Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Qiang Guo,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China

    ⨯
  • Jichun Zhao,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China

    ⨯
  • Xiaojiong Du ,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    duxiaojiong@163.com (XD); bhwchscu@163.com (BH)

    Affiliation Department of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China

    ⨯
  • Bin Huang

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    duxiaojiong@163.com (XD); bhwchscu@163.com (BH)

    Affiliation Department of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

Definitive evidence to guide clinical practice on the principles of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPSs) is still lacking. This study aims to summarise the available evidence to assess the relative benefits and disadvantages of an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ resection in patients with RPS, the association between surgical resection margins and survival outcomes, and the role of surgery in recurrent RPS.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for relevant randomised trials and observational studies published from inception up to May 1, 2021. Prospective or retrospective studies, published in the English language, providing outcome data with surgical treatment in patients with RPS were selected. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

Findings

In total, 47 articles were analysed. There were no significant differences in the rates of OS (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.83–1.03; P = 0.574) and recurrence-free survival (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.945) between the extended resection group and the tumour resection alone group. Organ resection did not increase postoperative mortality (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.55–1.81; P = 0.997) but had a relatively higher complication rate (OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.94–5.34; P = 0.068). OS was higher in R0 than in R1 resection (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.23–1.44; P < 0.001) and in R1 resection than in R2 resection (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.35–2.36; P < 0.001). OS was also higher in R2 resection than in no surgery (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07–1.45; P < 0.001), however, subgroup analysis showed that the pooled HR in the trials reporting primary RPS was similar between the two groups (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87–1.42; P = 0.42). Surgical treatment achieves a significantly higher OS rate than does conservative treatment (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.21–3.64; P < 0.001) for recurrent RPS.

Conclusions

For primary RPS, curative-intent en bloc resection should be aimed, and adjacent organs with evidence of direct invasion must be resected to avoid R2 resection. For recurrent RPS, surgical resection should be considered as a priority. Incomplete resection remains to have a survival benefit in select patients with unresectable recurrent RPS.

Citation: Guo Q, Zhao J, Du X, Huang B (2022) Survival outcomes of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0272044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044

Editor: Paolo Aurello, Universitá Sapienza di Roma, ITALY

Received: November 5, 2021; Accepted: July 13, 2022; Published: July 28, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Guo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare malignant tumours that most commonly arise from cells of mesenchymal origin and represents approximately 1% of all adult malignancies [1]. Approximately 15–20% of all STSs arise in the retroperitoneum [2]. STS consists of more than 70 well-defined histologic subtypes, and liposarcoma is the most common one found in the retroperitoneum [2]. Other subtypes include leiomyosarcoma, MFH, solitary fibrous tumors and malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors [2]. Individual histologic subtypes have unique behavioral characteristics and treatment outcomes. Although STS of the retroperitoneum are rare, these tumours have worse prognosis than those arising from the trunk or extremity, with 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of 39–70% [3]. Several factors influence this poor prognosis. First, retroperitoneal sarcomas often progress asymptomatically and are thus only detected incidentally when the substantially enlarged tumour compresses the surrounding organs [4]. Patients presenting with back pain or abdominal distention already have a large tumour with multi-organ involvement and close proximity to critical structures such as major vessels or kidney. Second, surgical resection of localised tumours with gross negative margins remains the mainstay of curative treatment for patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPSs) [5]. However, a significant percentage of patients, even those treated at high-volume centres with gross negative margins, develop disease recurrence [6]. Besides, recent multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have reported similar rates of abdominal recurrence-free survival (RFS) and OS between surgery alone and preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery [7]. Adjuvant chemotherapy is not routinely recommended in RPS because of lack of sufficient evidence supporting its OS benefit [3]. Third, RPS has over 70 different histologic subtypes, and the heterogeneity in its biological behaviour, treatment response, and oncological risks renders a homogeneous therapeutic approach difficult and makes it challenging to develop evidence-based guidelines [8].

Surgery for primary or recurrent RPS is still technically challenging [5]. Thus, margin assessment continues to be an area of uncertainty in RPS surgery. Actual pathologic evidence of organ invasion is rare, and thus, the appropriateness of resecting adjacent uninvolved organs in RPS surgeries is still controversial [9]. Aggressive resection to grossly uninvolved organs may improve R0 resection rates; however, the benefit of converting R1 to R0 resections is unclear, and concomitant organ resection might be associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications [10]. Currently, local recurrence is the primary cause of mortality in RPS, with up to 75% of mortalities occurring without evidence of distant metastases [11]. Although R2 resection is not recommended for primary RPS, some study suggested that R2 resection may prolong survival and alleviate symptoms in select patients with unresectable RPS [12]. Further, data regarding the outcomes of surgery for recurrent RPS and data to guide treatment decisions for patients with local recurrence are limited.

Thus, we aimed to gather available evidence to determine the relative benefit and disadvantages of an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ resection in patients with RPS. We also compared the long-term survival rates among different surgical resection margins for RPS and the OS rates between surgery and conservative treatment in patients with recurrent RPS.

Methods

Search strategy

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews [13]. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for relevant studies published from inception up to May 1, 2021 using the following keywords: ‘retroperitoneal tumour’ or ‘retroperitoneal neoplasm’ or ‘retroperitoneal sarcoma’ and ‘surgery’ or ‘surgical’ or ‘resection’ (specific search strategies are listed in S1 File).

We included randomized trials and observational studies comparing different surgical resection margins for RPS; comparing surgery with conservative treatment for recurrent RPS patients; and comparing extended resection including adjacent organs with resection of tumour alone. Conference abstracts, letters, editorials, or any publication other than a peer-reviewed original research article or a technical report from a national public health organization and those that did not provide hazard ratios (HRs) or confidence intervals (CIs) were excluded. Studies were also excluded if the study population was duplicated in another study included in our meta-analysis. In case of duplicate populations, the study that included more institutions or more patients was selected. Only studies published in the English language were included, and the references of the selected articles were reviewed for additional relevant studies.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two authors (Q.G. and X.D.) independently selected the studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After the initial search, the titles and abstracts were independently screened to identify potentially relevant studies that were then submitted to a full-text review. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third reviewer (J.Z.). The following data were compiled in a spreadsheet: (1) study characteristics (name of the first author, publishing year, study design, sample size); (2) tumour characteristics (histologic subtype, French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group [FNCLCC] grade [14], tumour status); (3) surgical characteristics (combined organ resection, margin status, vascular reconstruction); (4) adjuvant therapy (radiotherapy/chemotherapy), and (5) outcomes (OS, RFS, postoperative complications, and 30-day mortality). When data were unavailable, efforts were made to contact the corresponding author to obtain the missing data.

The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [15]. The scale evaluates study bias and assigns points in the following three domains: patient selection, comparability, and outcomes. Each reviewer generated a score, and the value was reviewed (Q.G. and J.Z.). Studies with a high risk of bias (score <6) were further reviewed for inclusion.

Statistical analysis

All outcomes were dichotomous data. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, with I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% considered to indicate low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. The primary outcome was OS. The secondary outcomes were RFS, postoperative complications and early postoperative mortality. Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were estimated to compare the risk of recurrence or OS. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were estimated to compare the risk of postoperative complication or early postoperative mortality between an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ resection and tumour resection alone. For time-to-event outcomes, including RFS and OS, HRs and their associated variances were extracted, or estimates were calculated where possible using the methods described by Tierney et al [16]. Prespecified subgroup analyses by tumour status (primary/recurrent) were performed. Sensitive analyses that only including studies with similar surgical margins were also performed. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata/MP, version 16.0 (StataCorp LLC). All tests were two sided, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Study characteristics

A total of 4172 articles were initially evaluated, and 16 studies were further identified through the references. After removing the 1384 duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 2804 articles were reviewed. Among them, 238 studies were reviewed in full text. Finally, 47 studies involving 22608 patients were included in the final analysis [10, 12, 17–61]. All 47 studies were observational research. The PRISMA flow diagram showing the entire review process from the original search to the final selection of studies is presented in Fig 1. In total, 17 studies (3875 participants) compared between extended resection and tumour resection alone [10, 19, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32, 38, 44, 45, 48, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60]. Meanwhile, 26 studies (17368 patients) reported data on different surgical resection margins [12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24–28, 33–36, 40–43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 61], and five studies (1619 participants) compared the long-term outcomes between surgery and conservative treatment in patients with recurrent RPS [29, 30, 37, 39, 58]. The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. The overall risk of bias in this analysis was deemed low to moderate (S1 File).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included for meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044.t001

Extended resection versus tumour resection alone

A total of 17 studies reported data on extended resection versus tumour resection alone (Fig 2). Five studies compared the complications between extended resection and tumour resection alone [10, 23, 44, 51, 57]; however, one trial reported no events [44]. The overall complication rate was 21% (81/394). The pooled analysis of the four trials [10, 23, 51, 57] did not show a significant difference in complications between extended resection and tumour resection alone (44/184 vs. 33/210; OR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.94–5.34; P = 0.068; S1 File). Sensitive analyse that only including studies with similar surgical margins [10, 23, 51] showed that the extended resection group had a higher complication rate than the tumour resection alone group (OR: 3.61, 95% CI: 1.56–8.31; P = 0.003).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Meta-analysis results of extended resection versus tumour resection alone.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044.g002

Fatal outcomes related to operation were reported in seven trials (2643 participants) [10, 19, 22, 44, 51, 57, 59], but four of them reported no events in either group [10, 22, 44, 51]. Three studies [19, 57, 59] reported 44 surgery-related deaths (22 in the extended resection group and 22 in the tumour resection alone group). The overall surgery-related mortality rate was 2%. The pooled analysis of the three trials did not show a significant difference between the extended resection group and tumour resection alone group (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.55–1.81; P = 0.997; S1 File). Sensitive analyse that only including studies [59] with similar surgical margins also showed no significant difference between the extended resection group and tumour resection alone group (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.57–1.76; P = 0.877).

There were seven studies [20, 31, 32, 38, 45, 48, 53] (790 patients) that reported disease-free survival, and they were pooled in a random-effects model. The results showed no significant difference between the extended resection group and the tumour resection alone group (HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.74–1.27; P = 0.945; S1 File), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 23%). Subgroup analysis by tumour status also showed no significant differences in disease-free survival in the primary RPS (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.68–1.53; P = 0.645; I2 = 14%; S1 File) or recurrent RPS (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.45–1.44; P = 0.676; I2 = 68%; S1 File) subgroups. Sensitive analyse that only including studies with similar surgical margins [31, 38] also did not show significant difference between the extended resection group and tumour resection alone group (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.84–1.60; P = 0.409).

We pooled the results of 11 studies [19, 31, 32, 38, 44, 45, 51, 53, 56, 59, 60] (3014 patients) that reported HRs for OS. The results indicated no significant difference between the extended resection group and the tumour resection alone group (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.83–1.03; P = 0.774; S1 File), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis based on tumour status also did not show a significant difference between the two groups in primary RPS (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.83–1.04; P = 0.477; I2 = 0%; S1 File) and in recurrent RPS (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.00–1.81; P = 0.531; I2 = 0%; S1 File). Sensitive analyse that only including studies with similar surgical margins [31, 38, 44, 51, 59] also showed no significant difference between the extended resection group and tumour resection alone group (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.83–1.04; P = 0.951).

Surgical resection margins

There were 26 studies that reported data on outcomes by different surgical resection margins (Fig 3). In 17 studies [18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 40, 42, 43, 46, 49, 50, 54, 55, 61] (16357 patients), there was a significant difference in OS between R0 and R1, with a pooled HR of 1.34 (95% CI: 1.23–1.44; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%; S1 File). In subgroup analysis by tumour status, the pooled analysis of nine trials [18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 40, 54, 61] on primary RPS showed that R1 resection has an inferior OS rate to R0 resection (HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.19–1.43; P < 0.001; S1 File), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). Meanwhile, 7 studies [21, 27, 35, 46, 49, 54, 61] (1239 patients) compared the OS between R1 and R2 resection. The results showed that R1 resection achieves superior OS (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.35–2.36; P < 0.001; I2 = 10%; S1 File). The benefit of was also significant in the subgroup of trials reporting primary RPS (HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.05–2.50; P = 0.01; I2 = 36%; S1 File).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Meta-analysis results of different surgical resection margins.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044.g003

A total of 12 studies [12, 17, 26, 27, 33–36, 41, 46, 47, 52] (1510 patients) compared survival outcomes between R2 resection and no surgery. The results showed that R2 resection achieves superior OS to no surgery (HR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07–1.45; P < 0.001; I2 = 7%; S1 File). However, in the studies on primary RPS, the pooled HR was similar between the R2 resection and no surgery groups (HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.87–1.42; P = 0.422; S1 File).

Impact of surgery on long-term survival in recurrent RPS

A total of five studies [8, 29, 37, 39, 58] reported data on surgery versus conservative treatment for recurrent RPS. The results from these studies demonstrated that surgical treatment achieves a significantly higher OS rate than does conservative treatment (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.21–3.64; P < 0.001; Fig 4), with moderate to high heterogeneity (I2 = 64%).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Pooled over-all survival of surgery versus conservative treatment for recurrent RPS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044.g004

Discussion

Guidelines on the management of RPS are still lacking owing to its low incidence. In this study, an aggressive surgical approach with contiguous organ resection achieved acceptable rates of postoperative complication and mortality in both primary and recurrent RPS. The results of this study also demonstrated the importance of surgery and surgical margins in long-term survival. To our best knowledge, this is the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis focusing on the role of surgery in RPS.

The first consensus on the management of primary RPS was published by the trans-Atlantic RPS working group (TARPSWG) in 2015 [62]. In the follow-up, the group included several more European and North American centres and further improved the consensus on recurrent and metastatic RPS [63, 64]. However, definitive evidence to guide clinical practice is still lacking. Multimodality treatment involving radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy is recommended to obtain negative surgical margins with a subsequently better local disease control and longer survival in STS in the extremity [4]. However, the use of adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy in STS in the retroperitoneum varies widely among institutions because of the lack of high-level evidence supporting the benefit of these modalities [62, 65]. A meta-analysis of ten non-RCTs concluded that perioperative radiation therapy is associated with higher OS and lower recurrence rates [66]. However, a recent multicentre RCT that compared between preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery and surgery alone for patients with primary RPS reported conflicting results [7]. There are also limited evidence on the usefulness of neoadjuvant therapy for recurrent RPS patients indicated for resection. In addition, radiotherapy to the retroperitoneum is a complex procedure. RCTs are needed to standardise the radiotherapy protocol for recurrent/unresectable RPS.

Given the lack of data, surgical resection remains the cornerstone of therapy and the only potentially curative therapy for patients with RPS. However, many aspects of surgical resection for RPS are controversial. For example, the efficacy of contiguous organ resection and the appropriate extent of curative-intent surgical resection are yet to be determined. Further, the role of gross incomplete resection for unresectable RPS needs to be clarified. The criteria for unresectability remains undefined, and the indication and eligibility for surgical resection vary by medical centre. Patients with residual macroscopic disease are often referred to specialised centres because they are a significant challenge from a surgical standpoint as the appropriateness of en bloc resection for organs adherent to the tumour needs to be determined intraoperatively [67]. The TARPSWG recently updated the consensus on management of primary RPS in adults [68]. The update mentioned criteria for technical non-resectability as involvement of the superior mesenteric artery, aorta, coeliac trunk, and/or portal vein; bone involvement; growth into the spinal canal; invasive extension of retrohepatic inferior vena cava leiomyosarcoma into the right atrium; infiltration of multiple major organs (eg, liver and pancreas) and/or major vessels. However, vascular reconstructions, which enable radical resection of retroperitoneal sarcomas in patients with advanced disease, have been successfully performed in many studies [69, 70]. Further, complex surgeries are associated with an acceptable rate of serious perioperative complications [69]. In addition, a previous study indicated that more than one third of the patients with primary/recurrent RPS undergoing palliative-intent operation could achieve R0/R1 resection [31]. Thus, unresectability cannot be determined via computed tomography imaging alone, and patients should be referred to specialised centres and carefully evaluated by an experienced multidisciplinary team before any surgical resection is attempted. Furthermore, our results showed that even R2 resection achieves superior OS to no surgery, and surgical treatment achieves a significantly higher OS rate than does conservative treatment in recurrent RPS. These findings indicate that surgical resection should be considered as first-line treatment regardless of the tumour status (primary or recurrent).

With respect to the impact of organ resection, our findings indicated that rates of postoperative mortality are not significantly different between extended resection group and tumour resection alone, however, extended resection group had a relatively higher complication rate than the tumour resection alone group. In addition, organ resection did not improve local recurrence or OS. Given the importance of a quality surgical resection, early techniques ascribed to an aggressive surgical approach whereby adjacent uninvolved organs are routinely resected en bloc to optimise the margin status [20]. These techniques are referred to as compartmental resection [20]. Complete compartmental resection is defined as a systematic resection of uninvolved contiguous organs [20]. In general, the patient undergoes an en bloc tumour resection with the colon in front, the kidney inside, and the psoas at the back. Vessels are exposed after removal of adventitia, but the pancreas and duodenum are not resected if they are not involved. In contrast, contiguous organ resection is defined as resection of macroscopically involved adjacent organs [20]. Theoretically, complete compartmental resection could obtain a rim of normal tissue surrounding the tumour to ensure a better margin. However, compartmental resection only results in a lower local recurrence rate and is associated with a higher overall complication and lesser survival benefit than complete resection and contiguous organ resection [20, 51]. These results might be explained by the following reasons. Both compartmental resection and contiguous organ resection have no impact on surgical resection margins, especially R0 resection [51]. The R0 resection is only approximately 57% in compartmental resection [51]. Unlike the more common epithelial tumours or adenocarcinomas, which develop within a single organ, RPS can infiltrate multiple surrounding organs owing to their large size and multiple central location [9, 44]. Tumours measuring 20 cm on average have poorly defined anatomic borders, and thus, it would impractical to assess margin status [4]. In addition, it is challenging to obtain clear margins because RPS tumours are commonly surrounded by both anterior and posterior great vessels, vertebral column, and lumbar musculature. As such, although complete macroscopic surgical resection can be achieved in RPS, the incidence of local recurrence and disease progression remains high [39]. Determining the need for resection of adjacent organs depends on the surgeon’s assessment of the extent of tumour invasion. Thus, understanding the survival benefit of radical excision of adjacent organs is crucial. As such, it is important that the need for extended resection is recognised pre/intraoperatively by multidisciplinary evaluation.

Consistent with previous studies [35, 46], we found that surgical resection margins are correlated with long-term survival. The current meta-analysis indicated that OS was higher in R0 resection than in R1 resection and in R1 resection than in R2 resection. Similar findings were obtained in subgroup analysis by tumour status. R2 resection achieved a superior OS to no surgery. However, interestingly, the pooled HR in the studies on primary RPS showed a similar OS between the R2 resection group and the no operation group. This could be because patients with unresectable primary RPS might have higher TNM stage or histological grade, which could be associated with worse long-term outcomes. Thus, for these patients, owing to the similar rates of postoperative complication and mortality between extended resection and tumour resection alone, adjacent organs with evidence of direct invasion must be resected en bloc to avoid R2 resection. In contrast, incomplete surgical resection was beneficial for patients with recurrent RPS, prolonging survival and alleviating symptoms [12].

The strengths of our review include its comprehensive search and methodologic robustness. We searched all available literature to exclude studies with overlapping cohorts and analysed large-scale studies. However, the present study also had some limitations. First, selection bias is inevitably associated with this type of surgical studies, especially when the indication and eligibility for surgical resection and the method of assessment of appropriate resection margins might vary by medical centre. The FNCLCC grade, tumour status, and adjuvant therapy also varied among the studies, possibly introducing bias. Although we performed subgroup analysis to investigate the impact of tumour status, we were unable to evaluate other factors that may modify the association between different surgical strategies and survival outcomes (eg, histologic subtype and adjuvant therapy) because the relevant data were lacking. Second, there was an insufficient number of studies on extended resection (eg, adjacent organs vs tumour resection alone) and surgical treatment vs conservative treatment for recurrent RPS were insufficient, and thus, the recommendations for these comparisons have a relatively weak power. Subsequent long-term prospective studies in these areas are needed. Third, the included studies were limited to the literatures published in English. This strategy might lead to limited data collection. Finally, all trials included in this study used an open-label design, which might introduce bias. However, assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies indicated that most studies had a low or medium risk of bias.

In summary, RPS is a rare and complex malignancy that is best managed by an experienced multidisciplinary team in a specialised referral centre. Surgical resection should be attempted in majority of the patients. Primary RPS should be indicated for curative-intent en bloc resection with optimal extent of resection, and adjacent organs with evidence of direct invasion must be resected en bloc to avoid R2 resection. Routine compartmental resection is not recommended. Meanwhile, a part of unresectable recurrent RPS should be indicated for incomplete resection or debulking to improve survival after multidisciplinary evaluation.

Supporting information

S1 File. It contains all the supporting tables and figures.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272044.s001

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank D.Y. Kang, statistician of the Department of Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, for his assistance with the statistical analysis.

References

  1. 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71: 7–33. pmid:33433946
  2. 2. Fisher SB, Chiang YJ, Feig BW, Cormier JN, Hunt KK, Torres KE, et al. An evaluation of the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for retroperitoneal sarcomas using the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB): does size matter? Am J Clin Oncol. 2019; 42: 160–165. pmid:30394881
  3. 3. Gladdy RA, Gupta A, Catton CN. Retroperitoneal sarcoma: fact, opinion, and controversy. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2016; 25: 697–711. pmid:27591493
  4. 4. Cormier JN, Pollock RE. Soft tissue sarcomas. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004; 54: 94–109. pmid:15061599
  5. 5. Fairweather M, Gonzalez RJ, Strauss D, Raut CP. Current principles of surgery for retroperitoneal sarcomas. J Surg Oncol. 2018; 117: 33–41. pmid:29315649
  6. 6. Porter GA, Baxter NN, Pisters PW. Retroperitoneal sarcoma: a population-based analysis of epidemiology, surgery, and radiotherapy. Cancer. 2006; 106: 1610–1616. pmid:16518798
  7. 7. Bonvalot S, Gronchi A, Le Péchoux C, Swallow CJ, Strauss D, Meeus P, et al. Preoperative radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (EORTC-62092: STRASS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020; 21: 1366–1377. pmid:32941794
  8. 8. Gronchi A, Strauss DC, Miceli R, Bonvalot S, Swallow CJ, Hohenberger P, et al. Variability in patterns of recurrence after resection of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS): a report on 1007 patients from the Multi-Institutional Collaborative RPS Working Group. Ann Surg. 2016; 263: 1002–1009. pmid:26727100
  9. 9. Fairweather M, Wang J, Jo VY, Baldini EH, Bertagnolli MM, Raut CP. Surgical management of primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: rationale for selective organ resection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25: 98–106. pmid:29067605
  10. 10. Ikoma N, Roland CL, Torres KE, Chiang YJ, Wang WL, Somaiah N, et al. Concomitant organ resection does not improve outcomes in primary retroperitoneal well-differentiated liposarcoma: a retrospective cohort study at a major sarcoma center. J Surg Oncol. 2018; 117: 1188–1194. pmid:29228466
  11. 11. Raut CP, Callegaro D, Miceli R, Barretta F, Rutkowski P, Blay JY, et al. Predicting survival in patients undergoing resection for locally recurrent retroperitoneal sarcoma: a study and novel nomogram from TARPSWG. Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 25: 2664–2671. pmid:30723141
  12. 12. Shibata D, Lewis JJ, Leung DH, Brennan MF. Is there a role for incomplete resection in the management of retroperitoneal liposarcomas? J Am Coll Surg. 2001; 193: 373–379. pmid:11584964
  13. 13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000097. pmid:19621072
  14. 14. Guillou L, Coindre JM, Bonichon F, Nguyen BB, Terrier P, Collin F, et al. Comparative study of the National Cancer Institute and French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group grading systems in a population of 410 adult patients with soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15: 350–362. pmid:8996162
  15. 15. Wells GSB ’ OConnell D, Peterson J. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses; 2000, Available at: www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed June 15, 2021.
  16. 16. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007; 8: 16. pmid:17555582
  17. 17. Abdelfatah E, Guzzetta AA, Nagarajan N, Wolfgang CL, Pawlik TM, Choti MA, et al. Long-term outcomes in treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas: a 15 year single-institution evaluation of prognostic features. J Surg Oncol. 2016; 114:56–64. pmid:27076350
  18. 18. Bagaria SP, Neville M, Gray RJ, Gabriel E, Ashman JB, Attia S, et al. The volume-outcome relationship in retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: evidence of improved short- and long-term outcomes at high-volume institutions. Sarcoma. 2018; 2018: 3056562. pmid:30140165
  19. 19. Bengmark S, Hafström L, Jönsson PE, Karp W, Nordgren H. Retroperitoneal sarcoma treated by surgery. J Surg Oncol. 1980; 14: 307–314. pmid:7442259
  20. 20. Bonvalot S, Rivoire M, Castaing M, Stoeckle E, Le Cesne A, Blay JY, et al. Primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: a multivariate analysis of surgical factors associated with local control. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 31–37. pmid:19047280
  21. 21. Bremjit PJ, Jones RL, Chai X, Kane G, Rodler ET, Loggers ET, et al. A contemporary large single-institution evaluation of resected retroperitoneal sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21:2150–2158. pmid:24615180
  22. 22. Chiappa A, Zbar AP, Biffi R, Bertani E, Biella F, Viale G, et al. Effect of resection and outcome in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. ANZ J Surg. 2006; 76: 462–466. pmid:16768769
  23. 23. Chiappa A, Bertani E, Pravettoni G, Zbar AP, Foschi D, Spinoglio G, et al. Aggressive surgical approach for treatment of primary and recurrent retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Indian J Surg. 2018; 80: 154–162. pmid:29915482
  24. 24. Doepker MP, Hanna KH, Thompson ZJ, Binitie OT, Letson DG, Gonzalez RJ. Recurrence and survival analysis of resected soft tissue sarcomas of pelvic retroperitoneal structures. J Surg Oncol. 2016; 113: 103–107. pmid:26744131
  25. 25. Erzen D, Sencar M, Novak J. Retroperitoneal sarcoma: 25 years of experience with aggressive surgical treatment at the Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana. J Surg Oncol. 2005; 91: 1–9. pmid:15999353
  26. 26. Fujimoto N, Kubo T, Hisaoka M, Udo K, Yokomizo A, Shibuya T, et al. Demographics, management and treatment outcomes of benign and malignant retroperitoneal tumors in Japan. Int J Urol. 2018; 25: 61–67. pmid:28994196
  27. 27. García-Aceituno L, Villarreal-Garza C, Perfecto M, León-Rodríguez E. Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas: experience at a single institution in Mexico. World J Surg. 2010; 34: 1511–1516. pmid:20162280
  28. 28. Gilbeau L, Kantor G, Stoeckle E, Lagarde P, Thomas L, Kind M, et al. Surgical resection and radiotherapy for primary retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Radiother Oncol. 2002; 65: 137–143. pmid:12464441
  29. 29. Grobmyer SR, Wilson JP, Apel B, Knapik J, Bell WC, Kim T, et al. Recurrent retroperitoneal sarcoma: impact of biology and therapy on outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 210: 602–08, 608–610. pmid:20421013
  30. 30. Gronchi A, Miceli R, Allard MA, Callegaro D, Le Péchoux C, Fiore M, et al. Personalizing the approach to retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: histology-specific patterns of failure and postrelapse outcome after primary extended resection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 1447–1454. pmid:25300609
  31. 31. Ikoma N, Torres KE, Lin HY, Ravi V, Roland CL, Mann GN, et al. Recurrence patterns of retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma and impact of salvage surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2017; 116: 313–319. pmid:28557016
  32. 32. Ishii K, Yokoyama Y, Nishida Y, Koike H, Yamada S, Kodera Y, et al. Characteristics of primary and repeated recurrent retroperitoneal liposarcoma: outcomes after aggressive surgeries at a single institution. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2020; 50: 1412–1418. pmid:32699905
  33. 33. Jaques DP, Coit DG, Hajdu SI, Brennan MF. Management of primary and recurrent soft-tissue sarcoma of the retroperitoneum. Ann Surg. 1990; 212: 51–59. pmid:2363604
  34. 34. Karakousis CP, Velez AF, Emrich LJ. Management of retroperitoneal sarcomas and patient survival. Am J Surg. 1985; 150: 376–380. pmid:4037201
  35. 35. Lehnert T, Cardona S, Hinz U, Willeke F, Mechtersheimer G, Treiber M, et al. Primary and locally recurrent retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma: local control and survival. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009; 35: 986–993. pmid:19138832
  36. 36. Lewis JJ, Leung D, Woodruff JM, Brennan MF. Retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma: analysis of 500 patients treated and followed at a single institution. Ann Surg. 1998; 228: 355–365. pmid:9742918
  37. 37. Lochan R, French JJ, Manas DM. Surgery for retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas: aggressive re-resection of recurrent disease is possible. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011; 93: 39–43. pmid:20825703
  38. 38. Lu W, Lau J, Xu MD, Zhang Y, Jiang Y, Tong HX, et al. Recurrent abdominal liposarcoma: analysis of 19 cases and prognostic factors. World J Gastroenterol. 2013; 19: 4045–4052. pmid:23840151
  39. 39. MacNeill AJ, Miceli R, Strauss DC, Bonvalot S, Hohenberger P, Van Coevorden F, et al. Post-relapse outcomes after primary extended resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma: a report from the Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Cancer. 2017; 123: 1971–1978. pmid:28152173
  40. 40. Martin E, Coert JH, Flucke UE, Slooff WM, Ho VKY, van der Graaf WT, et al. A nationwide cohort study on treatment and survival in patients with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2020; 124: 77–87. pmid:31760312
  41. 41. McGrath PC, Neifeld JP, Lawrence W Jr, DeMay RM, Kay S, Horsley JS 3rd, et al. Improved survival following complete excision of retroperitoneal sarcomas. Ann Surg. 1984; 200: 200–204. pmid:6465975
  42. 42. Milone M, Pezzullo LS, Salvatore G, Pezzullo MG, Leongito M, Esposito I, et al. Management of high-grade retroperitoneal liposarcomas: personal experience. Updates Surg. 2011; 63: 119–124. pmid:21455814
  43. 43. Miura JT, Charlson J, Gamblin TC, Eastwood D, Banerjee A, Johnston FM, et al. Impact of chemotherapy on survival in surgically resected retroperitoneal sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41: 1386–1392. pmid:26251340
  44. 44. Morizawa Y, Miyake M, Shimada K, Hori S, Tatsumi Y, Nakai Y, et al. Extended resection including adjacent organs and Ki-67 labeling index are prognostic factors in patients with retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas. World J Surg Oncol. 2016; 14: 43. pmid:26911364
  45. 45. Mussi C, Colombo P, Bertuzzi A, Coladonato M, Bagnoli P, Secondino S, et al. Retroperitoneal sarcoma: is it time to change the surgical policy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18: 2136–2142. pmid:21537866
  46. 46. Nathenson MJ, Barysauskas CM, Nathenson RA, Regine WF, Hanna N, Sausville E. Surgical resection for recurrent retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma. World J Surg Oncol. 2018; 16:203. pmid:30309356
  47. 47. Pinson CW, ReMine SG, Fletcher WS, Braasch JW. Long-term results with primary retroperitoneal tumors. Arch Surg. 1989; 124: 1168–1173. pmid:2802979
  48. 48. Rhu J, Cho CW, Lee KW, Park JB, Kim SJ. Optimal maximum duration for delaying salvage operation when recurrence of retroperitoneal liposarcoma is suspected: a single-center study. Int J Clin Oncol. 2019; 24: 583–589. pmid:30604162
  49. 49. Roeder F, Alldinger I, Uhl M, Saleh-Ebrahimi L, Schimmack S, Mechtersheimer G, et al. Intraoperative electron radiation therapy in retroperitoneal sarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018; 100: 516–527. pmid:29353660
  50. 50. Rossi CR, Varotto A, Pasquali S, Campana LG, Mocellin S, Sommariva A, et al. Patient outcome after complete surgery for retroperitoneal sarcoma. Anticancer Res. 2013; 33: 4081–4087. pmid:24023353
  51. 51. Santos CE, Correia MM, Thuler LC, Rosa BR, Accetta A, de Almeida Dias J, et al. Compartment surgery in treatment strategies for retroperitoneal sarcomas: a single-center experience. World J Surg. 2010; 34: 2773–2781. pmid:20645096
  52. 52. Shiloni E, Szold A, White DE, Freund HR. High-grade retroperitoneal sarcomas: role of an aggressive palliative approach. J Surg Oncol. 1993; 53: 197–203. pmid:7687315
  53. 53. Singer S, Antonescu CR, Riedel E, Brennan MF. Histologic subtype and margin of resection predict pattern of recurrence and survival for retroperitoneal liposarcoma. Ann Surg. 2003; 238: 358–370. pmid:14501502
  54. 54. Tan MC, Brennan MF, Kuk D, et al. Histology-based classification predicts pattern of recurrence and improves risk stratification in primary retroperitoneal sarcoma. Ann Surg. 2016; 263: 593–600. pmid:25915910
  55. 55. Thalji SZ, Tsai S, Gamblin TC, Clarke C, Christians K, Charlson J, et al. Outcomes of palliative-intent surgery in retroperitoneal sarcoma-results from the US Sarcoma Collaborative. J Surg Oncol. 2020; 121: 1140–1147. pmid:32167587
  56. 56. Tropea S, Mocellin S, Damiani GB, Stramare R, Aliberti C, Del Fiore P, et al. Recurrent retroperitoneal sarcomas: clinical outcomes of surgical treatment and prognostic factors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2021; 47: 1201–1206. pmid:32950313
  57. 57. Tseng WH, Martinez SR, Tamurian RM, Chen SL, Bold RJ, Canter RJ. Contiguous organ resection is safe in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma: an ACS-NSQIP analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2011; 103: 390–394. pmid:21400521
  58. 58. van Houdt WJ, Fiore M, Barretta F, Rutkowski P, Blay JY, Lahat G, et al. Patterns of recurrence and survival probability after second recurrence of retroperitoneal sarcoma: a study from TARPSWG. Cancer. 2020; 126: 4917–4925. pmid:32797703
  59. 59. Villano AM, Zeymo A, Nigam A, Chan KS, Shara N, Unger KR, et al. Radical excision for retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: A national propensity-matched outcomes analysis. Surgery. 2020; 168: 831–837. pmid:32709488
  60. 60. Yang JY, Kong SH, Ahn HS, Lee HJ, Jeong SY, Ha J, et al. Prognostic factors for reoperation of recurrent retroperitoneal sarcoma: The role of clinicopathological factors other than histologic grade. J Surg Oncol. 2015; 111: 165–172. pmid:25244418
  61. 61. Zhao X, Li P, Huang X, Chen L, Liu N, She Y. Prognostic factors predicting the postoperative survival period following treatment for primary retroperitoneal liposarcoma. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015; 128: 85–90. pmid:25563319
  62. 62. Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) in the adult: a consensus approach from the Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 256–263. pmid:25316486
  63. 63. Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Management of recurrent retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) in the adult: a consensus approach from the Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016; 23: 3531–3540. pmid:27480354
  64. 64. Trans-Atlantic Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG). Management of metastatic retroperitoneal sarcoma: a consensus approach from the Trans-Atlantic Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG). Ann Oncol. 2018; 29: 857–871. pmid:29432564
  65. 65. Albertsmeier M, Rauch A, Roeder F, Hasenhütl S, Pratschke S, Kirschneck M, et al. External beam radiation therapy for resectable soft tissue sarcoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25: 754–767. pmid:28895107
  66. 66. Diamantis A, Baloyiannis I, Magouliotis DE, Tolia M, Symeonidis D, Bompou E, et al. Perioperative radiotherapy versus surgery alone for retroperitoneal sarcomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiol Oncol. 2020; 54: 14–21. pmid:32114526
  67. 67. Nizri E, Fiore M, Colombo C, Radaelli S, Callegaro D, Sanfilippo R, et al. Completion surgery of residual disease after primary inadequate surgery of retroperitoneal sarcomas can salvage a selected subgroup of patients-a propensity score analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2019; 119: 318–323. pmid:30554403
  68. 68. Transatlantic Australasian RPS Working Group (TARPSWG). Management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) in the adult: an updated consensus approach from the Transatlantic Australasian RPS Working Group. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021 Apr 14. pmid:33852100
  69. 69. Homsy P, Blomqvist C, Heiskanen I, Vikatmaa L, Tukiainen E, Numminen K, et al. Multidisciplinary oncovascular surgery is safe and effective in the treatment of intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal sarcomas: a retrospective single centre cohort study and a comprehensive literature review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020; 60: 752–763. pmid:32741678
  70. 70. Bertrand MM, Carrère S, Delmond L, Mehta S, Rouanet P, Canaud L, et al. Oncovascular compartmental resection for retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma with vascular involvement. J Vasc Surg. 2016; 64: 1033–1041. pmid:27374069