Histopathology of childhood sarcomas, Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Studies I and II: Clinicopathologic correlation

W. A. Newton, E. H. Soule, A. B. Hamoudi, H. M. Reiman, H. Shimada, M. Beltangady, H. Maurer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

238 Scopus citations


Histopathologic material from 1,782 patients registered in the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Committee (IRS)-I and -II were reviewed by the IRS Pathology Committee in order to provide a uniform approach to classification and correlate patient survival with tumor type. Categories considered eligible were the four types of rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) (criteria of Horn and Enterline), extraosseous Ewing's tumor (EOE), and a group of somewhat variable undifferentiated sarcomas designated small round cell sarcoma, type indeterminate (STI). Tumors that were clearly sarcomas but were unclassifiable also were included (NOS). The committee diagnoses were embryonal (Emb) RMS in 877 (54%), alveolar (Alv) RMS in 343 (21%), botryoid (Botr) RMS in 88 (5%), pleomorphic (Pleo) RMS in 11 (1%), STI in 135 (8%), and EOE in 84 (5%). One in nine were mixtures of types, eg, Emb and Alv. Five percent of the sarcomas could not be classified because of inadequate material. In general, there was close agreement (94%) between the review committee and institutional pathologists in the diagnosis of RMS, but not in the specific types, particularly Alv RMS (41%) and STI (36%). This observation is important, since patients with Alv RMS and STI tumors had decreased survival compared with the other histologies. The prognosis varied by histology, with Botr having the best, Alv RMS and STI the worst, and Emb RMS and EOE an intermediate prognosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)67-75
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Issue number1
StatePublished - 1988
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research


Dive into the research topics of 'Histopathology of childhood sarcomas, Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Studies I and II: Clinicopathologic correlation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this