The compliance to clinical practice guidelines and relapse-free survival of sarcoma patients are significantly better when the initial treatment is guided by a pre-therapeutic specialized MDTB.

Background NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 sarcoma reference centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB) aiming to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients. Since 2010, presentation to an MDTB and expert pathological review are mandatory for sarcoma patients nationwide. In the present work, the impact of surgery in a reference center on the survival of sarcoma patients investigated using this national NETSARC registry. Patients and methods Patients’ characteristics and follow-up are prospectively collected and data monitored. Descriptive, uni- and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors were conducted in the entire series ( N = 35 784) and in the subgroup of incident patient population ( N = 29 497). Results Among the 35 784 patients, 155 different histological subtypes were reported. 4310 (11.6%) patients were metastatic at diagnosis. Previous cancer, previous radiotherapy, neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), and Li–Fraumeni syndrome were reported in 12.5%, 3.6%, 0.7%, and 0.1% of patients respectively. Among the 29 497 incident patients, 25 851 (87.6%) patients had surgical removal of the sarcoma, including 9949 (33.7%) operated in a NETSARC center. Location, grade, age, size, depth, histotypes, gender, NF1, and surgery outside a NETSARC center all correlated to overall survival (OS), local relapse free survival (LRFS), and event-free survival (EFS) in the incident patient population. NF1 history was one of the strongest adverse prognostic factors for LRFS, EFS, and OS. Presentation to an MDTB was associated with an improved LRFS and EFS, but was an adverse prognostic factor for OS if surgery was not carried out in a reference center. In multivariate analysis, surgery in a NETSARC center was positively correlated with LRFS, EFS, and OS [ P < 0.001 for all, with a hazard ratio of 0.681 (95% CI 0.618–0.749) for OS]. Conclusion This nationwide registry of sarcoma patients shows that surgical treatment in a reference center reduces the risk of relapse and death.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on second-line chemotherapy (CT2) for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC). The aim of this multicenter study was to describe the CT2 regimens used, the response rates, and the outcomes of patients treated with various CT2 regimens. METHODS: Patients who received CT2 for ABTC at 17 French institutions after the failure of the gemcitabine-platinum combination were retrospectively studied. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox models were used for multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Among 603 patients who received first-line chemotherapy (CT1) for ABTC, 196 received CT2: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and irinotecan (n 5 64), 5-FU and oxaliplatin (n 5 21), 5-FU and cisplatin (n 5 38), 5-FU or capecitabine (n 5 40), sunitinib (n 5 10), or other various regimens (n 5 23). Among the 186 assessable patients, there were 22 partial responses and 70 stabilizations. After a median follow-up of 26.4 months, the median PFS and OS were 3.2 and 6.7 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS or OS between CT2 regimens. Fluoropyrimidine-based doublet chemotherapy was not superior to fluoropyrimidine alone in terms of OS and PFS. In a multivariate analysis, a performance status of 0 to 1, disease control with CT1, and a carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) level 400 IU/mL were significantly associated with longer PFS and OS. Grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 32% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: CT2 might provide disease control for selected patients with ABTC after the failure of gemcitabine-platinum, but the prognosis remains poor. No particular regimen seems superior to others, and this calls for new treatments. A good performance status, disease control with CT1, and a low level of CA 19-9 were associated with longer survival. Cancer 2015;121:3290-7.

No abstract

Background Spatial inequalities in cancer management have been evidenced by studies reporting lower quality of care or/and lower survival for patients living in remote or socially deprived areas. NETSARC+ is a national reference network implemented to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients in France since 2010, providing remote access to specialized diagnosis and Multidisciplinary Tumour Board (MTB). The IGéAS research program aims to assess the potential of this innovative organization, with remote management of cancers including rare tumours, to go through geographical barriers usually impeding the optimal management of cancer patients. Methods Using the nationwide NETSARC+ databases, the individual, clinical and geographical determinants of the access to sarcoma-specialized diagnosis and MTB were analysed. The IGéAS cohort (n = 20,590) includes all patients living in France with first sarcoma diagnosis between 2011 and 2014. Early access was defined as specialised review performed before 30 days of sampling and as first sarcoma MTB discussion performed before the first surgery. Results Some clinical populations are at highest risk of initial management without access to sarcoma specialized services, such as patients with non-GIST visceral sarcoma for diagnosis [OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.78 to 2.15] and MTB discussion [OR 3.56, 95% CI 3.16 to 4.01]. Social deprivation of the municipality is not associated with early access on NETSARC+ remote services. The quintile of patients furthest away from reference centres have lower chances of early access to specialized diagnosis [OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.31] and MTB discussion [OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.40] but this influence of the distance is slight in comparison with clinical factors and previous studies on the access to cancer-specialized facilities. Conclusions In the context of national organization driven by reference network, distance to reference centres slightly alters the early access to sarcoma specialized services and social deprivation has no impact on it. The reference networks’ organization, designed to improve the access to specialized services and the quality of cancer management, can be considered as an interesting device to reduce social and spatial inequalities in cancer management. The potential of this organization must be confirmed by further studies, including survival analysis.