Key result
Curative-intent multimodal treatment for primary pulmonary sarcoma is associated with ~49% 5-year survival in expert centers.
Why the study?
Outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with primary pulmonary sarcoma undergoing curative-intent surgery within multimodality treatment needed evaluation.
Does curative-intent surgery within multimodality treatment improve overall survival in patients with primary pulmonary sarcoma?
Cohort
Yes
Does curative-intent surgery within multimodality treatment improve overall survival in patients with primary pulmonary sarcoma?
Curative-intent multimodal treatment for primary pulmonary sarcoma can achieve an encouraging 5-year survival rate of 49% when performed in expert centers.
May encourage expert-center referral for multimodal therapy; leaves open optimal regimens pending prospective trials.
Objective: To evaluate outcome and prognostic factors of patients with primary pulmonary sarcoma (PPS) who underwent curative-intent surgery within multimodality treatment. Methods: An international, multicenter, retrospective study including patients with PPS was performed through a network of sarcoma experts. Data on demographics, staging, treatment, and outcomes were retrieved. Overall survival was calculated from the date of diagnosis. Prognostic factors were assessed using uni- and multivariate analysis. Results: = . 008) were independent prognostic factors for poor survival. Conclusions: In patients with curative-intent multimodal treatment for PPS, an encouraging 5-year survival rate of 49% can be achieved in expert centers. Independent prognostic factors may aid in selecting patients for curative treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Collaud et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Primary pulmonary sarcoma. Curative-intent surgery within multimodality treatment was evaluated on Overall survival. Curative-intent multimodal treatment for primary pulmonary sarcoma achieved a 5-year overall survival rate of 49% in expert centers.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: