{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03438256658595642, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03438256658595642, 'mean_word_length': 4.0513447432762835, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Soft tissue sarcoma in childhood: local treatment in patients under 3 years of age. Analysis of the RMS-88 multicenter study].

UNLABELLED
The purpose of this report is to describe the treatment and the outcome of patients affected by soft tissue sarcomas and enrolled in the Italian Cooperative Study RMS 88, whose age was less than 36 months. In particular the role of local treatment is discussed, considering that RT was not recommended by the protocol. The 104 patients, 70 affected by RMS and 34 by NR-STS, were grouped according to the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Staging (IRS) system. The general guidelines of the study for the local treatment included surgery in Gr I, surgery + radiotherapy (40 Gy) in Gr II, surgery (1 or more procedures) + radiotherapy (45-54 Gy) in Gr III, but RT was not recommended for patients < 3 years. RMS: The 5 patients in Gr I did not receive RT: 4/5 are alive NED and 1 is lost at FU. Among the 5 patients in Gr II, 5 did not receive RT and are alive NED; 4 were given RT and 2 of these died of disease. In the 56 patients in Gr III, RT was utilized in 25: 5 died of disease and 6 manifested distant sequelae due to RT. 10/31 patients who were not given RT, did not undergo any other local treatment and died of disease; 4 patients died after surgery only.


NRSTS
7/9 Gr I patients are alive (1 was treated with RT and did not present sequelae); 1/9 died and 1 is lost at FU. 3/6 Gr II patients are alive (1 after RT), 2 died of disease and 1 is lost at FU. 2/19 Gr III patients were given RT and 1 died of disease; 3 of the not irradiated patients died without any local treatment, 4 after surgery only.


CONCLUSION
The local treatment was important for patients' outcome: only 28% of the RMS and 36% of the NRSTS patients who were not treated with surgery a/o RT are in CR. Surgery was not particularly aggressive (6 mutilating procedures). RT was utilized in 33/104 patients and sequelae were 7. The difference in overall survival between patients less than 3 and patients more than 3 is not statistically significant.