Sarcomas are heterogeneous and clinically challenging soft tissue and bone cancers. Although constituting only 1% of all human malignancies, sarcomas represent the second most common type of solid tumors in children and adolescents and comprise an important group of secondary malignancies. More than 100 histological subtypes have been characterized to date, and many more are being discovered due to molecular profiling. Owing to their mostly aggressive biological behavior, relative rarity, and occurrence at virtually every anatomical site, many sarcoma subtypes are in particular difficult‐to‐treat categories. Current multimodal treatment concepts combine surgery, polychemotherapy (with/without local hyperthermia), irradiation, immunotherapy, and/or targeted therapeutics. Recent scientific advancements have enabled a more precise molecular characterization of sarcoma subtypes and revealed novel therapeutic targets and prognostic/predictive biomarkers. This review aims at providing a comprehensive overview of the latest advances in the molecular biology of sarcomas and their effects on clinical oncology; it is meant for a broad readership ranging from novices to experts in the field of sarcoma.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

Background Historically, amputation was the primary surgical treatment for osteosarcoma of the extremities; however, with advancements in surgical techniques and chemotherapies limb salvage has replaced amputation as the dominant treatment paradigm. This study assessed the type of surgical resection chosen for osteosarcoma patients in the twenty-first century. Methods Utilizing the largest registry of primary osteosarcoma, the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we retrospectively analyzed patients with high grade osteosarcoma of the extremities from 2004 through 2015. Differences between patients undergoing amputation and patients undergoing limb salvage are described. Unadjusted five-year overall survival between patients who received limb salvage and amputation was assessed utilizing Kaplan Meier curves. A multivariate Cox proportional hazard model and propensity matched analysis was used to determine the variables independently correlated with survival. Results From a total of 2442 patients, 1855 underwent limb salvage and 587 underwent amputation. Patients undergoing amputation were more likely to be older, male, uninsured, and live in zip codes associated with lower income. Patients undergoing amputation were also more likely to have larger tumors, more comorbid conditions, and metastatic disease at presentation. After controlling for confounders, limb salvage was associated with a significant survival benefit over amputation (HR: 0.70; p < 0.001). Although this may well reflect underlying biases impacting choice of treatment, this survival benefit remained significant after propensity matched analysis of all significantly different independent variables (HR: 0.71; p < 0.01). Conclusion Among patients in the NCDB, amputation for osteosarcoma is associated with advanced age, advanced stage, larger tumors, greater comorbidities, and lower income. Limb salvage is associated with a significant survival benefit, even when controlling for significant confounding variables and differences between cohorts.

No abstract