Retrospective analysis reveals multifocal recurrence in sacrococcygeal chordomas, suggesting the need for enhanced radiotherapy strategies.
Background: Postoperative recurrence of sacrococcygeal chordomas presents significant clinical challenges due to unusual recurrence patterns. This study aimed to characterize these patterns of recurrence to inform improved adjuvant radiotherapy planning. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 31 patients with recurrent sacrococcygeal chordoma following surgery, assessing recurrence locations considering initial tumor extent, resection levels, and postoperative anatomical changes on MRI. In 18 patients, pre- and postoperative imaging enabled the spatial mapping of early recurrence origins relative to the initial tumor volume using isotropic expansions. The median initial gross tumor volume was 113 mL. Results: Recurrences were mostly multifocal and predominantly involved soft tissues (e.g., mesorectal/perirectal space (80.6%), piriformis and gluteal muscles (80.6% and 67.7%, respectively) and osseous structures, particularly the sacrum (87.1%)). The median time to recurrence was 15 months. The initial surgery was R0 in 17 patients (55%). The highest infiltrated sacral vertebra was S1 in 3%, S2 in 10%, S3 in 35%, S4 in 23%, S5 in 10%, and coccygeal in 19%. Anatomical changes post-resection, including rectal herniation into gluteal and subcutaneous tissues, significantly affected radiotherapy planning. Expansion of the initial tumor volume by 2 cm failed to encompass all recurrence origins in 72% of cases. A 5 cm expansion was required to achieve full coverage in 56% of patients, though 22% of recurrences still lay beyond this margin and the remaining were covered only partially. Conclusions: Recurrent sacrococcygeal chordomas exhibit complex, soft-tissue-dominant patterns and are influenced by significant anatomical displacement post-surgery. Standard target volume expansions are often insufficient to cover the predominantly multifocal recurrences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Waldsperger et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: