Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The local control of desmoid tumors constitutes a continuing treatment dilemma due to its high recurrence rates. The purpose of this systematic review was to critically examine the current treatment of these rare tumors and to specifically evaluate the local failure and response rates of surgery, radiation and systemic therapy. We comprehensively searched the literature for relevant studies across Cinahl, Embase, Medline and the Cochrane databases. Articles were categorized as surgery, radiation, surgery + radiation and systemic therapy (including cytotoxic and non cytotoxic). Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled odd ratios (OR) for comparative studies and weighted proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Thirty-five articles were included in the final analysis. Weighted mean local failure rates were 22% [95% CI (16–28%)], 35% [95% CI (26–44%)] and 28% [95% CI (18–39%)] for radiation alone, surgery alone and surgery + radiation respectively. In the analysis of comparative studies, surgery and radiation in combination had lower local failure rates than radiation alone [OR 0.7 (0.4, 1.2)] and surgery alone [OR 0.7 (0.4, 1.0)]. Weighted mean stable disease rates were 91% [95% CI (85–96%)] and 52% [95% CI (38–65%)] for non cytotoxic and cytotoxic chemotherapy respectively.

The current evidence suggests that surgery alone has a consistently high rate of local recurrence in managing extra-abdominal desmoid tumors. Radiation therapy in combination with surgery improves local control rates. However, the limited data on systemic therapy for this rare tumor suggests the benefit of using both cytotoxic and non cytotoxic chemotherapy to achieve stable disease.

Keywords

desmoid tumors surgery radiation chemotherapy meta-analysis

Introduction

The local control of desmoid tumors constitutes a continuing treatment dilemma for surgical oncologists, medical oncologists and radiation oncologists alike.¹ Despite being benign, these tumors tend to be infiltrative and invade regional normal structures making their complete extrication difficult without untoward normal tissue effects. Even when these locally aggressive tumors are successfully removed without any disease at the margins of resection, local failure is common. Although MacFarlene was the first to describe what was later called desmoid tumors or aggressive fibromatosis in 1852,² the clinical management of this tumor remains a challenge. Depending on the two major anatomic locations in which they are present, desmoid tumors are classified as extra-abdominal or abdominal, the latter of which can further be subdivided into superficial and intra-abdominal.^3,4 Extra-abdominal desmoid tumors arising from musculoaponeurotic structures in the extremities and the limb girdle are a particularly difficult therapeutic problem and are the focus of this study.⁵ Extra-abdominal desmoid tumors are frequently aggressive, with a poorly circumscribed local infiltrative pattern and have a marked propensity for recurrence.^6,7

Aggressive wide local excision has become the preferred treatment; however the recurrence rates are reported well above 40%.^2,8–11 Moreover, difficulty in achieving acceptable cosmesis is a central barrier to such an approach.⁶ Although surgical excision has been the principle therapy, radiation has also been employed for extra abdominal desmoid tumors resulting in improved local control and recurrence rates.^12,13 Radiation therapy has been given as adjuvant treatment to decrease local recurrence especially when the surgical margin is positive.¹⁴ However, many authors still judge radiation to be of limited value in the curative treatment of patients with desmoid tumors.^15,8 More recently, recurrent extra abdominal desmoid tumors have been treated with systemic therapy, including both cytotoxic and non cytotoxic chemotherapy. Such modalities are thought to stabilize the disease and increase progression free duration with the aim to induce remission and to reduce morbidity.⁴

Given the diversity of study conclusions noted in the literature, there is little consensus regarding the role of radiation therapy, surgery and chemotherapy in the clinical management of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to crystalize the evidence available regarding local control of this rare and challenging clinical entity.

Materials and Methods

Search strategy

A literature search with the assistance of a professional librarian was conducted of the following electronic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2011), CINAHL (January 1982 to January 2011, and EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2011). The key words used were a combination of fibromatosis, extra-abdominal tumor, desmoid tumor, and therapy with limits, English and human.

Article eligibility

Two reviewers independently scanned the retrieved articles’ abstracts for potential relevance. The inclusion criteria were the following: i) a study following patients who had treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors; ii) a comparative study evaluating different modalities for treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors including randomized controlled trials and observational studies; iii) use a clinical outcome marker (i.e. recurrence rate) to evaluate differences in modalities for treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors; iv) or be unpublished data from studies fulfilling criteria i) or ii). The exclusion criteria were the following: i) articles exclusively examining non-living populations or animal studies; ii) articles examining intra-abdominal desmoid tumors; iii) case reports; iv) articles that studied other variables outside of the treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors. Any disagreement on the potential relevance of an article was resolved by an arbitrator.

Classification and outcomes measures

Studies were categorized based on the type of modality. The modalities that were evaluated were the following: surgery, radiation (pre-operative or post-operative), surgery + radiation, and systemic therapy (including cytotoxic and non cytotoxic). Surgical procedures were described as wide, primary or complete excision as well as intralesional or marginal excision. We operationally defined cytotoxic therapies to be those directly toxic to cells. The results of each study were examined with respect to local failure rate and for systemic therapy response duration and stable disease rates (defined as complete response + stable disease).

Assessment of methodological quality

The methodological quality of the included studies was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Cohort Studies.¹⁶ This scale assesses selection bias, ascertainment of exposure, comparability of the cohorts on the basis of design or analysis, as well as the follow-up period. Although the scale contained eight items, each study could receive a maximum total score of 9 since one item (comparability) was out of two as defined by the scale creators.¹⁶ It was decided a priori that a score of 7 or more would be considered high methodological quality, a score of 5–6 would be considered moderate and a score of less than 4 would be considered low methodological quality. The reviewers resolved any discrepancies through discussion and re-evaluation of the methodology of the study in question.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted from each primary article and used for descriptive and statistical comparisons: author, year, sample size, study design, duration of follow-up, study results and recommendations.

Data analysis

All data are summarized descriptively. A kappa statistic, a measure of chance-corrected agreement, was calculated to provide an estimate of agreement between reviewers with regard to the articles that were retrieved for evaluation. We chose an a priori criterion of k≥0.65 to indicate adequate agreement. Quality assessment scores were reported as a mean and standard deviation. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficient. Level of agreement between the two reviewers with 95% confidence intervals (CI) is reported. Heterogeneity among studies was tested using the Cochrane Q test with a P-value set at 0.1 for significance.¹⁷ The I-squared statistic is reported representing the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity. The I-squared of less than 25% represents low heterogeneity, 25–50% moderate heterogeneity and more than 50% high heterogeneity.¹⁷ We planned to use a random effect model in the presence of heterogeneity and fixed effect model otherwise. A funnel plot was done as an assessment tool for publication bias (Appendix). A meta-analysis of pooled odds ratios (OR) was performed for comparative studies and weighted pooled proportion was calculated for all single group studies. An alpha or 0.05 was considered a criterion for statistical significance. Pooled estimate of OR for comparative studies and weighted proportions with 95% CI for single group studies are reported. Review Manager 5.0 (Cochran Library for Systematic Reviews) and StatsDirect 2.7. (StatsDirect Ltd, UK) was used for data analysis.

Results

Literature search and quality of included studies

The literature search identified 3010 potential articles. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 35 articles were deemed relevant and included into final analysis (Figure 1). There were no randomized controlled trials identified. The weighted kappa for overall agreement between reviewers for the final eligibility decision was 0.91 [95% CI (0.85–0.96)]. From this total of 35 papers, seven were categorized as radiation therapy (all retrospective design),^{6,15,16,18–22} 18 as surgical therapy (2 prospective design; 16 retrospective design),^{2,3,5,8–11,13,18,22–30} and 14 were considered combination therapy (3 prospective; 11 retrospective design).^{3,6,8,10,12,13,18,19,22,26,28,30–32} Furthermore, nine were considered systemic therapy, four non-cytotoxic (3 prospective; 1 retrospective design),^33–36 and 5 were cytotoxic (3 prospective; 2 retrospective design).^7,37–40 The mean quality assessment score was 7.23±0.84, which was considered high. The level of agreement of the quality assessment between the two reviewers was 88.2% [95% CI: (76.6–94.0%)]. Funnel plots were done and demonstrated symmetrically distributed plots (in the shape of an inverted funnel) indicating the absence of publication bias (Appendix).

Figure 1

Search strategy.

Local failure rates

The local failure rates for all studies are summarized in Tables 1–3.^{2,3,5,6,8–10,13,15,18–32} The weighted pooled proportion for local failure rate for all studies evaluating radiation alone was 0.22 [95% CI: (0.16–0.28)] with between study heterogeneity of I²=15% (P=0.315) (Table 1),^6,15,18–22 and for surgery alone was 0.35 [95% CI: (0.26-0.44)] with between study heterogeneity of I²=90%, (P<0.001) (Table 2).^{2,3,5,8,9,13,18,23–30} The weighted pooled proportion for local failure rate of all studies evaluating the combination of surgery + radiation was 0.28 [95% CI: (0.18-0.39)] with between study heterogeneity of I²=84% (P<0.001) (Table 3).^{3,6,8,10,13,18,19,22,26,28,30–32} When evaluating comparative studies, the pooled OR for local failure rate indicated that surgery + radiation in combination had lower local failure rates than radiation alone [0.69, 95% CI: (0.38, 1.23), P=0.20] and surgery alone [0.69, 95% CI: (0.47, 1.00), P=0.05] (Figures 2 and 3). There was 20% between-study heterogeneity for surgery + radiation versus radiation alone (I²=20%, P=0.29), and no between-study heterogeneity for surgery + radiation versus surgery alone (I²=0, P=0.96).

Table 1

Radiation therapy.

Reference	Sample size and study design	Primary/ recurrent	Treatment (follow up)	Local failure rate
Kiel & Suit¹⁵	N=10, RS	NS	22-70.9 Gy (9-116 mths)	1 (10%)
Ballo et al.⁶	N=23, RS	NS	46-66 Gy (median 7.5 years)	7 (31%)
Ballo et al.¹⁸	N=21, RS	P: 43% R: 57%	60 Gy (median 9.4 years)	5 (24%)
Guadagnolo et al.¹⁹	N=41, RS	NS	56 Gy (median 10.1 years)	13 (32%)
Kamath et al.²⁰	N=53, RS	P: 15%, R: 85%	35-70 Gy (2 years)	9 (17%)
McCollough et al.²¹	N=30, RS	P: 33% R: 66%	3500-7000 cGy (2 years)	5 (17%)
Spear et al.²²	N=15, RS	P: 33% R: 66%	45-75 Gy (5 years)	1 (7%)

RS, retrospective study; NS, not specified.

Table 2

Surgical therapy.

Reference	Sample size and study design	Primary/ recurrent	Treatment (follow up)	Local failure rate
Rock et al.⁸	N= 155, RS	P: 100%	Intralesional, marginal and wide (mean 12.3 years)	118 (76%)
Markhede et al.⁵	N=44, RS	NS	PE (mean 11 years)	17 (39%)
Mankin et al.²³	N=234, RS	P: 100%	PE (NS)	39 (17%)
Ballo et al.¹⁸	N=122, RS	P: 52% R: 48%	PE (median 9.4 years)	43 (35%)
Baumert et al.³	N=38, PS	NS	PE (mean 6 years)	12 (32%)
Dafford et al.²⁴	N=15, RS	P: 40% R: 60%	PE (mean 49 mths)	2 (13%)
Dalen et al.²	N=27, RS	NS	Intralesional, marginal and wide (mean 28 years)	12 (44%)
Duggal et al.¹³	N=27, RS	NS	Marginal and wide (NS)	7 (26%)
Higaki et al.⁹	N=41, RS	P: 59% R: 41%	Wide, intralesional, complete (range 3-29 years)	17 (41%)
Huang & Tzen²⁵	N=14, RS	NS	PE (median 4.5 years)	3 (21%)
Karakousis et al.²⁶	N=16, RS	P: 25% R: 75%	Wide excision (mean 84 mths)	5 (31%)
Meazza et al.²⁷	N=23, RS	P: 100%	Complete excision (5 years)	5 (22%)
Merchant et al.²⁸	N=74, PS	P: 100%	Complete excision (49 mths)	17 (23%)
Pignatti et al.¹⁰	N=63, RS	NS	Complete excision (11.2 yrs)	28 (44%)
Plukker et al.²⁹	N=32, RS	P: 100%	Wide excision (median 72 mths)	13 (41%)
Pritchard et al.³⁰	N=34, RS	P: 100%	Wide excision, marginal, intralesional (mean 48 mths)	12 (35%)
Shido et al.¹¹	N=30, RS	P: 80% R: 20%	Wide, marginal, intralesional (median 7.4 yrs)	16 (53%)
Spear et al.²²	N=51, RS	P: 71% R: 29%	Wide excision (5 years)	15 (30%)

RS, retrospective study; PS, prospective study; PE, primary excision; NS, not specified.

Table 3

Combination therapy.

Reference	Sample size and study design	Primary/ recurrent	Treatment (follow up)	Local failure rate
Rock et al.⁸	N= 10, RS	P: 100%	Sx + RT (mean 12.3 years)	6 (60%)
Ballo et al.⁶	N=52, RS	NS	Sx + RT (median 7.5 years)	9 (18%)
Ballo et al.¹⁸	N=46, RS	P: 26% R: 74%	Sx +RT (median 9.4 years)	10 (22%)
Baumert et al³	N=68, PS	NS	Sx + RT (mean 6 years)	17 (25%)
Duggal et al.¹³	N=8, RS	NS	Sx + RT (NS)	2 (25%)
Guadagnolo et al.¹⁹	N=74, RS	NS	Sx + RT (median 10.1 years)	15 (20%)
Karakousis et al.²⁶	N=11, RS	P: 45% R: 55%	Sx +RT (mean 84 mths)	0 (0%)
Merchant et al.²⁸	N=31, PS	P: 100%	Sx + RT (median 49 mths)	7 (23%)
Park et al.³²	N=21, RS	P: 33% R: 66%	Sx + RT (median 69 mths)	2 (10%)
Pignatti et al.¹⁰	N=17, RS	NS	Sx + RT (mean 11.2 yrs)	7 (41%)
Pritchard et al.³⁰	N=10, RS	P: 100%	Sx + RT (mean 48 mths)	2 (20%)
Schmitt et al.³¹	N=24, RS	P: 62% R: 38%	Sx + RT (NS)	5 (21%)
Spear et al.²²	N=41, RS	P: 37% R: 63%	Sx + RT (5 years)	10 (24%)
O'Dhea et al.	N= 58, PS	P: 57% R: 43%	Sx + RT (median 68 mths)	11 (19%)

PS, prospective study; RS, retrospective study; Sx, surgery; RT, radiation; NS, not specified.

Figure 2

Forest plot for local failure rates for radiation vs. radiation + surgery.

Figure 3

Forest plot for local failure rates for surgery vs. surgery + radiation.

Response rate for systemic therapy

The response rates for systemic therapy are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.^33–36 The weighted pooled proportion response rates were 0.91 [95% CI: (0.86–0.96)] for studies that evaluated non cytotoxic therapies (I²=0%, P=0.581) and 0.52 [95% CI: (0.39–0.65)] for studies that evaluated cytotoxic therapies (I²=29%, P=0.228).

Table 4

Non-cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Reference	Sample size (n) and study design	Primary/ recurrent	Treatment (follow up) (SD + CR)	Response rate	Response duration
Chugh et al.³³	N=51, PS	NS	ITB (NS)	43 (84%)	Progression free at 1 yr: 66%
Heinrich et al.³⁴ 2006	N=7, PS	P: 14% R: 86%	ITB (NS)	6 (86%)	12 mths
Leithner et al.³⁵	N=13, RS	P: 30% R: 70%	1FNa +/− tretinoin (mean 27 mths)	11 (85%)	22 mths
Nishida et al.³⁶	N=20, PS	NS	Meloxicam (median 29 mths)	19 (95%)	22 mths

PS, prospective study; RS, Retrospective study; ITB, Imatinib; SD, stable disease; CR, complete response; 1NFa, interferon alpha; NS, not specified.

Table 5

Cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Reference	Sample size (n) and study design	Primary/ recurrent	Treatment (follow up) (SD + CR)	Response rate	Response duration
Azzarelli et al.⁷	N=30, PS	P: 20% R: 80%	MTX + VBL (mean 75 months)	18 (60%)	Progression free at 5 yrs: 67%
Skapek et al.³⁷	N=26, PS	P: 38% R: 62%	MTX + VBL (NS)	11 (42%)	16 mths
Weiss & Lackman³⁸	N=8, PS	P: 37% R: 63%	MTX + VBL (NS)	2 (25%)	20 mths
Patel et al.³⁹	N=5, RS	R: 100%	DRN + DCB kapekmean 74 mths)	4 (80%)	NS
Constantinidou et al.⁴⁰	N=11, RS	P: 25% R 75%	PLD (NS)	7 (64%)	14 mths

PS, Prospective study; RS, retrospective study; MTX, methotrexate; VBL, Vinblastine; DRN, doxorubicin; DCB, Dacarbazine; SD, stable disease; CR, complete response; PLD, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin.

Discussion

The optimal management of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors remains an area of controversy. As such, the aim of this systematic review was to critically examine the existing literature on the local failure and response rates of surgery, radiation and systemic therapy for the treatment of desmoid tumors in order to identify the most effective treatment options. The summative results of this level III evidence suggests that surgery alone had a higher local failure rate compared to radiation alone or surgery combined with radiation. When strictly evaluating comparative studies, the combination of surgery and radiation outperformed either surgery alone (P=0.05) or radiation alone (P=0.20). This paralleled the results of a review done by Nuyttens et al. in 2000, that showed that local control after radiation or surgery combined with radiation was superior to that of surgery alone.⁴¹

Although, wide excision advocated by Bouffier in 1899 has been deemed the treatment of choice in all age groups for local control,⁴² this systematic review suggests the potential for successful outcomes using radiation alone and in combination with surgery. Specifically, adjuvant radiation is capable of destroying microscopic residual desmoid tumor left behind from positive margins following surgery.^26,43 In following the sentiments of many authors that a desmoid tumor is a benign entity, this review advocates against the use of surgery as a monotherapy. In patients where cosmesis is hard to achieve, radiation is a modality associated with low complication rates due to the modest doses (50 to 60 Gy) required to control this tumor.^26,42 Therefore, the evidence-based recommendation of this systematic review is to treat extra-abdominal desmoid tumours with either radiation alone or radiation + surgery to achieve local control but not with surgery alone.^3,6,10,19

Due to the indolent and non-metastazing nature of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors, the use of chemotherapy has been limited. Both cytotoxic and non cytotoxic modalities have been described with varying degrees of success including agents such as doxorubicin, methotrexate, vincristine, dactinomycin, cyclophosphamide, binblastine, hormonal agents, kinase inhibitors and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications.⁴³ According to this review of level III evidence, both cytoxic and non cytotoxic treatments have very high stable disease rates (>50%). However, caution must be taken when evaluating such results of chemotherapies for local control of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors. Many patients often had many rounds of chemotherapy and extensive local management including surgery and radiation prior to the published result. Thus, it is hard to tease out the effectiveness of systemic therapy alone. In addition, many tumors that are untreated may in fact remain stable, thus the effect of systemic treatment in these cases would be overestimated. Overall, it appears there is a role for systemic therapy, more specifically non-cytotoxic chemotherapy, in treating extra-abdominal desmoid tumors having reported stable disease rates >80%.^33–36

There are certain limitations to the current systematic review. First, the included studies are of lower quality (observational design) and the majority with retrospective design. Observational studies are subject to many biases i.e. selection bias and detection bias and retrospective studies are prone to data inaccuracy as well as missing information. Second, there is a variation in treatment modalities used for extra-abdominal desmoid tumors and in the follow up of patients (ranging from 2 years to 10 years). As a result, the outcomes of such modalities are very heterogeneous, which was evident in the surgery alone and surgery + radiation data. This limits the generalization of our results. In addition, genotypic status (including beta-catenin mutational status) and specific tumor characteristics were not adequately reported thus potentially causing confounding variables. In addition, the studies did not discriminate between adult and pediatric patients, although familial cases were excluded. However, we believe that the largest shortcoming of this review is its lack of large scale, well-controlled clinical trials. Due to the rarity of desmoid tumors, with an incidence rate of 0.2–0.5 per 100,000, large randomized controlled trials do not exist in the literature and therefore this meta-analysis attempts to consolidate the current evidence.⁷

The strength of this systematic review, however, is that it is the most comprehensive summary data to date including studies evaluating both local and systemic therapies. This systematic review highlights the need for high quality, methodologically sound randomized controlled trials to help better differentiate treatment modalities for extra-abdominal desmoid tumors specifically radiation and systemic modalities.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the management of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors remains controversial. The data in this systematic review suggests that there is evidence to support combined radiation and surgery, but not surgery alone in the local management of these tumors. In addition, systemic treatment, particularly with non cytotoxic agents, appears to be a promising approach and should be evaluated in randomized prospective trials.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements:

The authors would thank Dr. Michael Fraumini for the database search strategy.

References

Baliski

Temple

Arthur

Schachar

Desmoid tumors: a novel approach for local control

J Surg Oncol 200280 96–9

Dalen

Bergh

Gunterberg

Desmoid tumors: a clinical review of 30 patients with more than 20 years’ follow-up

Acta Orthop Scand 200374 455–9

Baumert

Spahr

Von Hochstetter

The impact of radiotherapy in the treatment of desmoid tumours. an international survey of 110 patients. A study of the rare cancer network

Radiat Oncol 2007 2 12

Sakorafas

Nissotakis

Peros

Abdominal desmoid tumors

Surg Oncol 200716 131–42

Markhede

Lundgren

Bjurstam

Extra-abdominal desmoid tumors

Acta Orthop Scand 198657 1–7

Ballo

Zagars

Pollack

Radiation therapy in the management of desmoid tumors

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 199842 1007–14

Azzarelli

Gronchi

Bertulli

Low-dose chemotherapy with methotrexate and vinblastine for patients with advanced aggressive fibromatosis

Cancer 200192 1259–64

Rock

Pritchard

Reiman

Extra-abdominal desmoid tumors

J Bone Joint Surg Am 198466 1369–74

Higaki

Tateishi

Ohno

Surgical treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumours (aggressive fibromatoses)

Int Orthop 199519 383–9

10.

Pignatti

Barbanti-Brodano

Ferrari

Extraabdominal desmoid tumor. A study of 83 cases

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000375 207–13

11.

Shido

Nishida

Nakashima

Surgical treatment for local control of extremity and trunk desmoid tumors

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009129 929–33

12.

O'Dea

Wunder

Bell

Griffin

Catton

O'Sullivan

Preoperative radiotherapy is effective in the treatment of fibromatosis

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003(415)(415)19–24doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000093892.12372.d4

13.

Duggal

Dickinson

Sommerville

Gallie

The management of extra-abdominal desmoid tumours

Int Orthop 200428 252–6

14.

El-Haddad

El-Sebaie

Ahmad

Treatment of aggressive fibromatosis: The experience of a single institution

Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 200921 775–80

15.

Kiel

Suit

Radiation therapy in the treatment of aggressive fibromatoses (desmoid tumors)

Cancer 198454 2051–5

16.

Wells

Shea

O'Connell

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses Ottawa (ON)

Ottawa Health Research Institute

Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/Programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

17.

Hatala

Keitz

Wyer

Guyatt

Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: assessing heterogeneity of primary studies in systematic reviews and whether to combine their results

CMAJ 2005172 661–5

18.

Ballo

Zagars

Pollack

Desmoid tumor: prognostic factors and outcome after surgery, radiation therapy, or combined surgery and radiation therapy

J Clin Oncol 199917 158–67

19.

Guadagnolo

Zagars

Ballo

Long-term outcomes for desmoid tumors treated with radiation therapy

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 200871 441–7

20.

Kamath

Parsons

Marcus

Radiotherapy for local control of aggressive fibromatosis

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 199636 325–8

21.

McCollough

Parsons

van der Griend

Radiation therapy for aggressive fibromatosis. The experience at the University of Florida

J Bone Joint Surg Am 199173 717–25

22.

Spear

Jennings

Mankin

Individualizing management of aggressive fibromatoses

Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 199840 637–45

23.

Mankin

Hornicek

Springfield

Extra-abdominal desmoid tumors: A report of 234 cases

J Surg Oncol 2010102 380–4

24.

Dafford

Kim

Nelson

Kline

Extraabdominal desmoid tumors

Neurosurg Focus 2007 22 E21

25.

Huang

Tzen

Prognostic factors in desmoid-type fibromatosis: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of 46 cases

Pathology 201042 147–50

26.

Karakousis

Mayordomo

Zografos

Driscoll

Desmoid tumors of the trunk and extremity

Cancer 199372 1637–41

27.

Meazza

Bisogno

Gronchi

Aggressive fibromatosis in children and adolescents: The italian experience

Cancer 2010116 233–40

28.

Merchant

Lewis

Woodruff

Extremity and trunk desmoid tumors: a multifactorial analysis of outcome

Cancer 199986 2045–52

29.

Plukker

van Oort

Vermey

Aggressive fibromatosis (non-familial desmoid tumour): therapeutic problems and the role of adjuvant radiotherapy

Br J Surg 199582 510–4

30.

Pritchard

Nascimento

Petersen

Local control of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors

J Bone Joint Surg Am 199678 848–54

31.

Schmitt

Mills

Levin

Radiotherapy of aggressive fibromatosis

Eur J Cancer 199228A 832–5

32.

Park

Pyo

Shin

Suh

Radiation treatment for aggressive fibromatosis: Findings from observed patterns of local failure

Oncology 200364 346–52

33.

Chugh

Wathen

Patel

Efficacy of imatinib in aggressive fibromatosis: Results of a phase II multicenter sarcoma alliance for research through collaboration (SARC) trial

Clin Cancer Res 201016 4884–91

34.

Heinrich

McArthur

Demetri

Clinical and molecular studies of the effect of imatinib on advanced aggressive fibromatosis (desmoid tumor)

J Clin Oncol 200624 1195–203

35.

Leithner

Schnack

Katterschafka

Treatment of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors with interferon-alpha with or without tretinoin

J Surg Oncol 200073 21–5

36.

Nishida

Tsukushi

Shido

Successful treatment with meloxicam, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, of patients with extra-abdominal desmoid tumors: a pilot study

J Clin Oncol 201028 e107–9

37.

Skapek

Ferguson

Granowetter

Vinblastine and methotrexate for desmoid fibromatosis in children: Results of a pediatric oncology group phase II trial

J Clin Oncol 200725 501–6

38.

Weiss

Lackman

Low-dose chemotherapy of desmoid tumors

Cancer 198964 1192–94

39.

Patel

Evans

Benjamin

Combination chemotherapy in adult desmoid tumors

Cancer 199372 3244–7

40.

Constantinidou

Jones

Scurr

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, an effective, well-tolerated treatment for refractory aggressive fibromatosis

Eur J Cancer 200945 2930–4

41.

Nuyttens

Rust

Thomas

Jr Turrisi

3rd

Surgery versus radiation therapy for patients with aggressive fibromatosis or desmoid tumors: a comparative review of 22 articles

Cancer 200088 1517–23

42.

Papagelopoulos

Mavrogenis

Mitsiokapa

Current trends in the management of extra-abdominal desmoid tumours

World J Surg Oncol 2006 4 21

43.

Pakos

Tsekeris

Goussia

Desmoid tumours of the extremities and trunk: A review of the literature

Int Orthop 200529 210–3

Local control of extra-abdominal desmoid tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Search strategy

Article eligibility

Classification and outcomes measures

Assessment of methodological quality

Data extraction

Data analysis

Results

Literature search and quality of included studies

Local failure rates

Response rate for systemic therapy

Discussion

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements:

References