Background/Objectives: To review the problem of diagnostic delay in soft tissue sarcomas with the aim of identifying its causes and consequences, understanding how to clinically suspect and refer them, and evaluating the main limitations of the referral guidelines already in use. Methods: A systematic review of the available literature was performed, focusing on the theoretical framework, the elements and time intervals to be considered, causes and consequences, “red flag” symptoms/signs, the main referral guidelines in use, their results, and the methods used to avoid excessive referrals. Results: Diagnostic delay in soft tissue sarcomas is a frequent event that is poorly characterized and has important consequences, including prognostic, medico-legal and psycho-social effects. The common denominator is the lack of knowledge and awareness. Several referral guidelines have been described, and most of them are based on clinical data. Their results have been disappointing. Thus, it is necessary to implement new methods to improve their results and avoid the overload of pre-referral imaging systems, sarcoma diagnostic triage meetings, and telemedicine systems. Conclusions: Sarcoma units and health system leaders need to study this issue to determine the extent of the problem and its causes. Without this information, it is almost impossible to properly address the problem and take corrective actions. Early referral of suspected soft tissue sarcoma lesions, although desirable, is a complex issue due to the non-specificity of the symptoms. Existing clinical referral guidelines need to be modified to improve detection and conversion rates.

Backgroud: Ovarian cancer is the deadliest gynecologic malignancy, with most patients presenting with peritoneal dissemination at diagnosis. Complete cytoreduction and sensitivity to platinum-based systemic chemotherapy remain the most significant prognostic factors. However, even after optimal first-line management, over half of patients relapse due to residual microscopic disease. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy aims to target this component, with normothermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy long-term (NIPEC-LT) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) being the most studied approaches. While NIPEC-LT has demonstrated improved survival in select trials, concerns regarding toxicity and catheter-related complications have limited its adoption as standard care. Conversely, HIPEC has shown survival benefits, particularly in patients undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery (iCRS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, leading to its inclusion in clinical guidelines. However, HIPEC is administered as a single intraoperative treatment, limiting its prolonged effect. Objectives and Method: This study investigates the combination of HIPEC and postoperative NIPEC-LT in the BICOV-1 trial, a prospective, non-randomized phase I study evaluating the feasibility, safety, and oncologic outcomes. The primary objective is to assess the treatment completion rates and morbidity. The secondary endpoints include disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and quality-of-life measures. Combining HIPEC and NIPEC-LT is a rational approach, as both have shown independent benefits and do not overlap in toxicity. HIPEC-induced biological changes may enhance the effectiveness of subsequent intraperitoneal chemotherapy. This trial will provide essential data for future phase II/III studies assessing the role of intensified intraperitoneal treatment in ovarian cancer management.

Background: This study aimed to analyze the morbidity, mortality, and survival outcomes in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies who were initially considered candidates for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) but were found to have unresectable disease, resulting in nontherapeutic exploratory laparotomy. Patients and Methods: We evaluated data from our referral center for the treatment of peritoneal surface malignancies between January 2008 and December 2022. Adverse events following nontherapeutic laparotomy were classified using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Results: Among a cohort of 486 patients with peritoneal surface malignancies initially considered candidates for CRS + HIPEC, 46 cases (9.4%) were aborted due to the disease being deemed unresectable during exploratory laparotomy. The primary reasons for unresectability included extensive disease spread, observed in 28 patients, with massive small intestine involvement detected in 13 of these cases. The median duration of surgery was 90 min (range: 60–180 min). Postoperative complications occurred in 10 patients (22%), with a mortality rate of 4.3% (2 patients). Survival was significantly lower in patients who did not receive adjuvant systemic chemotherapy with palliative intent (4 months vs. 15 months, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Exploratory laparotomy in patients with peritoneal surface malignancies considered for CRS with HIPEC carries a substantial risk of complications. Improved preoperative staging using advanced technologies such as radiomics and laparoscopy is expected to reduce the number of patients undergoing nontherapeutic laparotomy.