Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  57 / 140 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 57 / 140 Next Page
Page Background

Estadificación y pronóstico de los sarcomas de partes blandas

>

 57

3. CONCLUSIÓN

Los sarcomas son estadificados mediante el sistema TNM, que ha sido actualizado recientemente

y que los agrupa ahora teniendo en cuenta su localización, además de las variables que ya se con-

templaban previamente: tamaño, afectación ganglionar, presencia de metástasis y grado histológico.

Existen varios factores que influyen en el pronóstico de este tipo de tumores; el más importante de

ellos es el estadio patológico en el momento del diagnóstico. Dada la dificultad para la estimación

de la supervivencia, se han desarrollado nomogramas que agrupan estas variables y que pueden ayu-

dar en el momento de la toma de decisiones terapéuticas.

BIBLIOGRAFÍA

1. National Cancer Institute. Soft Tissue Sarcoma (PDQ). Actualizado: enero 2016. Disponible en: https://www.

cancer.gov/types/soft-tissue-sarcoma/hp

2. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. (eds.). Soft Tissue Sarcoma. In: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8

th

ed.

New York: Springer; 2017. p 489-97.

3. Zagars GK, Ballo MT, Pisters PW, et al. Prognostic factors for patients with localized soft-tissue sarcoma treated

with conservation surgery and radiation therapy: an analysis of 1225 patients. Cancer 2003;97(10):2530.

4. Gronchi A, Casali PG, Fiore M, et al. Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas: patterns of recurrence in 167 patients

treated at a single institution. Cancer 2004;100(11):2448.

5. Pérez EA, Gutiérrez JC, Moffat FL Jr, et al. Retroperitoneal and truncal sarcomas: prognosis depends upon type

not location. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14(3):1114.

6. Nathan H, Raut CP, Thornton K, et al. Predictors of survival after resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma: a popu-

lation-based analysis and critical appraisal of the AJCC staging system. Ann Surg 2009;250(6):970.

7. Van Dalen T, Hennipman A, van Coevorden F, et al. Evaluation of a clinically applicable post-surgical classifi-

cation system for primary retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2004;11:483.

8. Survival by stage of soft tissue sarcoma. American Cancer Society's (ACS) publication, Cancer Facts & Fig-

ures 2016. Disponible en:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/sarcoma-adultsofttissuecancer/detailedguide/sarco-

ma-adult-soft-tissue-cancer-survival-rates

9. Coindre JM, Terrier P, Guillou L, et al. Predictive value of grade for metastasis development in the main histo-

logic types of adult soft tissue sarcomas: a study of 1240 patients from the French Federation of Cancer Centers

Sarcoma Group. Cancer 2001;91(10):1914.

10. RydholmA, Gustafson P. Should tumor depth be included in prognostication of soft tissue sarcoma? BMC Can-

cer 2003;3:17.

11. Stojadinovic A, Leung DH, Hoos A, et al. Analysis of the prognostic significance of microscopic margins in

2084 localizad primary adult soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Surg 2002;235:424-34.

12. Pisters PWT, Weiss M, Maki R, et al. Soft tissue sarcomas: staging and prognosis. Cancer Management 2016.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/cancer-management/soft-tissue-sarcomas/page/0/2

13. Kattan MW, Leung DH, Brennan MF. Postoperative nomogram for 12-year sarcoma-specific death. J Clin Oncol

2002;20(3):791.

14. Raut CP, Miceli R, Strauss DC, et al. Nomogram effectively predicts DFS, OS in retroperitoneal sarcomas.

Cancer 2016; DOI:10.1002/cncr.29931.

15. Mariani L, Miceli R, Kattan MW, et al. Validation and adaptation of a nomogram for predicting the survival of

patients with extremity soft tissue sarcoma using a three-grade system. Cancer 2005;103(2):402.

16. Raut CP, Miceli R, Strauss DC, et al. External validation of a multi-institutional retroperitoneal sarcoma nomo-

gram. Cancer 2016;DOI:10.1002/cncr.29931.