Quantifying the Morbidity of the Unplanned Sarcoma Excision

1. Quantifying the Morbidity of the Unplanned Sarcoma Excision Robert Tamurian, Robert Zlotecki, Zach Adler, Mark Scarborough, and Parker Gibbs University of Florida College of Medicine Division of Orthopaedic Oncology

2. The Unplanned Excision • The excision of a soft tissue mass not thought to be malignant, that upon subsequent pathologic examination results in the utterance: “whoops, that’s a sarcoma” • Standard of care: Wide excision of the tumor bed +/- adjuvant therapy • ~50% have residual disease in re-excision specimen Giuliano and Eilber JCO 1985

3. UF Protocol • MRI to best determine extent of bed and identify potential gross residual disease • Wide re-excision of tumor bed • Adjuvant radiotherapy for high risk tumor bed (most) • Tumor in re-excision bed • Large hematoma • Extensive edema

5. Wide Re-Excision • Numerous Articles • The unplanned sarcoma excision has no significant effect on survival if wide re-excision is performed • Local recurrence may be increased • Morbidity is only obliquely mentioned • Difficult to assess • Difficult to identify a matched cohort

6. Goal • Attempt to quantify the morbidity to a patient who has undergone a wide re-excision following “whoops surgery” • Compare what had to be done to what could have been done had we seen them first • Each patient serves as his/her own comparison case

7. What to Measure? • Volume of Tissue Resected upon Re-Excision • Larger resection volume directly associated with increased wound complications and need for soft tissue coverage Geller et. al. CORR 2007

8. Adjuvant Therapy • Radiation Field Size Key determinant of long term adverse sequelae • Edema • Subcutaneous Fibrosis • Joint stiffness • These three variables most strongly associated with decreased functional outcome scores Davis et. al. Radiother Oncol 2005

9. Study • Retrospective review of our prospectively collected database to identify patients having had an unplanned excision of a sarcoma and subsequently referred for definitive management. • 55 patients identified in the contemporary period from 1995-2007 with adequate data

10. Patients • M:F 1.2:1 • Mean age 55 (range 17-56) • Avg F/U 55mos (range 6-150 mos) • Oncologic data only on those with 2yr f/u

11. Tumors • MFH most common histology (55%) • Avg tumor size 34.5 cm3 • Hi Grade 65% • Low Grade 35% • Superficial 64% • Deep 36% • Small (< 5cm) 60% • Large (> 5cm) 40%

12. Volume of Tissue Resected Optimal resection volume (what we would have done) determined as original tumor volume plus one cm in all directions to simulate wide margin. Tumor Bed resection volume (what had to be done) determined by direct measurement of pathologic specimen after re-excision of tumor bed Tumor Bed Excision

13. Radiation Plan Optimal Plan What Had to Be Done

14. Oncologic Outcome • Overall Survival 89% • Local Recurrence rate 21% • Residual Disease in 44% • Increased risk of LR (p < 0.05)

15. 348 cm3 Optimal Resection VS Re-Excision Procedure P< 0.01 95 cm3 35 cm3

16. Actual • vs. • Optimal field area • (p < 0.001) 362.4cm2 Actual radiation field size 220% greater than Optimal P < 0.001 163.4 cm2

17. Soft Tissue Coverage Re-ExcisionPrimary Excision* STSG 57% 12% Flap 26% 7% Total 83% 19% Contemporary unmatched cohort of 403 STS managed primarily at UF

18. Morbidity • By definition, at least one additional operative intervention • Three times the Volume of Tissue (patient) Resected • Twice the Radiation Field Size • Marked Increase in Soft Tissue Coverage Procedures

19. Res Ipsa Loquitur

20. www.ortho.ufl.edu Thank You