Advertisement

Der Chirurg

, Volume 90, Issue 6, pp 447–456 | Cite as

Systematische Chirurgie retroperitonealer Sarkome

Bildgestützte Planung des Resektionsausmaßes
  • M. GhadimiEmail author
  • C. J. Bruns
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Abdominelle und retroperitoneale Sarkome stellen ca. 25–30 % aller Weichteilsarkome dar, zählt man neben klassischen retroperitonealen Tumoren auch gastrointestinale Stromasarkome (GIST) hinzu. Die chirurgische R0-En-bloc-Resektion ist grundsätzlich das einzige potenziell kurative Therapieverfahren. Bei der Wahl der richtigen Operationsstrategie spielen insbesondere die histopathologische Subentität und Lokalisation eine zentrale Rolle. Ziel bei der Wahl des chirurgischen Resektionsausmaßes sollte möglichst die chirurgische En-bloc-Resektion des Tumors mit negativen Resektionsrändern sein, was aufgrund der häufig großen Tumoren und den engen anatomischen Lagebeziehungen zu vitalen Strukturen nicht immer erreichbar ist. Trotz der Einführung multimodaler Therapieverfahren und der Entwicklung standardisierter erweiterter Operationsverfahren (systematische kompartimentelle Resektionen, SRKR) sind Lokalrezidive für die meisten tumorbedingten Todesfälle ursächlich. Nicht zuletzt die Ergebnisse der Transatlantic RPS Working Group konnten zeigen, dass die Behandlung in High-volume-Zentren zu einer Steigerung des Überlebens beiträgt. Insbesondere in Deutschland besteht nach wie vor großer Nachholbedarf bei der Zentralisierung der Versorgung von Sarkompatienten.

Schlüsselwörter

Bildgebung Histologie Resektionsgrenzen Systematische retroperitoneale Kompartmentresektion Rezidiv 

Systematic surgery of retroperitoneal sarcomas

Imaging-guided planning of surgical strategy

Abstract

Abdominal and retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) represent approximately 25–30% of all soft tissue sarcomas, if besides typical retroperitoneal tumors gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are also included. The surgical R0 en bloc resection with histopathologically free margins is basically the only potentially curative treatment procedure. When planning the surgical strategy, the histopathological subtype and tumor localization are pivotal. The extent of resection should be guided by the goal to reach an en bloc resection with histopathologically negative margins. Due to the frequently found vast dimensions of RPS and ultimately topographic proximity to vital structures at primary diagnosis, R0 resections are not always achievable. Despite the introduction of multimodal treatment regimens and the development of standardized extended surgical procedures, such as systematic retroperitoneal compartmental resection (SRCR), local recurrences remain the most common cause of tumor-associated death. Finally, the results of the transatlantic RPS working group (TARPSWG) could show that treatment of RPS in specialized high-volume centers contributes to better long-term survival. Particularly in Germany there is an urgent demand for centralization of sarcoma patient treatment.

Keywords

Imaging Histology Resection margins Systematic retroperitoneal compartmental resection Recurrence 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

M. Ghadimi und C. Bruns geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Bonvalot S, Rivoire M, Castaing M (2009) Primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: A multivariate analysis of surgical factors associated with local control. J Clin Oncol 27:31–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casali PG, Abecassis N, Bauer S et al (2018) Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 29(Supplement_4):iv51–iv67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fairweather M, Wang J, Jo VY (2018) Surgical management of primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: Rationale for selective organ resection. Ann Surg Oncol 25:98–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gronchi A, Lo Vullo S, Fiore M et al (2009) Aggressive surgical policies in a retrospectively reviewed single-institution case series of retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma patients. J Clin Oncol 27:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gronchi A, Pollock R (2011) Surgery in retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: A call for a consensus between Europe and North America. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2107–2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gronchi A, Strauss DC, Miceli R et al (2016) 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 263:1002–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jakob J, Gerres A, Ronellenfitsch U et al (2018) Treatment of retroperitoneal sarcoma in Germany: Results of a survey of the German Society of General and Visceral Surgery, the German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Study Group and the advocacy group Das Lebenshaus. Chirurg 89:50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keung EZ, Chiang YJ, Cormier JN et al (2018) Treatment at low-volume hospitals is associated with reduced short-term and long-term outcomes for patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma. Cancer 124:4495–4503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacNeill AJ, Miceli R, Strauss DC et al (2017) Post-relapse outcomes after primary extended resection of retroperitoneal sarcoma: A report from the Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Cancer 123:1971–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Messiou C, Moskovic E, Vanel D et al (2017) Primary retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma: Imaging appearances, pitfalls and diagnostic algorithm. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:1191–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pisters PW (2009) Resection of some—but not all—clinically uninvolved adjacent viscera as part of surgery for retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas. J Clin Oncol 27:6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ressing M, Wardelmann E, Hohenberger P et al (2018) Strengthening health data on a rare and heterogeneous disease: Sarcoma incidence and histological subtypes in Germany. BMC Public Health 18:235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russo P, Kim Y, Ravindran S et al (1997) Nephrectomy during operative management of retroperitoneal sarcoma. Ann Surg Oncol 4:421–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stiller CA, Trama A, Serraino D et al (2013) Descriptive epidemiology of sarcomas in Europe: Report from the RARECARE project. Eur J Cancer 49:684–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tateishi U, Yamaguchi U, Seki K et al (2006) Glut-1 expression and enhanced glucose metabolism are associated with tumour grade in bone and soft tissue sarcomas: A prospective evaluation by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tirkes T, Sandrasegaran K, Patel AA et al (2012) Peritoneal and retroperitoneal anatomy and its relevance for cross-sectional imaging. Radiographics 32:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toro JR, Travis LB, Wu HJ et al (2006) Incidence patterns of soft tissue sarcomas, regardless of primary site, in the surveillance, epidemiology and end results program, 1978–2001: An analysis of 26,758 cases. Int J Cancer 119:2922–2930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group (2015) Management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) in the adult: A consensus approach from the Trans-Atlantic RPS Working Group. Ann Surg Oncol 22:256–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tseng WW, Madewell JE, Wei W et al (2014) Locoregional disease patterns in well-differentiated and dedifferentiated retroperitoneal liposarcoma: Implications for the extent of resection? Ann Surg Oncol 21:2136–2143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    von Mehren M, Randall RL, Benjamin RS et al (2018) Soft tissue sarcoma, version 2.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 16:536–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilkinson MJ, Martin JL, Khan AA et al (2015) Percutaneous core needle biopsy in retroperitoneal sarcomas does not influence local recurrence or overall survival. Ann Surg Oncol 22:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ghadimi MPH et al (2016) Abdominelle und retroperitoneale Sarkome. Allg Visz Up2date.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-110841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buchner D et al (2018) First reported case of a collision tumor composed of pancreatic adenocarcinoma and retroperitoneal liposarcoma: a case report. BMC Cancer 18:1243.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-5151-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und TumorchirurgieUniklinikum KölnKölnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations