We read this interesting retrospective study by Luo et al. [1] and we would like to add a comment on soft-tissue sarcomas. Soft-tissue sarcomas are a group of malignant neoplasms originating from mesenchymal tissue and deriving etymologically from the Greek word 'σάρξ' (flesh) and the suffix 'ώμα' (tumour). They make up less than 2% and 10–15% of all adult and paediatric malignant neoplasms respectively and their overall incidence is approximately 6 per 100 000 persons/year [2]. Histological typing (according to WHO) is based on the tissue giving origin to the tumour, and histological grading, which is a good predictor of distant metastasis and overall survival, is based on a three-grade system (1–3) and depends on the mitotic index and the extent of tumour necrosis [3]. Staging of these tumours is clinically important and imparts additional prognostic information. The TNM system is employed, which combines histological grade, tumour size and depth, regional lymph node involvement and distant metastases [3]. Histological diagnosis should be based on the WHO classification for the grade and stage to be determined. Five-year survival has been reported to be 95%, 75%, and 45% in patients with grade 1, 2, and 3 sarcomas respectively [2]. Thoracic sarcomas account for 10% of all sarcomas and the rest are found on upper (15%) and lower (35%) limbs, visceral organs (15%), abdomen and retroperitoneum (15%), followed by head and neck (10%) [2]. Metastasis may either occur locally to nearby tissues or distally through the circulatory system predominantly to the lung and less frequently to the liver and bones [2]. Good prognosis is associated with young age, female gender, low histological grade, stage 1 tumours and complete surgical resection, while poor prognosis is related to high-grade tumours, stage 2 sarcomas, incomplete surgical removal, metastatic disease and relapses as well as aggressive histological subtypes [2]. For non-metastatic disease, the treatment of choice is surgical removal, which, depending on its outcomes, may be combined with radiotherapy. Each case should be approached on an individual basis and assessed by a multi-disciplinary team considering the need for neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and its medications [2]. Even though there is inadequate evidence to dictate specific policies for follow-up, risk assessment should be conducted based on tumour grade, size and site with primary focus on the lungs (for metastatic disease) for routine follow-up. Standard follow-up should consist of clinical history, clinical examination for local recurrence (followed by ultrasound scan or MRI if needed), and chest X-ray with subsequent CT scan for suspicious lesions. The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) recommends follow-up every 3–4 months in surgically treated intermediate/high-risk patients in the first 2 years, later on twice a year until the fifth year and then yearly afterwards. Those with low-grade sarcomas may be investigated for local relapse every 4–6 months, with chest X-rays or CT scan at larger intervals in the first 3–5 years, and then once a year [4,5]. In summary, the role of a multidisciplinary team is essential in the management of these challenging tumours and further well-conducted research is necessary for evidence-based guidelines to be devised [5]. Conflict of interest: none declared.