal multidisciplinary committee before biopsy (with 42% pre-surgery biopsies only). The first surgical resection was R0, R1 and R2 in 26, 29 and 45% of cases, respectively. Conformity to CPGs was rated 52, 81, 94 and 95% for initial surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy and follow-up, respectively. At multivariate analysis, pre-surgery multidisciplinary discussion, management in reference center and management within cancer network independently predicted conformity to CPGs.

Conclusions:

Conformity with EBM was similar to previous reports. Elaboration of treatment strategy within a formal multidisciplinary staff and treatment within a cancer network are both important prognostic factors for optimal clinical care.

Key words: audit, cancer, guidelines, management of soft tissue sarcoma, medical practice, outcome


    Introduction
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) account for 1–2% of all malignant neoplasms [1]. Despite this rarity, advances in limb sparing techniques and the use of radiotherapy and chemotherapy have made it possible to improve the management of this disease [2]. The past two decades have shown a dramatic improvement in the prognosis of osteosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma when treated by specialized multidisciplinary teams associating pathologists, radiologists, oncologists and surgeons, and providing the necessary combination of chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy. A similar evolution has occurred in all specialized sarcoma centers worldwide [3, 4]. However, while the treatment of bone sarcomas is now performed routinely in specialized multidisciplinary centers, most STS patients in western countries receive primary treatment in the community setting [5]. Several studies recently reported a significantly worse outcome for STS patients in whom primary treatment is considered suboptimal [6]. The lack of experience of physicians outside specialized centers causes wide variations in treatment strategies and uptake of resources [3, 611]. Important variations have been published in the UK, Sweden, Canada, the USA and Australia [3, 611]. Most western countries are involved in a debate advocating on the one hand, an increased use of local services, and on the other hand, an improvement of the skill base, emphasizing the importance recently attached to specialized oncology care.

In France, the management of STS had not been specifically analyzed or published. A retrospective study of patients with localized STS was therefore initiated. We will describe the patterns of diagnosis, treatment and outcome, as well as parameters correlated with optimal medical practice over a recent 3-year period in the Rhône–Alpes region. The purpose of this study was to describe the primary management of STS, and assess the impact of recently published national clinical practice guidelines (CPG) [12] and of multidisciplinary committee on management organization.


    Patients and methods
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
Clinical practice guidelines
The CPG were a nationwide project of the Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte contre le Cancer (French Federation of Comprehensive Cancer Centers, FNCLCC). The first volume of the standards, option and recommendations (SOR) for the clinical management of cancer was published in 1995 [12]. These SOR, like the following ones, were aimed at board-certified oncologists in France, with no other broadcasting strategy. The CPGs used for this study are summarized hereafter.

Criteria for optimal procedure (outline from the ‘Standards, options et recommandations pour la prise en charge des sarcomes’[12])
Criteria for optimal initial examination and diagnosis. (i) Clinical size and depth of the mass must be recorded; (ii) computed tomography (CT) is required for abdominal localization, or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the mass for limb localization; (iii) chest radiograph or CT scan is required to identify metastases; and (d) pre-operative biopsy (incisional or needle), preferably by the surgeon in charge of future surgical management. Exception is made for small tumors <3 cm, where excisional biopsy is accepted.

Criteria for optimal surgical management. Whenever possible, primary surgery should perform wide excision with 1–2 cm margins. For high-grade lesions, large (>3 cm) tumors or deep-seated tumors, surgery alone is acceptable only in case of amputation or compartimental resection with negative histological margins (R0). Wide excision alone, with no adjuvant treatment, is acceptable only for superficial, small (<3 cm) and low-grade lesions. Histologically positive margins (R1) or incomplete excision (R2) have to be considered inadequate, and should be followed by further appropriate treatment (further surgery or adjuvant therapy if formal review by a multidisciplinary sarcoma committee considers surgery non-feasible).

Criteria for optimal histopathology report. The report should describe: (i) histological diagnosis; (ii) status of the resection margins; (iii) grade of the tumor; and (iv) pathological staging.

Criteria for optimal radiation therapy management. Association of wide excision and adjuvant radiation therapy should be considered the standard treatment. The absence of adjuvant radiotherapy is acceptable for superficial, small (<3 cm) and low-grade tumors, and for limb sarcomas when amputation is performed. For non-operable sarcomas, primary radiation therapy could be an option. Optimal technical criteria are: (i) 50 Gy delivered dose [with an additional boost of 10 Gy in case of microscopic residual tumor (R1)]; (ii) target volume to irradiate encompassing tumor bed, scars, including draining orifices, with adapted security margins; and (iii) delay from surgery to radiation therapy not exceeding 8 weeks.

Criteria for optimal chemotherapy management. For non-readily, non-operable sarcomas, primary chemotherapy can be an option, as can radiation therapy. For readily operable sarcomas, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy should be performed only as part of a clinical research protocol. In the adjuvant setting, systemic chemotherapy should be performed only within the context of a prospective clinical trial. Adjuvant chemotherapy could be performed for patients with histologically positive margins after wide surgery.

Criteria for optimal post-therapeutic surveillance. There is no consensus concerning the surveillance of STS. Recommendations of the SOR are follow-up with clinical examination every 12 weeks during the first 3 years, then every 4 months until the fifth year post-management. Clinical examination and chest radiograph or CT scan are the prevailing tools to identify metastases. Ultrasound examination can be performed for deep trunk localizations.

Methods for patient selection
Following approval of the oncology subcommittees of the two major institutions for STS management in the region (Centre Leon Bérard and Hospices Civils de Lyon), surgeons, oncologists and pathologists were approached for consent to produce hospital records of patients under their care for the purpose of this audit data collection.

Patients included in the audit were selected by (i) automatic retrieval/extraction from the computerized database of the Centre Léon Bérard, or (ii) manual extraction from the database of the oncology unit in charge of STS at Hospices Civils de Lyon.

Criteria for patient selection. Patients diagnosed and/or treated for a primary STS within the Rhône–Alpes region between 1999 and 2001 were eligible for the audit. Tumors of the bone, the central nervous system and Kaposi sarcomas were excluded, as were patients with distant metastases at initial diagnosis. Only localized or locally advanced STS were selected.

Data sources
Data on the primary care of STS were collected by two authors (I.R.-C. and J.-Y.B.) and analyzed by one (I.R.-C.). I.R.-C. is a medical oncologist working independently of the practitioners caring for patients in the different hospitals. Extracted data were double-checked by blind examination of a 10% random sample by the second author (J.-Y.B.).

Selection of patient records
As previously reported, at least 50 patient records were necessary to detect a statistically significant increase in the compliance rate [13]. No matching procedure was elaborated to select patients in both hospitals. Because of the high accrual rate in the two institutions, a computerized procedure (random numbers) was used to select a sample of 50 patients from the 350 and 300 newly treated STS seen in these two institutions during the relevant time-frame. Randomly selected patients not eligible for the study were excluded, and the random procedure was reapplied to replace them. A record was considered to be assessable when biopsy or surgical procedure had been reported.

Setting
The Rhône–Alpes region (with an area of 43 500 km2 and 5.5 million inhabitants) has ~100 public hospitals, three university hospitals, one comprehensive cancer center and 87 private hospitals, with a total of nearly 26 000 beds. The cancer network evaluated here (ONCORA) includes 15 private and 26 public hospitals within the region, with a total of ~5500 beds. Approximately 22 000 new malignant tumors are treated annually in the area, 40% of which are within the organized cancer network. Because of the rarity of STS (1200 estimated new cases annually in France), only two hospitals manage enough STS patients to meet selection criteria: one university hospital (not included by the cancer network) and one comprehensive cancer center (participating in the cancer network). Both agreed to participate in this evaluation.

Main outcome measurement
First, characteristics of STS management were described. The main outcome was the number of overall treatment sequences judged to conform with national CPGs. An overall treatment sequence comprised decisions for every type of procedure (i.e. diagnosis, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, initial examination, follow-up). Each procedure was individually assessed for conformity with CPG recommendations described above. Finally, overall treatment sequences were considered to have conformed when all assessable component procedures were respected. Only medical decisions covered by the CPGs were taken into consideration for assessing compliance.

We decided to use overall treatment sequences (i.e. sequences of medical decisions all along the patient management pathway), because decisions for each procedure are interdependent. For example, if surgeons have submitted only records of patients with large, high-grade tumors to the multidisciplinary staff for chemotherapy indication and discussion, only the initial overall treatment sequence, including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy with initial examination and follow-up, is taken into account. Hence, only one overall treatment sequence can be assessed for each patient.

The second level of evaluation was the number of medical decisions judged to be based on multidisciplinary medical decision. Multidisciplinary sarcoma committees started functioning in 1992 at the comprehensive cancer center and 1999 at the university hospital. At least one radiologist, one pathologist, one surgeon, one medical oncologist and one radiation oncologist were present at each weekly committee meeting.

Statistical analysis
Conformity was scored 1 if the recommendations had been followed, and 0 if not. Categorical data were analyzed using Pearson’s {chi}2-test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Continuous data were analyzed with Student’s t-test. The statistical significance level was set at P = 0.05 in a two-sided test. The correlation between any clinical or biological parameter and the incidence of death or relapse was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier test [14]. Univariate analyses were performed to assess whether patient characteristics were correlated with conformity or non-conformity to CPGs. A logistic regression analysis including parameters studied in the univariate analysis was performed using SPSS® Logistic software: a step-down regression procedure of conformity rates was used with a P-value <0.05 for entry. Risk factors (e.g. type of surgery) were dichotomized. The end point (i.e. conformity with CPGs) was also dichotomized (0 if absent, 1 if present). Factors evaluated for conformity were multidisciplinary committee before initial surgical procedure (yes versus no), management in the cancer network (yes versus no), hospital in charge of treatment (university hospital or comprehensive cancer center versus others), specialty of the surgeon (orthopedics, general, sarcoma, abdominal), age, gender, topography of the tumor (viscera versus other), tumor size <10 cm (yes versus no), deep versus superficial tumor, histological grade of the tumor (I versus II and III), radiation therapy (yes versus no) and use of chemotherapy (yes versus no). Factors evaluated for survival were type of surgery (wide versus marginal), type of resection (R0, R1 or R2), specialty of the surgeon (sarcoma versus other), hospital in charge of treatment, multidisciplinary committee before first surgical procedure, radiation therapy, radiation therapy complying with CPGs, age, gender, topography of the tumor, tumor size <10 cm, deep or superficial tumor, and histological grade of tumor.


    Results
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
Patient characteristics
Data for 100 eligible patients with a diagnosis of STS were audited. Surgery was performed by a general surgeon in 20 patients (21%), by an abdominal surgeon in 26 (27%), by an orthopedic surgeon in 31 (33%) and by a specialized sarcoma surgeon in only 18 (19%). Five patients were finally not operated on because of patient refusal (n = 1), complete remission after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 1) or because complete resection was considered non-feasible by the surgeon (n = 3).

The mean age of patients was 58 years (range 18–88), with 17 patients >70 years old. Tumor site, localization, AJCC/UICC (American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer) staging, histological type and grade are described in Table 1. Clinical tumor size was recorded in 52% of the patients only, with a median of 80 mm (range 10–260).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Patient characteristics (n = 100)
 
Description of patient management (Figure 1)
Preoperative investigations. Radiological (CT scan or MRI) tumor size was reported for 98% of the patients, with a median of 90 mm (range 20–260). Only 8% of the tumors were located above the superficial fascia; 92% were deep-seated. Eighty-two patients had chest radiography or CT scan before surgery. Only 52% of patients received optimal initial examination: deficiencies included no CT or MRI in two patients, unrecorded clinical size and topography of the tumor in 32 and no chest X-ray or CT scan in 18.



View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Patient management.

 
Biopsy. Only 42 patients were biopsied before surgery, and no more than 7% of the biopsies were planned and performed after formal multidisciplinary discussion. Histological sarcoma diagnosis was established from the biopsy for 40 of the 42 patients (93%), with histological subtyping in 37 (88%). Biopsy was performed by an orthopedic surgeon in 12 patients (28%), a general surgeon in 11 (27%), an abdominal surgeon in four (9%), a radiologist in nine (22%) and a sarcoma specialized surgeon in six (13%). Biopsy was considered not to conform to the recommendations for 65% of the patients (no biopsy prior to surgery in 53 patients with >3 cm tumor; biopsy performed by another practitioner than the referent surgeon in 10; and inadequate cytodiagnostic procedure in two).

Patterns of treatment. First surgical procedure: A formal multidisciplinary committee decision preceded eventual surgical procedure in only 39% of cases. Primary surgical excision was performed in 95 patients: 37 (39%) were operated on in a private institution, 14 (15%) in a general hospital, 27 (28%) in the university hospital and 17 (18%) in the comprehensive cancer center. Only 42 (44%) of patients undergoing first surgical procedure (with or without preliminary biopsy) had wide excision; 53 (56%) had only marginal or incomplete excision. Twenty-five patients (26%) were considered to have R0 surgical resection (i.e. micro- and macroscopically complete), 27 patients (29%) had R1 (i.e. microscopically incomplete and macroscopically complete) and 43 (45%) had R2 (i.e. microscopically and macroscopically incomplete). Interestingly, the risk of R2 resection was higher in patients operated on without previous formal multidisciplinary committee decision. Only 16% (seven of 43) of patients in the R2 subgroup had multidisciplinary decision prior to surgery, versus 48% (13 of 27) in R1 and 60% (15 of 25) in R0 (P = 0.001). The rate of R2 resection was also correlated with the place of initial surgery: 61% (31 of 51) in private or general hospitals versus 27% (12 of 44) in university or cancer hospitals (P = 0.021), and with the specialty of the surgeon: 11% (two of 18) for specialized sarcoma surgeons, versus 45% (14 of 31) for orthopedists, 55% (11 of 20) for general surgeons and 64% (16 of 25) for abdominal surgeons (P = 0.029). Finally, initial surgical procedure was judged to conform with CPGs in 52% of all cases.

Second surgical procedure: Twenty-nine (31%) of all patients benefited from multidisciplinary committee evaluation before possible second surgical resection. In the R2 resection subgroup (43 patients), only 19 patients (49%) were evaluated for re-excision, of whom 16 (37%) underwent second surgery. In the R1 subgroup (27 patients), only seven patients (26%) were evaluated for re-excision, of whom four (15%) underwent second surgery.

A second surgical excision was finally performed in 21 patients. Six (29%) were operated on in a private institution, eight (38%) in the university hospital and seven (33%) in the comprehensive cancer center. Nineteen patients (90%) undergoing second surgery had wide excision and two (10%) had marginal or incomplete excision. Thirteen patients (62%) were considered as having R0 surgical resection, six patients (29%) had R1 resection and two (9%) had R2 resection.

Of the remaining 57 (60%) patients (70 minus 13) who did not have wide surgical margins, i.e. R1 or R2 resection with or without re-operation, 28 (48%) received postoperative radiotherapy (plus chemotherapy in 14), and 30 (52%) did not, although 11 had adjuvant chemotherapy.

Histological analysis: Histological subtypes are described in Table 1. Twenty sarcomas did not have grade specified. Grade was reported for 89 patients: 17 grade I, 13 grade II and 59 grade III. Histological margins were specified for 95 cases.

Adjuvant therapy: A multidisciplinary sarcoma committee reviewed the files of 73 patients after surgery to determine further adjuvant treatment procedures or surveillance. Sixty-two patients received adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy: 18 (29%) had radiotherapy alone, 20 (32%) had chemotherapy alone, and 24 (39%) received both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The median time from last surgery to first adjuvant treatment was 1.37 months (range 0–2.4). Of the 44 patients who received chemotherapy, only 10 were included in a prospective clinical trial. Twenty-one patients received chemotherapy in neo-adjuvant phase only, 11 in adjuvant phase only, and 12 in both neo-adjuvant and adjuvant phases. Radiation therapy was delivered with a median time of 1.11 months (range 1–17.8) after primary surgery; the dose delivered to the tumor bed was 50 Gy for 20 patients and 60 Gy for the 22 remaining patients. Rates of conformity with CPGs of radiation therapy and chemotherapy were 81% and 94%, respectively.

Follow-up. Seventy patients were alive at the end of August 2002. Of the 100 initial patients, eight were not valuables for post-treatment surveillance, but we have information on relapse or death. Fourteen patients died or relapsed rapidly (<1 year after diagnosis of tumor) and were not assessable for surveillance. A total of 78 patients were therefore evaluable for the management of surveillance after initial clinical management: 74 received surveillance in agreement with CPGs, while four did not.

Local relapse and metastasis
In the whole study population, 54 patients experienced local (n = 14), metastatic (n = 18), or local and metastatic (n = 22) relapse. Median time between diagnosis and relapse was 26 months (range 14–37). Median time between diagnosis and local recurrence was 48 months (range 24–72). As expected, at univariate analysis, local relapse correlated to quality of resection (20% of local relapse for R0, 26% for R1 and 51% for R2; P = 0.01); macroscopic extent of surgery (19% of local relapse for wide surgery versus 49% for marginal surgery (P = 0.002; Figure 2); subspecialty of the surgeon; type of hospital; review of patient file by multidisciplinary committee or not before surgery; management in the cancer network or not; and conformity of radiotherapy to CPGs. See Table 2 for details of the univariate analysis.



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Percentage of local relapse depending on loco-regional treatment. Wide surgery plus RT (solid line) vs. wide surgery without RT (dotted line) vs. marginal surgery plus RT (dashed and dotted line) vs. marginal surgery without RT (dashed line). RT, radiation therapy.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Prognostic factors for relapse (local and metastatic)
 
For metastatic relapse, correlation was only found with histological grade [46% (33 of 72) for grades II and III versus 12% (two of 17) for grade I; P = 0.008], multidisciplinary committee decision after surgery [56% (15 of 27) versus 34% (25 of 63) for no committee; P = 0.04] and management in the cancer network or not. Type of resection, type of surgery, tumor size >10 cm, place of management, specialty of the initial surgeon and chemotherapy (conformity to CPGs or not) did not correlate with metastatic relapse. See Table 2 for details.

Conformity to CPGs
In summary, the rates of conformity to CPGs at initial biopsy, first surgery, second surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and follow-up were 65, 52, 49, 81, 94 and 95%, respectively. The global conformity rate of the complete treatment sequence (from initial examination to follow-up) was 32%.

Using logistic regression analysis, independent factors predictive of global conformity to CPGs in this study were: multidisciplinary committee decision before surgery [odds ratio (OR) 30.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6–144], management in cancer center or university hospital with a sarcoma committee (OR 11.5; 95% CI 2–57) and management in the cancer network organization (OR 13.9; 95% CI 1.1–170). Results are detailed in Table 3.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Multivariate analysis for conformity to CPGs
 

    Discussion
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
The objectives of this medical audit were to provide baseline information on STS management in a French region, and to investigate determinants of medical practice following CPGs for the management of sarcoma patients. For this purpose, 100 files of patients with sarcoma were reviewed retrospectively. The characteristics of the patients in this series reflected well the incidence described in international or national registries in terms of age, localization and distribution by site [15]. Interestingly, data were identical to other studies on medical practices, in terms of both patient characteristics and management characteristics [3, 4, 68, 1618].

The most important bias in our study was the mode of patient selection. Indeed, patients seen by multidisciplinary committees might well be the most severe cases in the region, and consequently difficult to handle according to reported CPGs. However, and importantly, comparing the incidence rate in the region [19] to the recruitment of these structures shows that very few patients were systematically treated outside referral centers throughout the management of their disease. In the period studied (15 months), the number of evaluated patients was relatively high considering the estimated incidence in the region. In addition, results of the study in terms of patients and management were exactly the same as those described in the literature [3, 68, 18], thus confirming that identical management is provided in all western countries, whatever the social system or the health policy, or the mentality of people or opinion leaders.

Concerning the initial management of STS, this study compared investigations performed before surgery to the guidelines. Within the subset of patients with a clinically suspicious mass, only 57% benefited from pre-treatment evaluation. It was also found that a diagnostic biopsy was performed in only 42% of the patients of the study. Pre-clinical evaluation and biopsy are essential steps to guarantee good surgical results [9, 12]; the lack of pre-treatment examinations may explain why only 44% of the patients had adequate initial primary wide excision. Only 42% of patients with marginal excision received either radiation therapy (77%) or chemotherapy alone (33%). Comparing patients with marginal excision with patients with wide excision shows a significantly higher rate of local relapse in the first population. Gustafson et al. [3] and Clasby et al. [6] previously reported similar information with identical percentages of marginal excision and local relapse.

Given that close margins are often inevitable, it is of greater concern that 45% of the patients in this study had R2 surgical resection, and that only 19 (49%) patients of this particular subgroup were discussed for re-excision. R2 resection in this study was correlated with the site of surgery, the specialty of the surgeon and the presence or absence of formal multidisciplinary committee. It is noteworthy that 29 of the 42 patients (70%) undergoing wide excision were operated on in the referral center, thus confirming information described by other authors who reported that adequacy of surgery paralleled the constitution of multidisciplinary STS committees [20]. Local control was acceptable and the number of amputations was similar to that of recent series [21]. A significant improvement was noted compared with previous results from this hospital, but control data were too outdated to make formal comparison possible [22].

The present work stresses the importance of specialized sarcoma groups, which encourages us to recommend the development of multidisciplinary STS committees for defining routine sarcoma management. Yet, running a multimodality group is costly and resource demanding, and it is probably not possible to offer management by multidisciplinary staff in all hospitals. Gathering resources and human expertise in a cancer network seems a potentially valuable solution. The results presented here open the possibility to improve STS management, as recommended by Rydholm [2]. In the 1990s, two out of three patients managed for STS did not have access to specific centers. In 2000, 10 years after the recommendations that diagnosis and treatment should be given in specialized centers were published, four out of five patients were managed in this setting [23]. Furthermore, as described previously, the multidisciplinary setting seems to increase conformity with guidelines [20].

Assessing histological reporting showed that while tumor size, diagnosis and status of margin resection were stated more frequently, tumor grade (an important factor for prognosis in some sarcoma subtypes) was less frequently assessed. This factor, with multidisciplinary committee staff, appears in this study as the only prognostic factor after surgery for metastatic relapse. All previous studies on prognostic factors and overall survival except one have also described tumor grade as a potent prognostic factor [2426]. This has heavy implications for clinicians attempting to plan optimal care. In our study, histological evaluation presents satisfying results and a nearly optimal examination compares with other procedures.

Concerning follow-up, 95% of patients’ follow-up in this study conformed to CPGs. This very high rate of conformity could be explained by the fact that 73% of patient cases were reviewed and discussed in a multidisciplinary committee before the end of the complete therapeutic sequence, and that the modalities of follow-up may have been determined by the committee. Conversely, the global conformity rate of the complete therapeutic sequence was low: only 32% in this study. In previous studies of the Rhône–Alpes region, the conformity of breast and colon cancer management with locally developed and implemented guidelines was >50% [27, 28]. The type of disease and the fact that CPGs were implemented and broadcasted only at the national level might account for the lower rate of conformity of biopsy and surgery. Deficiency in following the guidelines could be due to other reasons as well: (i) the physicians who write the rules are more likely to follow them; (ii) lack of dissemination of the information to the involved surgeons is almost certainly a problem (and one that is very difficult to fix); and (iii) the ability to achieve the goals of the CPGs as outlined may vary depending on the specialty involved. Factors predictive of good conformity with CPGs were the presence of multidisciplinary committees, the management of the patients in a referral center and, more particularly, within the cancer network organization.

In conclusion, the management of STS in this region of France appears to be suboptimal, in particular at the beginning of treatment (diagnosis and first surgical procedure). Our observations are consistent with other studies, originating from various countries. Developing national guidelines without local implementation and local broadcasting seems to be an inefficient way of improving disease management. However, constituting multidisciplinary committees has been found to increase conformity to CPGs, and might help change medical practice and treatment outcome [29, 30]. This last, encouraging, possibility warrants further evaluation and confirmation in a prospective study, which will be elaborated in a collaboration with the entire French Sarcoma Group.


    Acknowledgements
 
The authors thank Christine Rodriguez for her contribution to the construction of the database. We are grateful to Marie Dominique Reynaud for her editing assistance.


    FOOTNOTES
 
* Correspondence to: Dr I. Ray-Coquard, Centre Léon Bérard, 28, rue Laënnec 69008 Lyon, France. Tel: +33-478-78-2644; Fax: +33-478-78-2716; E-mail: ray{at}lyon.fnclcc.fr Back


    REFERENCES
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 Introduction
 Patients and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 REFERENCES
 
1. Menegoz F, Black RJ, Arveux P et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in France in 1975–95. Eur J Cancer Prev 1997; 6: 442–466.[ISI][Medline]

2. Rydholm A. Improving the management of soft tissue sarcoma. Diagnosis and treatment should be given in specialist centres. BMJ 1998; 317: 93–94.[Free Full Text]

3. Gustafson P, Dreinhofer KE, Rydholm A. Soft tissue sarcoma should be treated at a tumor center. A comparison of quality of surgery in 375 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1994; 65: 47–50.[ISI][Medline]

4. Pitcher ME, Ramanathan RC, Fish S et al. Outcome of treatment for limb and limb girdle sarcomas at the Royal Marsden Hospital. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000; 26: 548–551.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

5. Jane MJ, Hughes PJ. Disease incidence and results of extremity lesion treatment: Mersey Region soft tissue sarcomas (1975–1985). Sarcoma 1998; 2: 89–96.[CrossRef]

6. Clasby R, Tilling K, Smith MA, Fletcher CD. Variable management of soft tissue sarcoma: regional audit with implications for specialist care. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 1692–1696.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

7. O’Sullivan B, Wylie J, Catton C et al. The local management of soft tissue sarcoma. Semin Radiat Oncol 1999; 9: 328–348.[ISI][Medline]

8. Pitcher ME, Fish S, Thomas JM. Management of soft tissue sarcoma. Br J Surg 1994; 81: 1136–1139.[ISI][Medline]

9. Mankin HJ, Mankin CJ, Simon MA. The hazards of the biopsy, revisited. Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 656–663.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Karakousis CP, Proimakis C, Walsh DL. Primary soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities in adults. Br J Surg 1995; 82: 1208–1212.[ISI][Medline]

11. Mankin HJ, Lange TA, Spanier SS. The hazards of biopsy in patients with malignant primary bone and soft-tissue tumors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982; 64: 1121–1127.[ISI][Medline]

12. Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte contre le Cancer. Standards, Options, et Recommandations. Sarcomes des Tissus Mous et Ostéosarcomes, Vol. 1, 1st edition. Paris: Arnette Blackwell 1995; 6–113.

13. Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988; 260: 1743–1748.[Abstract]

14. Kaplan ES, Meier P. Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 58: 457–481.

15. Enzinger FM, Weiss SW. Soft Tissue Tumors, 3rd edition. St Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book 1995.

16. Noria S, Davis A, Kandel R et al. Residual disease following unplanned excision of soft-tissue sarcoma of an extremity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 650–655.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

17. Bell RS, O’Sullivan B, Liu FF et al. The surgical margin in soft-tissue sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989; 71: 370–375.[Abstract]

18. Serpell JW, Fish SH, Fisher C, Thomas JM. The diagnosis of soft tissue tumours. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1992; 74: 277–280.[ISI][Medline]

19. Colonna M, Hedelin G, Esteve J et al. National cancer prevalence estimation in France. Int J Cancer 2000; 87: 301–304.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

20. Wiklund T, Huuhtanen R, Blomqvist C et al. The importance of a multidisciplinary group in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas. Eur J Cancer 1996; 32A: 269–273.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

21. Frustaci S, Gherlinzoni F, De Paoli A et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for adult soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities and girdles: Results of the Italian Randomized Cooperative Trial. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 1238–1247.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

22. Grohn P, Heinonen E, Santavirta S et al. The management of soft tissue sarcomas. Duodecim 1979; 95: 1301–1306.[Medline]

23. Rydholm A. Centralization of soft tissue sarcoma, the southern Sweden experience. Acta Orthop Scand 1997; 68: 4–8.

24. Philip T, Blay JY, Brunat-Mentigny M et al. Standards, options and recommendations (SOR) for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of osteosarcoma. Groupe de travail SOR. Bull Cancer 1999; 86: 159–176.[ISI][Medline]

25. Coindre JM, Terrier P, Bui NB et al. Prognostic factors in adult patients with locally controlled soft tissue sarcoma. A study of 546 patients from the French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 869–877.[Abstract]

26. Pisters PW, Leung DH, Woodruff J et al. Analysis of prognostic factors in 1,041 patients with localized soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 1679–1689.[Abstract]

27. Ray-Coquard I, Philip T, de Laroche G et al. A controlled "before–after" study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice. Br J Cancer 2002; 86: 313–321.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

28. Ray-Coquard I, Philip T, Lehmann M et al. Impact of a clinical guidelines program for breast and colon cancer in a French cancer center. JAMA 1997; 278: 1591–1595.[Abstract]

29. Wilson AN, Davis A, Bell RS et al. Local control of soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity: the experience of a multidisciplinary sarcoma group with definitive surgery and radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 1994; 30A: 746–751.[ISI][Medline]

30. Davis AM, Kandel RA, Wunder JS et al. The impact of residual disease on local recurrence in patients treated by initial unplanned resection for soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity. J Surg Oncol 1997; 66: 81–87.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]