Background: The ongoing pandemic is having a collateral health effect on delivery of surgical care to millions of patients. Very little is known about pandemic management and effects on other services, including delivery of surgery. Methods: This was a scoping review of all available literature pertaining to COVID-19 and surgery, using electronic databases, society websites, webinars and preprint repositories. Results: Several perioperative guidelines have been issued within a short time. Many suggestions are contradictory and based on anecdotal data at best. As regions with the highest volume of operations per capita are being hit, an unprecedented number of operations are being cancelled or deferred. No major stakeholder seems to have considered how a pandemic deprives patients with a surgical condition of resources, with patients disproportionally affected owing to the nature of treatment (use of anaesthesia, operating rooms, protective equipment, physical invasion and need for perioperative care). No recommendations exist regarding how to reopen surgical delivery. The postpandemic evaluation and future planning should involve surgical services as an essential part to maintain appropriate surgical care for the population during an outbreak. Surgical delivery, owing to its cross-cutting nature and synergistic effects on health systems at large, needs to be built into the WHO agenda for national health planning. Conclusion: Patients are being deprived of surgical access, with uncertain loss of function and risk of adverse prognosis as a collateral effect of the pandemic. Surgical services need a contingency plan for maintaining surgical care in an ongoing or postpandemic phase.

A radical surgical approach to RPS is safe when carried out at a specialist sarcoma center. High-risk resections should be carefully considered on an individual basis and weighed against anticipated disease biology. There appears to be no association between surgical morbidity and long-term oncologic outcomes.

No abstract

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare, translocated, vascular sarcoma. EHE clinical behavior is variable, ranging from that of a low-grade malignancy to that of a high-grade sarcoma and it is marked by a high propensity for systemic involvement. No active systemic agents are currently approved specifically for EHE, which is typically refractory to the antitumor drugs used in sarcomas. The degree of uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate therapy for EHE patients and the lack of guidelines on the clinical management of the disease make the adoption of new treatments inconsistent across the world, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for many EHE patients. To address the shortcoming, a global consensus meeting was organized in December 2020 under the umbrella of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) involving >80 experts from several disciplines from Europe, North America and Asia, together with a patient representative from the EHE Group, a global, disease-specific patient advocacy group, and Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN). The meeting was aimed at defining, by consensus, evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to primary and metastatic EHE. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication.

Background: Prognostic nomograms for patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS) typically predict survival or the occurrence of local recurrence or distant metastasis at time of surgery. Our aim was to develop and externally validate a dynamic prognostic nomogram for overall survival in eSTS survivors for use during follow-up. Methods: All primary eSTS patients operated with curative intent between 1994 and 2013 at three European and one Canadian sarcoma centers formed the development cohort. Patients with F ed eration Française des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC) grade II and grade III eSTS operated between 2000 and 2016 at seven other European reference centers formed the external validation cohort. We used a landmark analysis approach and a multivariable Cox model to create a dynamic nomogram; the prediction window was fixed at five years. A backward procedure based on the Akaike Information Criterion was adopted for variable selection. We tested the nomogram performance in terms of calibration and discrimination. Findings: The development and validation cohorts included 3740 and 893 patients, respectively. The variables selected applying the backward procedure were patient's age, tumor size and its interaction with landmark time, tumor FNCLCC grade and its interaction with landmark time, histology, and both local recurrence and distant metastasis (as first event) indicator variables. The nomogram showed good calibration and discrimination. Harrell C indexes at different landmark times were between 0.776 (0.761À0.790) and 0.845 (0.823À0.862) in the development series and between 0.675 (0.643À0.704) and 0.810 (0.775À0.844) in the validation series. Interpretation: A new dynamic nomogram is available to predict 5-year overall survival at different times during the first three years of follow-up in patients operated for primary eSTS. This nomogram allows physicians Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed for studies published before Nov 1, 2018, that investigated the use of nomograms for predicting prognosis of patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma. We used the search terms 'nomogram', 'prediction', 'sarcoma', and 'extremity'. Available prognostic nomograms for patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma predicted survival or the occurrence of local recurrence or distant metastasis at time of surgery. After surgery, the individual risk of dying shows a non-linear evolution which is determined by the time elapsed from surgery, the event history (occurrence of local recurrence or distant metastasis vs. no events), and by the time-dependent effect of baseline covariates (tumor and patient characteristics). At the time of our search, there were no nomograms available for use during follow-up. The only available dynamic prognostic model was limited to patients with high-grade tumors, adopted a suboptimal histological classification and was not externally validated.Added value of this study.With this study, we created and externally validated a dynamic prognostic nomogra...