Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Surgical resection versus active surveillance for desmoid tumours at one yearShould You Have Surgery for a Desmoid Tumor, or Wait?

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider surgical resection alongside active surveillance for desmoid tumours, as progression rates at one year appear comparable.

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 76 patients with desmoid tumours managed at the National Cancer Centre Singapore. Participants were categorized into two groups: those undergoing surgical resection (R0, R1, or R2 wide excision) and those managed with active surveillance. The primary outcome assessed was radiological disease progression at one year, with secondary outcomes including long-term results for R0 resections and recurrence management.

At one year, progressive disease occurred in 5 of 19 patients (26.3%) in the active surveillance group. In the surgical resection group, 13 of 57 patients (22.8%) experienced progressive disease. When analyzing resection subgroups, progression rates were 20% for R0 resection (5 of 25), 25% for R1 resection (7 of 28), and 25% for R2 resection (1 of 4).

Long-term follow-up for the R0 resection subgroup indicated no further progression; all recurrences stabilized or regressed. The study did not report specific adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, or tolerability data. No statistical significance was reported between the groups, and the study design is observational.

The authors note that controversies regarding surgery stem from concerns about precipitating tumour growth, given the postulated role of trauma in desmoid tumour pathogenesis. This study suggests surgery achieves good disease control at one year without triggering growth, reinforcing its role as a viable option alongside active surveillance in selected patients. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the data and lack of reported safety metrics.

A Tumor That Doesn't Follow the Rules

Desmoid tumors are strange. They don't spread to other organs. They aren't technically cancerous in the classic sense. But they grow into the surrounding tissue — muscles, nerves, blood vessels — and they can be incredibly difficult to remove.

What makes them particularly confusing: they sometimes grow after surgery. Some doctors have worried that cutting into them actually makes them worse.

Who Gets Desmoid Tumors

Desmoid tumors are rare — estimated to affect about 2-4 people per million each year. They tend to appear in young adults, often in the abdomen, chest wall, or limbs.

Some cases are linked to a genetic condition called familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Others develop after physical trauma or surgery. The unpredictability of these tumors — some stay stable for years, others grow rapidly — makes treatment decisions difficult.

The Long-Standing Debate

For decades, surgery was the go-to treatment. Remove the tumor, solve the problem.

But a shift happened when doctors noticed that desmoid tumors sometimes grew back more aggressively after surgery — and occasionally, tumors that were left alone stabilized or even shrank on their own.

This led many centers to shift toward active surveillance: monitoring the tumor closely with imaging and only intervening if it began growing significantly.

But here's the twist: this study suggests the fear of surgery triggering growth may have been overstated.

What Drives Desmoid Tumor Growth

The exact biology of desmoid tumors is still being worked out. They arise from fibroblasts — cells that normally help build connective tissue. Think of them as the body's construction crew going rogue and building walls in the wrong places.

Hormonal signals, trauma, and the protein beta-catenin (part of a key cellular pathway) all appear to play roles. Surgery creates inflammation and triggers healing signals — which some researchers believe could stimulate tumor regrowth. This study challenges how significant that mechanism actually is in practice.

Researchers reviewed records from 76 patients with desmoid tumors treated at the National Cancer Centre Singapore between 1999 and 2023. Nineteen were managed with active surveillance. Fifty-seven underwent surgical resection — with varying degrees of completeness. Tumor behavior was assessed by imaging at one year.

At one year, progression rates were nearly identical between the two groups: 26.3% in the surveillance group, 22.8% in the surgical group. Surgery did not appear to make tumors grow faster than waiting.

Long-term outcomes, however, favored complete surgical removal. Among patients who had R0 resection (complete removal with clear margins), no cases showed further progression long-term. Tumors that initially recurred after complete removal either stabilized or regressed without additional treatment.

Here's Where It Gets Interesting

The similarity in one-year progression rates doesn't mean surgery and surveillance are equivalent choices — it means the decision can be made on its own merits for each patient.

For someone whose tumor is near a vital structure, or who is experiencing symptoms, surgery may offer the better long-term outcome. For someone with a small, stable tumor in a less dangerous location, surveillance is a reasonable choice that avoids surgical risk.

What the Data Tells Experts

The authors argue that surgery should no longer carry a blanket warning of "may accelerate growth." That fear, while understandable, may have pushed some patients toward prolonged watchful waiting when surgery could have offered durable control.

At the same time, incomplete removal — where some tumor tissue remains — showed higher one-year progression rates, suggesting that partial surgery may carry more risk than either full removal or no surgery at all.

If you or someone you know has been diagnosed with a desmoid tumor, this research offers reassurance that surgery doesn't automatically make things worse. It also reinforces that the choice between surgery and surveillance should be made with a specialist who has experience with these tumors — not as a one-size-fits-all protocol.

Asking your care team about the completeness of possible resection — whether they expect R0, R1, or R2 — is a meaningful question that this data supports.

The study was retrospective and included only 76 patients across 24 years at a single center. The groups were not randomized, meaning patients selected for surgery or surveillance weren't necessarily comparable. The small numbers make it difficult to draw conclusions about specific subgroups.

What Comes Next

Larger prospective studies and ideally randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings. International desmoid tumor registries are being developed that may eventually provide the kind of multicenter data needed to give stronger, personalized guidance on when to operate and when to wait.

Study Details

Study typeCohort
EvidenceLevel 3
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
IntroductionDesmoid tumours are locally aggressive, fibroblastic soft-tissue tumours which can affect adjacent structures. Management of desmoid tumours is multi-faceted and controversies surrounding surgical treatment stem from concerns about potential of surgery to precipitate tumour growth as pathogenesis of desmoid tumours is postulated to originate from trauma.MethodsData from patients with desmoid tumours treated at the National Cancer Centre Singapore between 1999 and 2023 were collected retrospectively. We reviewed and compared radiological disease progression at one year for patients undergoing active surveillance and those who had surgical resection.ResultsA total of 76 patients with desmoid tumours were seen in NCCS between September 1999 and October 2023; 19 patients were placed on active surveillance, and the remaining 57 patients underwent R0/ R1/ R2 wide excision of desmoid tumour. At one-year, progressive disease was observed in 5 out of 19 patients (26.3%) on active surveillance, and 13 out of 57 patients (22.8%) who underwent surgical resection. Progressive disease was observed in 5 out of 25 (20%) of patients following R0 resection, though no further progression occurred long-term, and all recurrences either stabilized or regressed. In the R1 group, 7 out of 28 (25%) patients showed progression at one year; management included repeat resection, cryoablation, or continued surveillance. Among R2 patients, 1 out of 4 patients had progressive disease with one patient maintaining complete radiological response at five years.ConclusionLong-term outcomes following R0 resection were notably favourable, with no further progression and evidence of tumour stability or regression in all recurrent cases. Progressive disease rates at one year were comparable between surgical and surveillance groups, supporting a tailored, risk-adapted approach to management. Surgery does not appear to trigger tumour growth and achieves good disease control at one year, reinforcing its role as a viable option alongside active surveillance in selected patients.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.