Evidence-Based Surgical Guidelines for Treating Children With Rhabdomyosarcoma
- PMID: 39870584
- DOI: 10.1002/pbc.31541
Evidence-Based Surgical Guidelines for Treating Children With Rhabdomyosarcoma
Abstract
Background: Surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment for rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) in children. However, there is considerable variation in surgical management practices worldwide, highlighting the need for standardized Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG).
Methods: The CPG development involved assembling a multidisciplinary group, prioritizing 10 key topic areas, conducting evidence searches, and synthesizing findings. Recommendations were voted on using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology.
Recommendations: The panel recommended regional lymph node evaluation for patients with paratesticular RMS who are more than 10 years old and extremity RMS. Other suggestions included pretreatment re-excision for incompletely resected RMS, preoperative radiation therapy for unresectable tumors, maintaining a 0.5 cm resection margin, and tumor bed marking with surgical clips. The panel also suggests resection of residual metastatic disease following chemotherapy, resection of relapsed disease, and the least invasive approach for managing patients presenting with obstruction.
Conclusion: This CPG provides evidence-based surgical management recommendations for RMS that can be adapted to diverse resource settings.
Keywords: RMS; guidelines; rhabdomyosarcoma; surgery.
© 2025 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
-
- T. B. Lautz, W. Xue, L. Y. Luo, et al., “Management and Outcomes of Chest Wall Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Report from the Children's Oncology Group Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee,” Pediatric Blood & Cancer 70, no. 7 (2023): e30357, https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.30357.
-
- E. S. Wiener, J. R. Anderson, J. I. Ojimba, et al., “Controversies in the Management of Paratesticular Rhabdomyosarcoma: Is Staging Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection Necessary for Adolescents With Resected Paratesticular Rhabdomyosarcoma?,” Seminars in Pediatric Surgery 10, no. 3 (2001): 146–152, https://doi.org/10.1053/spsu.2001.24695.
-
- J. L. Meza, J. Anderson, A. S. Pappo, W. H. Meyer, and Children's Oncology Group, “Analysis of Prognostic Factors in Patients With Nonmetastatic Rhabdomyosarcoma Treated on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Studies III and IV: The Children's Oncology Group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 24, no. 24 (2006): 3844–3851, https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.3801.
-
- N. D. Dang, P. T. Dang, J. Samuelian, and A. C. Paulino, “Lymph Node Management in Patients With Paratesticular Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Population‐Based Analysis,” Cancer 119, no. 17 (2013): 3228–3233, https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28198.
-
- B. L. Ecker, M. G. Peters, M. T. McMillan, et al., “Implications of Lymph Node Evaluation in the Management of Resectable Soft Tissue Sarcoma,” Annals of Surgical Oncology 24, no. 2 (2017): 425–433, https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434‐016‐5641‐1.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
