We report a population based case–control study of exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Male and female subjects aged 18–74 years living in Sweden were included during December 1, 1999, to April 30, 2002. Controls were selected from the national population registry. Exposure to different agents was assessed by questionnaire. In total 910 (91 %) cases and 1016 (92%) controls participated. Exposure to herbicides gave odds ratio (OR) 1.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18–2.51. Regarding phenoxyacetic acids highest risk was calculated for MCPA; OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.27–6.22, all these cases had a latency period >10 years. Exposure to glyphosate gave OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.10–3.71 and with >10 years latency period OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.16–4.40. Insecticides overall gave OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.96–1.72 and impregnating agents OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.07–2.30. Results are also presented for different entities of NHL. In conclusion our study confirmed an association between exposure to phenoxyacetic acids and NHL and the association with glyphosate was considerably strengthened.

Soft-tissue sarcomas are rare diseases with >50 subtypes. Surgery is the most important treatment in localized disease, sometimes combined with radiotherapy. Chemotherapy is used as palliation in advanced disease, sometimes also with a potential to decrease tumour size and eradicate micro-metastases, making meaningful surgery possible. The role of chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment in localized disease is not finally settled. Doxorubicin and ifosfamide are the two drugs with the best established response rates in soft-tissue sarcoma, and a combination of these drugs has been a ‘gold standard’ for several years. However, there is an emerging knowledge of the biology and sensitivity to treatment for different histological subtypes. New drugs such as gemcitabine, taxanes and trabectedin have been explored in several studies, showing promising results. Even if most studies have encompassed many different subtypes and were limited in size, knowledge related to specific treatment for different subtypes is emerging. Examples are trabectedin in liposacoma and leiomyosarcoma, and taxanes in angiosarcoma.

Purpose: Limited data are available about the influence of KIT and PDGFRA mutations on overall survival (OS) of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) treated with adjuvant imatinib. Patients and Methods: The Scandinavian Sarcoma Group XVIII/AIO multicenter trial accrued 400 patients with a high risk for GIST recurrence after macroscopically complete surgery between February 4, 2004, and September 29, 2008. The patients received adjuvant imatinib 400 mg/day for either 1 year or 3 years based on random allocation. We analyzed using conventional sequencing KIT and PDGFRA mutations centrally from 341 (85%) patients who had localized, centrally confirmed GIST, and correlated the results with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and OS in exploratory analyses. Results: During a median follow-up time of 10 years, 164 RFS events and 76 deaths occurred. Most patients were re-treated with imatinib when GIST recurred. Patients with KIT exon 11 deletion or indel mutation treated with 3 years of adjuvant imatinib survived longer than patients treated for 1 year [10-year OS 86% versus 64%, respectively; HR, 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.15–0.72; P = 0.007], and also had longer RFS (10-year RFS 47% versus 29%; HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31–0.74; P < 0.001). Patients with KIT exon 9 mutation had unfavorable OS regardless of the duration of adjuvant imatinib. Conclusions: Compared with 1 year of imatinib, 3 years of adjuvant imatinib led to 66% reduction in the estimated risk of death and a high 10-year OS rate in the subset of patients with a KIT exon 11 deletion/indel mutation.

The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients. This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources. Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe’s lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level.