As leiomyosarcoma patients are challenged by the development of metastatic disease, effective systemic therapies are the cornerstone of outcome. However, the overall activity of the currently available conventional systemic treatments and the prognosis of patients with advanced or metastatic disease are still poor, making the treatment of this patient group challenging. Therefore, in a joint effort together with patient networks and organizations, namely Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN), the international network of sarcoma patients organizations, and the National LeioMyoSarcoma Foundation (NLMSF) in the United States, we aim to summarize state-of-the-art treatments for leiomyosarcoma patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and current unmet needs, thereby guiding the community to design innovative clinical trials and basic research and close these research gaps. This position paper arose from a leiomyosarcoma research meeting in October 2020 hosted by the NLMSF and SPAEN.

Research in sarcomas has historically been the domain of scientists and clinicians attempting to understand the disease to develop effective treatments. This traditional approach of placing scientific rigor before the patient’s reality is changing. This evolution is reflected in the growth of patient-centered organizations and patient advocacy groups that seek to meaningfully integrate patients into the research process. The aims of this study are to identify the unanswered questions regarding sarcomas (including gastrointestinal stromal tumors and desmoid fibromatosis) from patient, carer, and clinical perspectives and examine how patients and carers want to be involved in sarcoma research. The Patient-Powered Research Network of Sarcoma Patients EuroNet set up a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) in collaboration with stakeholders from the sarcoma research field. This PSP is largely based on the James Lind Alliance methodology. In total, 264 sarcoma patients (73%) and carers (27%) from all over the world participated in the online survey and covered the full spectrum of sarcomas. The topics mentioned were labeled in accordance with the Common Scientific Outline of the International Cancer Research Partnership and lists for potential research topics, advocacy topics, and requests for information were constructed. With regard to patient and carer involvement, 64% were very willing to be actively involved and mainly in the following areas: sharing perspectives, discussing patient-clinician interactions, and attending research meetings. The first results of this sarcoma PSP identified important research questions, but also important topics for patient advocacy groups and further improvement of information materials. Sarcoma patients and carers have a strong wish to be involved in multiple aspects of sarcoma research. The next phase will identify the top 10 research priorities per tumor type. These priorities will provide guidance for research that will achieve greatest value and impact.

The management of sarcomas in specialist centers delivers significant benefits. In much of the world, specialists are not available, and the development of expertise is identified as a major need. However, the terms ‘specialist’ or ‘expert’ center are rarely defined. Our objective is to offer a definition for patient advocates and a tool for healthcare providers to underpin improving the care of people with sarcoma. SPAGN developed a discussion paper for a workshop at the SPAGN 2023 Conference, attended by 75 delegates. A presentation to the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS) and further discussion led to this paper. Core Principles were identified that underlie specialist sarcoma care. The primary Principle is the multi-disciplinary team discussing every patient, at first diagnosis and during treatment. Principles for optimal sarcoma management include accurate diagnosis followed by safe, high-quality treatment, with curative intent. These Principles are supplemented by Features describing areas of healthcare, professional involvement, and service provision and identifying further research and development needs. These allow for variations because of national or local policies and budgets. We propose the term ‘Sarcoma Intelligent Specialist Network’ to recognize expertise wherever it is found in the world. This provides a base for further discussion and local refinement.

Management of sarcomas in specialist centers delivers significant benefits. In much of the world specialists are not available and development of expertise is identified as a major need. However the terms ‘specialist’ or ‘expert’ center are rarely defined. Our objective is to offer a definition for patient advocates and a tool for healthcare providers to underpin improving the care of people with sarcoma. SPAGN developed a discussion paper for a workshop at the SPAGN 2023 Conference, attended by 75 delegates. A presentation to the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS) and further discussion led to this paper. Core Principles were identified that underlie specialist sarcoma care. The primary principle is the multi-disciplinary team discussing every patient, at first diagnosis and during treatment. Principles for optimal sarcoma management include accurate diagnosis followed by safe, high-quality treatment, with curative intent. These Principles are supplemented by Features describing areas of healthcare, professional involvement, and service provision and identifying further research and development needs. These allow for variations because of national or local policies and budgets. We propose the term ‘Sarcoma Intelligent Specialist Network’ to recognize expertise wherever it is found in the world. This provides a base for further discussion and local refinement.

Background: Increasingly, social media is being recognized as a potential resource for patient-generated health data, for example, for pharmacovigilance. Although the representativeness of the web-based patient population is often noted as a concern, studies in this field are limited. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the sample bias of patient-centered social media in Dutch patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Methods: A population-based survey was conducted in the Netherlands among 328 patients with GIST diagnosed 2-13 years ago to investigate their digital communication use with fellow patients. A logistic regression analysis was used to analyze clinical and demographic differences between forum users and nonusers. Results: Overall, 17.9% (59/328) of survey respondents reported having contact with fellow patients via social media. Moreover, 78% (46/59) of forum users made use of GIST patient forums. We found no statistically significant differences for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis between forum users (n=46) and nonusers (n=273). Patient forum users did differ significantly in (self-reported) treatment phase from nonusers (P=.001). Of the 46 forum users, only 2 (4%) were cured and not being monitored; 3 (7%) were on adjuvant, curative treatment; 19 (41%) were being monitored after adjuvant treatment; and 22 (48%) were on palliative treatment. In contrast, of the 273 patients who did not use disease-specific forums to communicate with fellow patients, 56 (20.5%) were cured and not being monitored, 31 (11.3%) were on curative treatment, 139 (50.9%) were being monitored after treatment, and 42 (15.3%) were on palliative treatment. The odds of being on a patient forum were 2.8 times as high for a patient who is being monitored compared with a patient that is considered cured. The odds of being on a patient forum were 1.9 times as high for patients who were on curative (adjuvant) treatment and 10 times as high for patients who were in the palliative phase compared with patients who were considered cured. Forum users also reported a lower level of social functioning (84.8 out of 100) than nonusers (93.8 out of 100; P=.008). Conclusions: Forum users showed no particular bias on the most important demographic variables of age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis. This may reflect the narrowing digital divide. Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of patients with GIST in different treatment phases on social media should be taken into account when sourcing patient forums for patient-generated health data. A further investigation of the sample bias in other web-based patient populations is warranted.

Citizen science in which people investigate personal health questions can be regarded as the “zero line” or “baseline” of health research. This type of research can lead to functional and consequential discoveries. However, citizens’ personal research capacities are rarely used in regular health research or healthcare, even though they could form the basis of it. This article outlines the development of the zero line of health research propelled by the Self-Research Network Netherlands (ZelfOnderzoek Netwerk Nederland) and its partners in the broader patient movement and their efforts to connect it to regular ways of knowledge development.