Stefan S. Bielack

Primary Metastatic Osteosarcoma: Presentation and Outcome of Patients Treated on Neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group Protocols

PURPOSE To determine demographic data and define prognostic factors for long-term outcome in patients presenting with high-grade osteosarcoma of bone with clinically detectable metastases at initial presentation. PATIENTS AND METHODS Of 1,765 patients with newly diagnosed, previously untreated high-grade osteosarcomas of bone registered in the neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group studies before 1999, 202 patients (11.4%) had proven metastases at diagnosis and therefore were enrolled onto an analysis of demographic-, tumor-, and treatment-related variables, response, and survival. The intended therapeutic strategy included pre- and postoperative multiagent chemotherapy as well as aggressive surgery of all resectable lesions. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 1.9 years (5.5 years for survivors), 60 patients were alive, 37 of whom were in continuously complete surgical remission. Actuarial overall survival rates at 5 and 10 (same value for 15) years were 29% (SE = 3%) and 24% (SE = 4%), respectively. In univariate analysis, survival was significantly correlated with patient age, site of the primary tumor, number and location of metastases, number of involved organ systems, histologic response of the primary tumor to preoperative chemotherapy, and completeness and time point of surgical resection of all tumor sites. However, after multivariate Cox regression analysis, only multiple metastases at diagnosis (relative hazard rate [RHR] = 2.3) and macroscopically incomplete surgical resection (RHR = 2.4) remained significantly associated with inferior outcomes. CONCLUSION The number of metastases at diagnosis and the completeness of surgical resection of all clinically detected tumor sites are of independent prognostic value in patients with proven primary metastatic osteosarcoma.

Osteosarcoma Relapse After Combined Modality Therapy: An Analysis of Unselected Patients in the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS)

PURPOSE To evaluate the impact of patient, tumor, and treatment-related factors on outcome in unselected patients with recurrent osteosarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Five hundred seventy-six consecutive patients who had achieved a first complete surgical remission (CR) during combined-modality therapy on neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS) protocols and then developed recurrent osteosarcoma were analyzed (median time from biopsy to relapse, 1.6 years; range, 0.1 to 14.3 years). There were 501 patients with metastases, 44 with local recurrences, and 31 with both. Metastases involved lungs (469 patients), bones (90 patients), and/or other sites (54 patients). RESULTS After a median follow-up of 1.2 years for all patients and 4.2 years for survivors, actuarial overall survival (OS) rates at 2, 5, and 10 years were 0.38, 0.23, and 0.18, respectively. Five-year OS was 0.39 for 339 patients with and 0.00 for 229 patients without a second surgical CR (P < .0001). A long time to relapse, a solitary lesion, and, in the case of pulmonary metastases, unilateral disease and the absence of pleural disruption, were of positive prognostic value in uni- and multivariate analyses, as were a second surgical CR and the use of second-line chemotherapy. Radiotherapy was associated with moderately prolonged survival in patients without a second CR. The very limited prognostic differences associated with the use of second-line chemotherapy appeared to be more pronounced with polychemotherapy. CONCLUSION Time to relapse and tumor burden correlate with postrelapse outcome in osteosarcoma. Complete surgery is an essential component of curative second-line therapy. Chemotherapy, particularly chemotherapy with more than one agent, may contribute to limited improvements in outcome.

Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori and University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Instituto Portugues de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, EPE, Lisbon, Portugal; University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Oncological Orthopedics, Musculoskeletal Tissue Bank, IFO, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; Klinikum Stuttgart-Olgahospital, Stuttgart, Germany; Institut Curie, Paris, France; NORDIX, Athens, Greece; Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands; Vienna General Hospital (AKH), Medizinische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria; Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio-CIBERONC, Seville, Spain; Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano, Aviano; Ospedale Regionale di Treviso “S.Maria di Cà Foncello”, Treviso, Italy; Integrated Unit ICO Hospitalet, HUB, Barcelona, Spain; Sarcoma Unit, University College London Hospitals, London, UK; Skane University Hospital-Lund, Lund, Sweden; N. N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow, Russian Federation; Institute of Scientific Hospital Care (IRCCS), Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome; Pediatric Oncology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan; Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna; Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Careggi Firenze, Florence, Italy; Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium; Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy; Department of Radiotherapy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam and Department of Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands; Turku University Hospital (Turun Yliopistollinen Keskussairaala), Turlu, Finland; Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Mannheim University Medical Center, Mannheim; Department of Medicine III, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany; Helsinki University Central Hospital (HUCH), Helsinki, Finland; Royal Marsden Hospital, London; The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen; Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; University Hospital Motol, Prague; Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic; Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Villejuif, France; Maria Skłodowska Curie Institute, Oncology Centre, Warsaw, Poland; Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Ichilov), Tel Aviv, Israel; Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Azienda Ospedaliera, Universitaria, Policlinico S Orsola-Malpighi Università di Bologna, Bologna; Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Cita della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy; Fundacio de Gestio Sanitaria de L’hospital de la SANTA CREU I Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain; Helios Klinikum Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany; YCRC Department of Clinical Oncology, Weston Park Hospital NHS Trust, Sheffield, UK; Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Finland; Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Fondazione Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Institute of Oncology of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Netherlands Cancer Institute Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University College Hospital, London, UK; Gerhard-Domagk-Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany; Oslo University Hospital, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway; Centre Leon Bernard and UCBL1, Lyon, France

Long-term results of the co-operative German-Austrian-Swiss osteosarcoma study group's protocol COSS-86 of intensive multidrug chemotherapy and surgery for osteosarcoma of the limbs

BACKGROUND In an effort to intensify osteosarcoma therapy, systemic ifosfamide was added pre- and postoperatively to an already aggressive three-drug regimen. In a subgroup of patients, loco-regional treatment intensification was attempted by using the intraarterial route to give cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients < or = 40 years at diagnosis of a localised, de novo high-grade central extremity osteosarcoma were eligible for inclusion into study COSS-86 if registered within three weeks from biopsy. Doxorubicin, high-dose methotrexate, and cisplatin were given to all patients. Patients who fulfilled one or more of three defined high-risk criteria received early systemic treatment intensification by adding ifosfamide as the fourth agent. Preoperatively, these high-risk patients received cisplatin either intraarterially or intravenously. RESULTS 171 eligible patients were entered, of which 128 were stratified into the high-risk group. When all 171 were analysed by intention-to-treat, actuarial overall and event-free survival rates at ten years were 72% and 66%, respectively. No benefit of intraarterial cisplatin application was detected. Cumulative treatment toxicity was considerable. CONCLUSIONS In a multicenter setting, intensive treatment of osteosarcoma according to protocol COSS-86 led to long-term disease-free survival for two thirds of patients. We saw no benefit of using the intraarterial route to administer cisplatin.

Osteosarcoma of the Pelvis: Experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group

PURPOSE To define patients and tumor characteristics as well as therapy results, patients with pelvic osteosarcoma who were registered in the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS) were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS Sixty-seven patients with a high-grade pelvic osteosarcoma were eligible for this analysis. Fifteen patients had primary metastases. All patients received chemotherapy according to COSS protocols. Thirty-eight patients underwent limb-sparing surgery, 12 patients underwent hemipelvectomy, and 17 patients did not undergo definitive surgery. Eleven patients received irradiation to the primary tumor site: four postoperatively and seven as the only form of local therapy. RESULTS Local failure occurred in 47 of all 67 patients (70%) and in 31 of 50 patients (62%) who underwent definitive surgery. Five-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival rates were 27% and 19%, respectively. Large tumor size (P =.0137), primary metastases (P =.0001), and no or intralesional surgery (P <.0001) were poor prognostic factors. In 30 patients with no or intralesional surgery, 11 patients with radiotherapy had better OS than 19 patients without radiotherapy (P =.0033). Among the variables, primary metastasis, large tumor, no or intralesional surgery, no radiotherapy, existence of primary metastasis (relative risk [RR] = 3.456; P =.0009), surgical margin (intralesional or no surgical excision; RR = 5.619; P <.0001), and no radiotherapy (RR = 4.196; P =.0059) were independent poor prognostic factors. CONCLUSION An operative approach with wide or marginal margins improves local control and OS. If the surgical margin is intralesional or excision is impossible, additional radiotherapy has a positive influence on prognosis.

FDG-PET for detection of pulmonary metastases from malignant primary bone tumors: Comparison with spiral CT

BACKGROUND The purpose was the comparison of positron emission tomography using F-18-fluorodeoxy-glucose (FDG-PET) and spiral thoracic CT to detect pulmonary metastases from malignant primary osseous tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS In 71 patients with histologically confirmed malignant primary bone tumors (32 osteosarcomas, 39 Ewings sarcomas) 111 FDG-PET examinations were evaluated with regard to pulmonary/pleural metastases in comparison with spiral thoracic CT. Reference methods were the clinical follow-ups for 6-64 months (median 20 months) or a histopathologic analysis. RESULTS In 16 patients (23%) reference methods revealed a pulmonary/pleural metastatic disease. FDG-PET had a sensitivity of 0.50, a specificity of 0.98, and an accuracy of 0.87 on a patient based analysis. Comparable values for spiral CT were 0.75, 1.00, and 0.94. It was shown that no patient who had a true positive FDG-PET had a false negative CT scan, nor was a pulmonary metastases detected earlier by FDG-PET than by spiral CT. CONCLUSIONS There seems to be a superiority of spiral CT in the detection of pulmonary metastases from malignant primary bone tumors as compared with FDG-PET. Therefore, at present a negative FDG-PET cannot be recommended to exclude lung metastases. However, as specificity of FDG-PET is high, a positive FDG-PET result can be used to confirm abnormalities seen on thoracic CT scans as metastatic.

Osteosarcoma of the spine: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group.

Due to the low incidence rate, the optimal strategy for the treatment of patients with spinal osteosarcoma is unknown.

Osteosarcoma: Current Treatment and a Collaborative Pathway to Success

Osteosarcoma is the bone tumor that most commonly affects children, adolescents, and young adults. Before 1970, treatment primarily included surgical resection. However, the introduction of chemotherapy led to a dramatic improvement in prognosis for patients with localized osteosarcoma; long-term survival rates of less than 20% improved to 65% to 70% after the advent of multiagent chemotherapy regimens. Controversy concerning the ideal combination of chemotherapy agents ensued throughout the last quarter of the 20th century because of conflicting and often nonrandomized data. However, large cooperative group studies and international collaboration have demonstrated that the most effective regimens include the combination of high-dose methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MAP). The introduction of biologic agents such as muramyl tripeptide and the use of additional cytotoxic chemotherapy such as ifosfamide have not definitively improved the survival of patients with osteosarcoma. Collaborative efforts to increase understanding of the biology of osteosarcoma and the use of preclinical models to test novel agents will be critical to identify the path toward improving outcomes for patients. Once promising agents are identified, an international infrastructure exists for clinical trials. Herein, biologic, preclinical, and clinical trial efforts will be described along with future international collaborative strategies to improve outcomes for patients who develop this challenging tumor.

Osteosarcoma: ESMO Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Osteosarcoma is the most frequent primary cancer of bone (incidence: 0.2–3/100 000/year). The incidence is higher in adolescents (0.8–11/100 000/year at age 15–19), where it accounts for >10% of all solid cancers. The male:female ratio is 1.4. It usually arises in the metaphysis of a long extremity bone, most commonly around the knee. Involvement of the axial skeleton or craniofacial bones is observed primarily in adults.

Second and Subsequent Recurrences of Osteosarcoma: Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes of 249 Consecutive Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group Patients

PURPOSE To evaluate patient and tumor characteristics, treatment, and outcomes in a large cohort of unselected patients with second and subsequent recurrences of osteosarcoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred forty-nine consecutive patients who had originally received combined-modality therapy on neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group protocols and went on to develop a total of 409 second and subsequent osteosarcoma recurrences were analyzed for patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors and outcomes. RESULTS Five-year overall and event-free survival rates were 16% and 9% for 249 second, 14% and 0% for 93 third, 13% and 6% for 38 fourth, and 18% and 0% for 14 fifth recurrences, respectively. The proportion of recurrences confined to the lungs decreased and the proportion of those with chest wall involvement increased with increasing numbers of recurrences. The duration of relapse-free intervals and the number of lesions at recurrence correlated with outcomes. While only one of 205 patients with rerecurrence survived past 5 years without surgical remission, 5-year overall and event-free survival rates were 32% and 18% for 119 second, 26% and 0% for 45 third, 28% and 13% for 20 fourth, and 53% and 0% for five fifth recurrences, respectively, in which a renewed surgical remission was achieved. The use of chemotherapy correlated with longer survival in patients without surgical remissions. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first report of survival estimates derived from large cohorts of unselected patients with second and subsequent osteosarcoma recurrences. It confirms the overwhelming importance of surgical clearance. Prognostic indicators after rerecurrences resemble those known from first recurrence. The exact role of re-treatment with chemotherapy, particularly in the adjuvant situation, remains to be defined.