Nationwide trends in the current management of desmoid (aggressive) fibromatosis.
OBJECTIVE
The optimal management of desmoid fibromatosis remains unclear, leading to significant variability in patient management. To assess this problem, the current approach of clinicians managing this complex condition in the UK was investigated.


METHODS
A hypothetical case of intramuscular limb girdle desmoid fibromatosis in a fit 65-year-old patient was devised. Surgical and non-surgical oncology members of the British Sarcoma Group were questioned on how they would manage this case in three scenarios: primary disease with function-sparing surgery possible, primary disease with neurovascular involvement and disease recurrence after a previous R0 resection. Initial management, management of symptomatic disease progression, follow-up preferences and any differences in respondents' management choices in a younger case were investigated.


RESULTS
The responses from 14 sarcoma surgeons and 23 oncologists (14 clinical, nine medical) were analysed. Desmoid fibromatosis management is generally shared by surgeons and oncologists within sarcoma multidisciplinary teams in the UK. Variation exists in the chosen initial management of primary desmoid fibromatosis in the UK, with function-sparing surgery possible (observation 51%, resection 51%), primary desmoid fibromatosis with neurovascular involvement (hormone therapy with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 51%, radiotherapy 27%, observation 22%) and for cases of desmoid fibromatosis recurrence (radiotherapy 41%, hormone therapy and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 27%, observation 24%). There was a clear preference of surgical resection of symptomatic disease progression in cases of primary desmoid fibromatosis without neurovascular involvement (60%). By contrast, radiotherapy was the preferred treatment for progression in cases with neurovascular involvement (47%) or cases of recurrence after a previous R0 resection (34%). Clinical follow-up was selected 3 months after intervention in 68% of scenarios. Follow-up imaging was selected 3 or 6 months after intervention in 57% and 21% of cases, respectively. Most respondents would not change their chosen management in younger patients.


CONCLUSIONS
Several groups have issued formal guidelines for clinicians managing desmoid fibromatosis, including the British Sarcoma Group, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Society for Medical Oncology. However, these are in some ways contradictory and may not reflect recent publications, potentially explaining the significant variation in the management of desmoid fibromatosis in the UK shown by this survey. We propose a review of current evidence; a national consensus or a desmoid fibromatosis registry may help to standardise desmoid fibromatosis care.
Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK. Electronic address: neastley@doctors.org.uk.
N C
NC
Eastley
Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
I M
IM
Hennig
Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
C P
CP
Esler
Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK; Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
R U
RU
Ashford
D000368:Aged; D003131:Combined Modality Therapy; D019468:Disease Management; D018450:Disease Progression; D018222:Desmoid Tumors / Q000517:prevention & control*; D006801:Humans; D011379:Prognosis; D006113:United Kingdom
Desmoid; fibromatosis; management; sarcoma