C. L. Gaston

The prognostic value of the serum level of C-reactive protein for the survival of patients with a primary sarcoma of bone

The aim of this study was to determine whether the level of circulating C-reactive protein (CRP) before treatment predicted overall disease-specific survival and local tumour control in patients with a sarcoma of bone. We retrospectively reviewed 318 patients who presented with a primary sarcoma of bone between 2003 and 2010. Those who presented with metastases and/or local recurrence were excluded. Elevated CRP levels were seen in 84 patients before treatment; these patients had a poorer disease-specific survival (57% at five years) than patients with a normal CRP (79% at five years) (p < 0.0001). They were also less likely to be free of recurrence (71% at five years) than patients with a normal CRP (79% at five years) (p = 0.04). Multivariate analysis showed the pre-operative CRP level to be an independent predictor of survival and local control. Patients with a Ewings sarcoma or chondrosarcoma who had an elevated CRP before their treatment started had a significantly poorer disease-specific survival than patients with a normal CRP (p = 0.02 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Patients with a conventional osteosarcoma and a raised CRP were at an increased risk of poorer local control. We recommend that CRP levels are measured routinely in patients with a suspected sarcoma of bone as a further prognostic indicator of survival.

The value of C-reactive protein and comorbidity in predicting survival of patients with high grade soft tissue sarcoma

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to determine whether C-reactive protein (CRP) levels or patients comorbidity before treatment predicted the overall disease-specific survival and local tumour control in high grade soft tissue sarcoma patients. METHODS A total of 332 primary adult soft tissue sarcoma patients were retrospectively reviewed. CRP levels were obtained prior to treatment for all patients. The Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was used for evaluation as a measure of comorbidity. Patients that presented with metastases at diagnosis were excluded from this study. RESULTS Elevated CRP levels were seen in 152 patients. CCI score varied from 0 to 4. Two-hundred and sixty-five patients had a score of 0 (no identified comorbidity), and 67 patients had a score of 1 or more. Patients with elevated CRP levels prior to initial treatment had a poorer disease-specific survival (42% at 5 years) than patients with normal CRP levels (82% at 5 years) (p<0.0001). Patients with elevated CRP levels had a poorer local recurrence-free rate after initial treatment (75% at 5 years) than patients with normal CRP levels (89% at 5 years) (p=0.0004). Multivariate analysis also showed the preoperative CRP level to be an independent predictor of survival and local control. Although age in patients with identified comorbidity was significantly higher than those in patients with no-identified comorbidity, CCI was not a predictive factor for either survival or local control. CONCLUSION Pretreatment elevated CRP levels were found to be a poor prognostic factor for disease-specific survival and local control for soft tissue sarcoma patients.

Current status and unanswered questions on the use of Denosumab in giant cell tumor of bone

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody to RANK ligand approved for use in giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone. Due to its efficacy, Denosumab is recommended as the first option in inoperable or metastatic GCT. Denosumab has also been used pre-operatively to downstage tumours with large soft tissue extension to allow for less morbid surgery. The role of Denosumab for conventional limb GCT of bone is yet to be defined. Further studies are required to determine whether local recurrence rates will be decreased with the adjuvant use of Denosumab along with surgery. The long term use and toxicity of this agent is unknown as is the proportion of patients with primary or secondary resistance. It is advised that complicated cases of GCT requiring Denosumab treatment should be referred and followed up at expert centres. Collaborative studies involving further clinical trials and rigorous data collection are strongly recommended to identify the optimum use of this drug.

Does amputation offer any survival benefit over limb salvage in osteosarcoma patients with poor chemonecrosis and close margins

A poor response to chemotherapy (≤ 90% necrosis) for osteosarcomas leads to poorer survival and an increased risk of local recurrence, particularly if there is a close margin of excision. We evaluated whether amputation confers any survival benefit over limb salvage surgery (LSS) with narrow margins in patients who respond poorly to chemotherapy. We only analysed patients with an osteosarcoma of the limb, a poor response to chemotherapy and close margins on LSS (marginal/intralesional) or primary amputation: 360 patients (36 LSS (intralesional margins), 197 LSS (marginal margins) and 127 amputations) were included. Local recurrence developed in 13 (36%) following LSS with intralesional margins, and 39 (20%) following LSS with marginal margins. There was no local recurrence in patients who underwent amputation. The five-year survival for all patients was 41% (95% confidence interval (CI) 35 to 46), but for those treated by LSS with marginal margins was 46.2% (95% CI 38 to 53), 36.3% (95% CI 27 to 45) for those treated by amputation, and 28% (95 CI 14 to 44) for those treated by LSS with intralesional margins. Patients who had LSS and then developed local recurrence as a first event had the same survival as those who had primary amputation without local recurrence. Prophylactic adjuvant radiotherapy was used in 40 patients but had no discernible effect in preventing local recurrence. Although amputation offered better local control, it conferred no clear survival benefit over LSS with marginal margins in these patients with a poor overall prognosis.

Distal femoral physeal growth arrest secondary to a cemented proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement

We report a case of spontaneous physeal growth arrest of the distal femur in a nine-year-old child with Ewings sarcoma of the proximal femur treated with chemotherapy and endoprosthetic replacement. Owing to the extent of disuse osteoporosis at the time of surgery, the entire intramedullary canal up to the distal femoral physis was filled with cement. Three years later, the femur remained at its pre-operative length of 19 cm. Pre-operative calculations of further growth failed to account for the growth arrest, and the initial expandable growing prosthesis inserted has been revised to a longer one in order to address the leg-length discrepancy. To our knowledge, this is the only reported case of distal femoral physeal growth arrest following cemented endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur.

Proximal Tibia Reconstruction After Bone Tumor Resection: Are Survivorship and Outcomes of Endoprosthetic Replacement and Osteoarticular Allograft Similar?

BackgroundThe proximal tibia is one of the most challenging anatomic sites for extremity reconstructions after bone tumor resection. Because bone tumors are rare and large case series of reconstructions of the proximal tibia are lacking, we undertook this study to compare two major reconstructive approaches at two large sarcoma centers.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to compare groups of patients treated with endoprosthetic replacement or osteoarticular allograft reconstruction for proximal tibia bone tumors in terms of (1) limb salvage reconstruction failures and risk of amputation of the limb; (2) causes of failure; and (3) functional results.MethodsBetween 1990 and 2012, two oncologic centers treated 385 patients with proximal tibial resections and reconstruction. During that time, the general indications for those types of reconstruction were proximal tibia malignant tumors or bone destruction with articular surface damage or collapse. Patients who matched the inclusion criteria (age between 15 and 60 years old, diagnosis of a primary bone tumor of the proximal tibia treated with limb salvage surgery and reconstructed with endoprosthetic replacement or osteoarticular allograft) were included for analysis (n = 149). In those groups (endoprosthetic or allograft), of the patients not known to have reached an endpoint (death, reconstructive failure, or limb loss) before 2 years, 85% (88 of 104) and 100% (45 of 45) were available for followup at a minimum of 2 years. A total of 88 patients were included in the endoprosthetic group and 45 patients in the osteoarticular allograft group. Followup was at a mean of 9.5 (SD 6.72) years (range, 2–24 years) for patients with endoprosthetic reconstructions, and 7.4 (SD 5.94) years for patients treated with allografts (range, 2–21 years). The following variables were compared: limb salvage reconstruction failure rates, risk of limb amputation, type of failures according to the Henderson et al. classification, and functional results assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society system.ResultsWith the numbers available, after competitive risk analysis, the probability of failure for endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia was 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.75–27.46) at 5 years and 44% (95% CI, 31.67–55.62) at 10 years and for osteoarticular allograft reconstruction was 27% (95% CI, 14.73–40.16) at 5 years and 32% (95% CI, 18.65–46.18) at 10 years. There were no differences in terms of risk of failures at 5 years (p = 0.26) or 10 years (p = 0.20) between the two groups. Fifty-one of 88 patients (58%) with proximal tibia endoprostheses developed a reconstruction failure with mechanical causes being the most prevalent (32 of 51 patients [63%]). A total of 19 of 45 osteoarticular allograft reconstructions failed (42%) and nine of 19 (47%) of them were caused by early infection. Ten-year risk of amputation after failure for endoprosthetic reconstruction was 10% (95% CI, 5.13–18.12) and 11% (95% CI, 4.01–22.28) for osteoarticular allograft with no difference between the groups (p = 0.91). With the numbers available, there were no differences between the groups in terms of the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (26.58, SD 2.99, range, 19–30 versus 27.52, SD 1.91, range, 22–30; p = 0.13; 95% CI, −2,3 to 0.32). Mean extension lag was more severe in the endoprosthetic group than the osteoarticular allograft group: 13.56° (SD 18.73; range, 0°–80°) versus 2.41° (SD 5.76; range, 0°–30°; p < 0.001; 95% CI, 5.8–16.4).ConclusionsReconstruction of the proximal tibia with either endoprosthetic replacement or osteoarticular allograft appears to offer similar reconstruction failures rates. The primary cause of failure for allograft was infection and for endoprosthesis was mechanical complications. We believe that the treating surgeon should have both options available for treatment of patients with malignant or aggressive tumors of the proximal tibia. (S)he might consider an allograft in a younger patient to achieve better extensor mechanism function, whereas in an older patient or one with a poorer prognosis where return to function and ambulation quickly is desired, an endoprosthesis may be advantageous.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.

A Novel System for the Surgical Staging of Primary High-grade Osteosarcoma: The Birmingham Classification

BackgroundChemotherapy response and surgical margins have been shown to be associated with the risk of local recurrence in patients with osteosarcoma. However, existing surgical staging systems fail to reflect the response to chemotherapy or define an appropriate safe metric distance from the tumor that will allow complete excision and closely predict the chance of disease recurrence. We therefore sought to review a group of patients with primary high-grade osteosarcoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection and analyzed margins and chemotherapy response in terms of local recurrence.Questions/purposes(1) What predictor or combination of predictors available to the clinician can be assessed that more reliably predict the likelihood of local recurrence? (2) Can we determine a better predictor of local recurrence-free survival than the currently applied system of surgical margins? (3) Can we determine a better predictor of overall survival than the currently applied system of surgical margins?MethodsThis retrospective study included all patients with high-grade conventional osteosarcomas without metastasis at diagnosis treated at one center between 1997 and 2012 with preoperative chemotherapy followed by resection or amputation of the primary tumor who were younger than age 50 years with minimum 24-month followup for those still alive. A total of 389 participants matched the inclusion criteria. Univariate log-rank test and multivariate Cox analyses were undertaken to identify predictors of local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). The Birmingham classification was devised on the basis of two stems: the response to chemotherapy (good response = ≥ 90% necrosis; poor response = < 90% necrosis) and margins (< 2 mm or ≥ 2 mm). The 5-year overall survival rate was 67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61%–71%) and 47 patients developed local recurrence (12%).ResultsIntralesional margins (hazard ratio [HR], 9.9; 95% CI, 1.2–82; p = 0.03 versus radical margin HR, 1) and a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.7–8.4; p = 0.001 versus good response HR, 1) were independent risk factors for local recurrence (LR). The best predictor of LR, however, was a combination of margins ≤ 2 mm and a less than 90% necrosis response to chemotherapy (Birmingham 2b HR, 19.6; 95% CI, 2.6-144; p = 0.003 versus Birmingham 1a; margin >2 mm and more than 90% necrosis HR, 1). Two-stage Cox regression model and higher Harrell’s C statistic demonstrate that the Birmingham classification was superior to the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) margin classification for predicting LR (Harrell’s C statistic Birmingham classification 0.68, MSTS criteria 0.59). A difference in overall survival was seen between groups of the Birmingham classification (log-rank test p < 0.0001), whereas the MSTS margin system was not discriminatory (log-rank test p = 0.14).ConclusionsBased on these observations, we believe that a combination of the recording of surgical margins in millimeters and the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy can more accurately predict the risk of local recurrence than the current MSTS system. A multicenter collaboration study initiated by the International Society of Limb Salvage is recommended to test the validity of the proposed classification and if these findings are confirmed, this classification system might be considered the standard practice in oncology centers treating patients with osteosarcomas and allow more effective communication of margin status for research.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, prognostic study.

Is limb salvage surgery safe for bone sarcomas identified after a previous surgical procedure

Bone sarcomas are rare cancers and orthopaedic surgeons come across them infrequently, sometimes unexpectedly during surgical procedures. We investigated the outcomes of patients who underwent a surgical procedure where sarcomas were found unexpectedly and were subsequently referred to our unit for treatment. We identified 95 patients (44 intra-lesional excisions, 35 fracture fixations, 16 joint replacements) with mean age of 48 years (11 to 83); 60% were males (n = 57). Local recurrence arose in 40% who underwent limb salvage surgery versus 12% who had an amputation. Despite achieving local control, overall survival was worse for patients treated with amputation rather than limb salvage (54% vs 75% five-year survival). Factors that negatively influenced survival were invasive primary surgery (fracture fixation, joint replacement), a delay of greater than two months until referral to our oncology service, and high-grade tumours. Survival in these circumstances depends mostly on factors that are determined prior to definitive treatment by a tertiary orthopaedic oncology unit. Limb salvage in this group of patients is associated with a higher rate of inadequate marginal surgery and, consequently, higher local recurrence rates than amputation, but should still be attempted whenever possible, as local control is not the primary determinant of survival.

The dilemma of denosumab: Salvage of a femoral head giant cell tumour

INTRODUCTION Denosumab is a monoclonal RANKL antibody which has been shown to be highly effective in treating giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone. We report on its use as a neo-adjuvant agent to avoid morbid surgery for an adolescent. PRESENTATION OF CASE We report a case of a15-year old female with a Campanacci 3 GCT involving the femoral head and neck. DISCUSSION To preserve bone stock and avoid an outright hip replacement, the patient was given denosumab pre-operatively to consolidate the tumour. After receiving 6 months of treatment, a rim of cortical bone had developed to allow an extended curettage of the tumour to be performed without fear of collapse of the articular surface. CONCLUSION This is the first reported case of the use of denosumab in GCT of the femoral head and neck. We describe our experience in the neo-adjuvant use of denosumab and offer suggestions for future use. Further studies will be needed to see if denosumab has a role in conventional GCT and whether it can lead to a lowering of local recurrence rates.

Diaphyseal osteosarcomas have distinct clinical features from metaphyseal osteosarcomas.

AIMS The aim of this study was to clarify the clinical features and outcomes of diaphyseal osteosarcoma. METHODS Patients with newly-diagnosed high-grade osteosarcoma occurring in the long bone were eligible for this retrospective study. Clinicopathological information was collected from our database and compared with 36 diaphyseal, 405 proximal and 519 distal metaphyseal, and 14 whole bone osteosarcoma patients. Additionally, case-control study matching by age, gender, site, and metastatic status at diagnosis with 1:3 ratio of 36 diaphyseal to 108 metaphyseal osteosarcomas patients was also conducted. RESULTS Five-year overall survival and metastasis-free survival of the three groups including diaphyseal, metaphyseal, and whole bone osteosarcoma patients showed significant difference (P = .029 and P = .013, respectively), although there is no difference for the survivals between proximal and distal metaphyseal osteosarcoma patients. Case-control study showed that patients with diaphyseal osteosarcomas had a significantly larger tumour (mean 13.5 cm vs 10 cm, P = .026), and demonstrated higher pathologic fracture rate (28% vs 12%, P = .033), superior 5-year metastasis-free survival (74% vs 40%, P = .0068), and slightly better 5-year overall survival (68% vs 46%, P = .074). Prognostic factor analysis showed that a pathologic fracture significantly decreased the survival of the patients with diaphyseal osteosarcoma. CONCLUSIONS The current study showed that diaphyseal osteosarcoma has distinct clinical features from metaphyseal osteosarcoma having an increased risk of pathologic fractures but with favorable survival outcome.