Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 16, 2025
A Mouse Model of Incompletely Resected Soft Tissue Sarcoma for Testing Neoadjuvant Therapies
Published on: July 28, 2020
The mitotic rate as a prognostic biomarker after preoperative radiotherapy for high-grade limb/trunk soft tissue
Zhengxiao Ouyang1, Tianyu Wang2, Jennifer Brown3
1Department of Orthopedics, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, PR China; Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Purpose:
Currently there is no generally accepted standardized approach for the pathological evaluation of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) histology appearance after preoperative radiotherapy (PORT). This study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of pathological appearance after PORT for patients with high-grade limb/trunk STS.
Methods:
A cohort of 116 patients with high-grade STS of the limb/trunk treated with PORT followed by resection were evaluated. Patient characteristics, imaging tumor morphology (size, volume), and histopathology (mitotic and necrosis rate, viable cell, hyalinization/fibrosis cytopathic effect) were reviewed and reassessed. Disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the hazard ratio was derived from Cox proportional hazard models. Two predictive nomograms were calculated based on significant predictors identified.
Results:
The 5-year DFS and OS were 52.9% and 70.3%, respectively. Tumor size before (HR:1.07, 95%CI: 1.01-1.14) and after PORT (HR:1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.14), tumor volume (HR:1.06, 95%CI: 1.01-1.12), mitotic rate after PORT (HR: 1.06, 95%CI: 1.02-1.11), mitotic rate change after PORT (HR:1.04, 95%CI:1.00-1.09) were independent risk factors for DFS. Tumor size before (HR:1.08, 95%CI: 1.03-1.14) and after PORT (HR:1.09, 95%CI: 1.04-1.15), tumor volume (HR:1.05, 95%CI: 1.01-1.09), mitotic rate after PORT (HR: 1.09, 95%CI: 1.04-1.13), mitotic rate change after PORT (HR:1.05, 95%CI:1.01-1.09) were independent risk factors for OS. The C-index of pathologic predictive nomogram based on mitotic rate for DFS and OS were 0.67 and 0.73, respectively. The C-index of morphology-pathology predictive nomogram for OS was 0.79.
Conclusion:
Tumor size before and after PORT, tumor volume, mitotic rate after PORT, mitotic rate change after PORT were independent risk factors for DFS and OS in high-grade STS patients treated with PORT. The mitotic rate, independent of tumor morphology, showed its potential as a prognostic biomarker for pathologic evaluation in patients treated with PORT.
