Late presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic of severe procidentia: a high-grade poorly differentiated sarcoma of unknown origin.

High-grade poorly differentiated sarcomas of unknown primary origin constitute a rare entity and are characterised by wide histopathological diversity and atypical presentations. We present such an unusual case attending with severe procidentia in a 68-year-old postmenopausal female. On review of the literature, there are no similar cases reported. Herein, we present this case as in view of its rare clinical appearance combined with the advanced and histologically uncertain nature of the tumour, which raised significant challenges regarding diagnosis and surgical management in considerations of oncological hygiene and risk of tumour spillage. This was further potentiated by delay in diagnosis and treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Giant Pulmonary Artery Thrombotic Material, Due to Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension, Mimics Pulmonary Artery Sarcoma.

In this article, we present the case of a 38-year-old female who suffered from serious respiratory distress. After an extensive pulmonary artery imaging diagnostic work-up (CTPA, MRA and PET), we were unable to differentiate between chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) vs. pulmonary artery sarcoma (PAS) due to extensive filling defects and extraluminal findings. Although surgery was postponed for nine months due to the COVID-19 pandemic, CTEPH diagnosis, due to a high-thrombus burden, was finally confirmed after pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA). Conclusively, imaging findings of rare cases of CTEPH might mimic PAS and the surgical removal of the lesion are both needed for a final diagnosis. What is Already Known about This Topic? Pulmonary artery sarcoma (PAS) is a rare but aggressive malignancy, which originates from the intimal layer of the pulmonary artery (PA); Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is based on chronic, organized flow-limiting thrombi inside PA circulation and subsequent pulmonary hypertension. What Does This Study Contribute? Since radiological findings of CTEPH cases might rarely mimic PAS, pulmonary artery endarterectomy and subsequent histopathologic study are needed for a final diagnosis.

Novel fusion sarcomas including targetable NTRK and ALK.

BACKGROUND: Challenging emerging entities with distinctive molecular signatures may benefit from algorithms for diagnostic work-up. METHODS: Fusion sarcomas (2020-2021, during pandemic) were diagnosed by clinicoradiology, morphology, phenotype, and next-generation sequencing (NGS). RESULTS: Six fusion sarcomas in two males and four females involved the chest-wall, neck, or extremities; ages ranged 2-73, median 18 years. Sizes ranged 5.3-25.0, median 9.1 cm. These include high grade 1) TPR-NTRK1 of proximal femur with a larger rounded soft tissue mass, previously considered osteosarcoma yet without convincing tumor matrix. A pathologic fracture necessitated emergency hemipelvectomy (NED) and 2) novel KANK1-NTRK2 sarcoma of bone and soft tissue with spindled pleomorphic to epithelioid features (AWD metastases). 3) Novel ERC1-ALK unaligned fusion, a low grade infiltrative deep soft tissue hand sarcoma with prominent-vascularity, myopericytoid/lipofibromatosis-like ovoid cells, and collagenized stroma, was successfully treated with ALK-inhibitor (Crizotinib), avoiding amputation. These NTRK and ALK tumors variably express S100 and CD34 and were negative for SOX10. 4) and 5) CIC-DUX4 round cell tumors (rapid metastases/demise), one with COVID superinfection, were previously treated as Ewing sarcoma. These demonstrated mild pleomorphism and necrosis, variable myxoid change and CD99 reactivity, and a distinctive dot-like-Golgi WT1 immunostaining pattern. 6) A chest wall/thoracic round cell sarcoma, focal CD34/ keratins/CK7, revealed nuclear-STAT6, STAT6-NAB2 by NGS, confirming malignant solitary fibrous tumor, intermediate-risk-stratification (AWD metastases). CONCLUSIONS: Recent fusion sarcomas include new KANK1-NTRK2 and ERC1-ALK, the latter successfully treated by targeted-therapy. ALK/NTRK fusion partners TPR and KANK1 suggest unusual high-grade morphology/behavior. Clinicoradiologic, morphologic, and phenotypic algorithms can prompt molecular-targeted immunostains or NGS for final classification and promising inhibitor therapy.

A virtual multi-disciplinary meeting is a cost-effective method of triaging referrals to a regional musculoskeletal oncology service.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In 2010, a virtual sarcoma referral model was implemented, which aims to provide a centralised multidisciplinary team (MDT) to provide rapid advice, avoiding unnecessary appointments and providing a streamlined service. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of this screening tool in reducing the service burden and expediting patient journey. METHODS AND RESULTS: All referrals made to a single tertiary referral sarcoma unit from January 2010 to December 2018 were extracted from a prospective database. Only 26.0% events discussed required review directly. 30.3% were discharged back to referrer. 16.5% required further investigations. 22.5% required a biopsy prior to review. There was a reduction in the rate of patients reviewed at the sarcoma clinic, and a higher discharge rate from the MDT in 2018 versus 2010 (p < 0.001). This gives a potential cost saving of 670,700 GBP over the 9 year period. CONCLUSION: An MDT meeting which triages referrals is cost-effective at reducing unnecessary referrals. This can limit unnecessary exposure of patients who may have an underlying diagnosis of cancer to a high-risk environment, and reduces burden on services as it copes with increasing demands during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Will virtual multidisciplinary team meetings become the norm for musculoskeletal oncology care following the COVID-19 pandemic? - experience from a tertiary sarcoma centre.

BACKGROUND: Like with all cancers, multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the norm in bone and soft tissue tumour (BST) management too. Problem in attendance of specialists due to geographical location is the one of the key barriers to effective functioning of MDTs. To overcome this problem, virtual MDTs involving videoconferencing or telemedicine have been proposed, but however this has been seldom used and tested. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the implementation of virtual MDTs in the Oxford sarcoma service in order to maintain normal service provision. We conducted a survey among the participants to evaluate its efficacy. METHODS: An online questionnaire comprising of 24 questions organised into 4 sections was circulated among all participants of the MDT after completion of 8 virtual MDTs. Opinions were sought comparing virtual MDTs to the conventional face-to-face MDTs on various aspects. A total of 36 responses were received and were evaluated. RESULTS: 72.8% were satisfied with the depth of discussion in virtual MDTs and 83.3% felt that the decision-making in diagnosis had not changed following the switch from face-to-face MDTs. About 86% reported to have all essential patient data was available to make decisions and 88.9% were satisfied with the time for discussion of patient issues over virtual platform. Three-fourths of the participants were satisfied (36.1% - highly satisfied; 38.9% - moderately satisfied) with virtual MDTs and 55.6% of them were happy to attend MDTs only by the virtual platform in the future. Regarding future, 77.8% of the participants opined that virtual MDTs would be the future of cancer care and an overwhelming majority (91.7%) felt that the present exercise would serve as a precursor to global MDTs involving specialists from abroad in the future. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the forced switch to virtual MDTs in sarcoma care following the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic to be a viable and effective alternative to conventional face-to-face MDTs. With effective and efficient software in place, virtual MDTs would also facilitate in forming extended MDTs in seeking opinions on complex cases from specialists abroad and can expand cancer care globally.

Quality of life and experiences of sarcoma trajectories (the QUEST study): protocol for an international observational cohort study on diagnostic pathways of sarcoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Sarcomas are rare tumours with considerable heterogeneity. Early and accurate diagnosis is important to optimise patient outcomes in terms of local disease control, overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Time to diagnosis is variable in bone as well as soft tissue sarcoma. Possible factors for a long time from first symptom to diagnosis (the total interval) include patient, tumour and healthcare characteristics, but until now the most relevant risk factors and its association with outcomes remain unknown. Our study aims to (1) quantify total interval, the time interval from first symptom until (histological) diagnosis; (2) identify factors associated with interval length and (3) determine the association between total interval and HRQoL, stage and tumour size at diagnosis, progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a longitudinal, prospective, international, multicentre cohort study among patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed bone or soft tissue sarcoma at eight centres (three in UK, five in The Netherlands). Patients will be asked to complete questionnaires at five points in time; one at diagnosis and at follow-up points of 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Questionnaire data is collected within the Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry: an international data management system for collection of patient-reported outcomes. Clinical data will be extracted from patient records. The primary endpoint is HRQoL at diagnosis, measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30. Secondary endpoints are stage and tumour size at diagnosis, PFS, OS, additional patient-reported outcomes, such as quality-adjusted life years and psychological distress. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given by the Health Research Authority and Research Ethics Committee for the United Kingdom (18/WA/0096) and medical ethical committee of Radboudumc for The Netherlands (2017-3881). Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and presented at meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03441906.

Sarcoma European and Latin American Network (SELNET) Recommendations on Prioritization in Sarcoma Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in collision between patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and those with cancer on different fronts. Patients with cancer have been impacted by deferral, modification, and even cessation of therapy. Adaptive measures to minimize hospital exposure, following the precautionary principle, have been proposed for cancer care during COVID-19 era. We present here a consensus on prioritizing recommendations across the continuum of sarcoma patient care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 125 recommendations were proposed in soft-tissue, bone, and visceral sarcoma care. Recommendations were assigned as higher or lower priority if they cannot or can be postponed at least 2-3 months, respectively. The consensus level for each recommendation was classified as "strongly recommended" (SR) if more than 90% of experts agreed, "recommended" (R) if 75%-90% of experts agreed and "no consensus" (NC) if fewer than 75% agreed. Sarcoma experts from 11 countries within the Sarcoma European-Latin American Network (SELNET) consortium participated, including countries in the Americas and Europe. The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of clinical benefit scale was applied to systemic-treatment recommendations to support prioritization. RESULTS: There were 80 SRs, 35 Rs, and 10 NCs among the 125 recommendations issued and completed by 31 multidisciplinary sarcoma experts. The consensus was higher among the 75 higher-priority recommendations (85%, 12%, and 3% for SR, R, and NC, respectively) than in the 50 lower-priority recommendations (32%, 52%, and 16% for SR, R, and NC, respectively). CONCLUSION: The consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high-level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a tool for sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID-19 outbreak. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Sarcoma European-Latin American Network (SELNET) consensus on sarcoma prioritization care during the COVID-19 era issued 125 pragmatical recommendations distributed as higher or lower priority to protect critical decisions on sarcoma care during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary team from 11 countries reached consensus on 115 recommendations. The consensus was lower among lower-priority recommendations, which shows reticence to postpone actions even in indolent tumors. The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit scale was applied as support for prioritizing systemic treatment. Consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a practice tool for guidance in the decisions of sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID-19 outbreak.