Clinical and prognostic insights into radiation-associated angiosarcoma: a multi-institutional analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
PURPOSE: To evaluate oncological outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with radiation-associated angiosarcoma (RAAS) treated at referral centers. METHODS: We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of patients with histopathologically confirmed primary or recurrent RAAS treated at four referral centers in Germany. Endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors were assessed using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 71 patients (97.2% female; median age 69 years), 90% had a history of breast cancer treated with radiotherapy (RT). RAAS developed after a mean latency of 7 years, with a median RT dose of 59.4 Gy. Over a median follow-up of 13.0 months, OS reached a median of 41.7 months, with 1- and 2-year rates of 82.9% and 61.7%, respectively. Median PFS was 9.5 months, with 1- and 2-year rates of 43.7% and 27.1%. Larger tumor size (HR 1.09, p = 0.032) and metastatic disease at diagnosis (HR 2.98, p = 0.003) were associated with worse OS. CONCLUSIONS: RAAS are aggressive, frequently relapsing malignancies occurring years after RT. Larger tumor size and metastatic presentation are associated with worse OS. Multi-institutional and translational studies are needed to clarify disease biology, refine risk factors, and guide treatment strategies.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Clinical and prognostic insights into radiation-associated angiosarcoma: a multi-institutional analysis
- Date Crossref
- 19/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.