Abstract
Simple Summary Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is an aggressive soft tissue sarcoma with a poor prognosis. Approximately 40% of patients will develop metastatic disease. The optimal treatment for patients with metastatic LMS is not well established, and there are no randomized controlled trials regarding metastasectomy. This systematic review and pooled survival analysis aims to assess the survival in patients undergoing a metastasectomy for LMS and compare the outcomes based on the site of metastasectomy. We identified that patients with LMS metastases in the lungs, liver, spine, and brain can undergo metastasectomy with acceptable survival. Two studies have compared survival outcomes between patients treated and not treated with metastasectomy; despite their low quality, these studies support a survival benefit associated with metastasectomy. This study assesses the survival in patients undergoing metastasectomy for leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and compares the outcomes by the site of metastasectomy. We conducted a systematic review and pooled survival analysis of patients undergoing metastasectomy for LMS. Survival was compared between sites of metastasectomy. We identified 23 studies including 573 patients undergoing metastasectomy for LMS. The pooled median survival was 59.6 months (95% CI 33.3 to 66.0). The pooled median survival was longest for lung metastasectomy (72.8 months 95% CI 63.0 to 82.5), followed by liver (34.8 months 95% CI 22.3 to 47.2), spine (14.1 months 95% CI 8.6 to 19.7), and brain (14 months 95% CI 6.7 to 21.3). Two studies compared the survival outcomes between patients who did, versus who did not undergo metastasectomy; both demonstrated a significantly improved survival with metastasectomy. We conclude that surgery is currently being utilized for LMS metastases to the lung, liver, spine, and brain with acceptable survival. Although low quality, comparative studies support a survival benefit with metastasectomy. In the absence of randomized studies, it is impossible to determine whether the survival benefit associated with metastasectomy is due to careful patient selection rather than a surgical advantage; limited data were included about patient selection.