Dr Matthew BroadheadOrthopaedic Surgeon · Sydney & Coffs Harbour

Journal Club · November 2026

Does a sarcoma in a limb mean amputation?

The trial that changed sarcoma surgery. 43 adults were randomly assigned to amputation or to limb-sparing surgery with radiotherapy. Five-year survival was 88% and 83%, with no significant difference.

Will I lose my arm or leg? For most people told they have a sarcoma in a limb, this is the first question, and often it is asked before any other. Until the late 1970s the honest answer was frequently yes. The paper reviewed this month is the reason the answer changed.

What the study looked at

A soft tissue sarcoma is a cancer that arises in muscle, fat or the other connective tissues, most often in the thigh. Fifty years ago the standard operation for a high-grade sarcoma of a limb was amputation, on the reasoning that anything less risked leaving tumour behind. Some surgeons had begun removing the tumour with a cuff of normal tissue around it and giving radiotherapy to the area afterwards, keeping the limb. Nobody knew whether this was as safe.

The Surgery Branch of the US National Cancer Institute settled the question in the most direct way available: a randomised trial. Between 1975 and 1981, 43 adults with a high-grade soft tissue sarcoma of an arm or leg were assigned by chance to one of two treatments. Sixteen had an amputation at or above the joint above the tumour. Twenty-seven had limb-sparing surgery, meaning a wide excision of the tumour, followed by radiotherapy to the whole region at risk with an extra dose to the tumour bed. Everyone in both groups also received chemotherapy after the operation.

The patients were then followed to see how many had the tumour return in the same place (local recurrence), how many remained free of disease, and how many were alive at five years.

What they found

  • Survival was the same. At five years, 83% of the limb-sparing group and 88% of the amputation group were alive. The difference was nowhere near statistical significance (p = 0.99).
  • Freedom from disease was the same. 71% of the limb-sparing group and 78% of the amputation group were alive and disease-free at five years (p = 0.75).
  • Local recurrence was the price. The tumour came back in the limb in 4 of the 27 patients who kept it, and in none of the 16 who had an amputation (p = 0.06).
  • The margin was what mattered. The only factor linked to local recurrence was whether tumour reached the edge of the tissue removed. A positive margin made recurrence more likely even when radiotherapy was given afterwards.
  • A second trial in the same paper tested chemotherapy after surgery against no chemotherapy in 65 patients. At three years, 92% of those given chemotherapy were continuously free of disease against 60% of those who were not. This part of the paper has aged less well, as explained below.

What it means for you

If you have been diagnosed with a soft tissue sarcoma in an arm or leg, the starting assumption today is that the limb will be kept. This trial is where that assumption comes from. It showed that removing the limb did not make people live longer, because what determines survival in sarcoma is mostly whether the tumour has spread elsewhere in the body, and amputation does nothing about that.

It also showed what limb-sparing surgery depends on. The operation has to remove the whole tumour with a margin of normal tissue around it, and radiotherapy is usually part of the plan. That is why the first steps matter so much: an MRI and a biopsy before any attempt at removal, and an operation planned by a sarcoma team who know in advance what they are dealing with. A lump taken out without that planning is more likely to leave a positive margin, which is exactly the situation this trial linked to recurrence.

Amputation has not disappeared. It is still occasionally the right operation: when a tumour cannot be removed with a clear margin without leaving a limb that would not work, or when a tumour has come back after earlier surgery and radiotherapy. For some people a well-fitted prosthesis gives better function than a heavily reconstructed limb. These are individual decisions, made with the scans in front of you and your surgeon, and this paper does not make them for anyone.

A caveat worth knowing

This was a small trial: 43 patients, in one hospital, nearly fifty years ago. A trial that size can show that two treatments are not dramatically different. It cannot prove they are identical, and the four local recurrences in the limb-sparing group are a reminder that keeping the limb carries a real, if small, risk that amputation does not. No one has repeated the trial, and it is unlikely anyone will, because few patients or surgeons would now accept a coin toss between the two.

Much else has changed since. Scans are far better, radiotherapy is more precise and is often given before the operation, and the chemotherapy every patient received in this trial is no longer routine. The striking chemotherapy result in the second half of the paper was not matched by later, larger studies, and chemotherapy for adult soft tissue sarcoma is now considered case by case. Finally, the trial was about soft tissue sarcoma in adults. Bone sarcomas followed a similar path towards limb preservation, but on different evidence.

Assessing this studyA standardised appraisal for clinicians and registrars: study design, strength and validity.
Study design
Single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial from the Surgery Branch of the US National Cancer Institute. Between May 1975 and April 1981, 43 adults with high-grade soft tissue sarcoma of an extremity were randomised 2:1 to limb-sparing resection plus postoperative radiotherapy (27 patients) or to amputation at or above the joint proximal to the tumour (16 patients). Both arms received postoperative chemotherapy (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and high-dose methotrexate). The same paper reports a second, concurrent randomised trial of postoperative chemotherapy against none in 65 patients.
Level of evidence
OCEBM Level 2 (therapy): an individual randomised trial, and the only one ever to compare amputation with limb preservation in this disease. It is not Level 1: there is one small trial, not a systematic review of several, and its precision is limited.
Are the results valid?
Randomisation is the strength: the two groups differ by chance alone, which no later comparison of amputation and limb-sparing surgery can claim. The weakness is size. With 43 patients the trial cannot exclude a modest survival difference in either direction, and a result of "no difference" (p = 0.99 for overall survival) is an absence of evidence of harm, not proof of equivalence. Blinding was impossible. Only patients whose tumour could be removed either way were eligible, so the hardest cases are not represented. The local recurrence comparison (4 against 0, p = 0.06) falls just short of conventional significance but is clinically credible and is reported candidly. All patients received a chemotherapy regimen that is not routine today. This appraisal is based on the published abstract and the indexed record; the full text in PubMed Central is a scanned original.
What are the results?
Local recurrence: 4 of 27 after limb-sparing surgery and radiotherapy, 0 of 16 after amputation (p = 0.06, generalised Wilcoxon). Five-year disease-free survival: 71% limb-sparing against 78% amputation (p = 0.75). Five-year overall survival: 83% against 88% (p = 0.99). No confidence intervals are given in the abstract. On multivariate analysis the only correlate of local recurrence was the final resection margin: positive margins carried a higher likelihood of recurrence than negative margins (p < 0.0001), even with postoperative radiotherapy. In the concurrent chemotherapy trial (65 patients), three-year continuous disease-free survival was 92% with chemotherapy against 60% without (p = 0.0008), and overall survival 95% against 74% (p = 0.04).
Do they apply to our patients?
The central finding, that preserving the limb does not cost survival provided the tumour is removed with a clear margin and radiotherapy is given, underpins current practice for soft tissue sarcoma of the limbs everywhere. The details have moved on: imaging is now MRI, radiotherapy is often given before the operation instead of after it, and reconstruction of bone, vessels and soft tissue allows limbs to be kept that could not have been in 1975. The chemotherapy result should not be carried over to current practice: later trials and pooled analyses found a smaller and less certain benefit, and chemotherapy for adult soft tissue sarcoma is now decided case by case. The trial concerns soft tissue sarcoma in adults, not bone sarcoma, and it does not say that amputation is never needed.
Bottom line
In the only randomised comparison, limb-sparing surgery with radiotherapy gave the same five-year survival as amputation for high-grade soft tissue sarcoma of the limbs (83% against 88%, p = 0.99) at the cost of a small number of local recurrences, all of which tracked with the resection margin; it is a small trial, but it is the reason amputation is now the exception.

Framework: study design graded with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence; validity and applicability appraised in the CASP tradition.

This is a plain-language summary of published research, provided for general education. It is not medical advice and does not describe Dr Broadhead's own results. Whether any finding applies to you depends on your individual circumstances, so please discuss your care with your treating team.

← All Journal Club entries

CallBookEmail