A reduction in tumor volume exceeding 65% predicts a good histological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Ewing sarcoma.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus exists for tumor volume response criteria in patients with Ewing sarcoma. This study aimed to identify an optimal cutoff for predicting a good histological response by analyzing tumor volume changes and tumor necrosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 184 Ewing sarcoma patients, analyzing tumor volume changes before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were divided into two groups based on histological response: good (tumor necrosis ≥ 95%) and poor (tumor necrosis < 95%) responders. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) method was used to determine the optimal thresholds for predicting the histological response. Additionally, the prognostic value of this cutoff for relapse-free survival was assessed. RESULTS: Out of 184 patients, 83 (45%) had tumor necrosis ≥ 95%, while 101 (55%) had tumor necrosis < 95%. ROC analysis identified the optimal cutoff for a good histological response as over 65% tumor volume reduction (AUC = 0.69; p < 0.001). Patients with volume reduction of ≥ 65% had a higher likelihood of a good histological response than those with lesser reductions (p = 0.004; odds ratio = 2.61). Multivariable analysis indicated a correlation between poor histological response and reduced relapse-free survival (hazard ratio = 2.17; p = 0.01), while tumor volume reduction itself did not impact survival. CONCLUSION: We reported that a tumor volume reduction of ≥ 65% was able to predict a good histological response in Ewing sarcoma patients. We recommend preoperative tumor volume assessment to identify patients at greater risk for poor histological response who could benefit from more intensive chemotherapy protocols or additional radiotherapy.

Malawer type I/V proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several reconstruction methods exist for Malawer type I/V proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection; however, no consensus has been reached regarding the preferred methods. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on various types of proximal humerus oncologic reconstruction methods. We collected data on postoperative functional outcomes assessed based on Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, 5-year reconstruction survival rates, and complications. We calculated each reconstruction's weighted mean based on the sample size and standard errors. Complications were categorized based on the Henderson classification. Based on these integrated data, our primary objective is to propose an optimal strategy for proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection. RESULTS: We examined various reconstruction techniques, including modular prosthesis (752 patients in 21 articles), osteoarticular allograft (142 patients in six articles), allograft prosthesis composites (236 patients in 12 articles), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (141 patients in 10 articles), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (33 patients in four articles), claviculo-pro-humero technique (51 patients in six articles), and cement spacer (207 patients in four articles). Weighted mean MSTS scores were: modular prosthesis (73.8%), osteoarticular allograft (74.4%), allograft prosthesis composites (79.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (77.0%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (76.1%), claviculo-pro-humero technique (75.1%), and cement spacer (69.1%). Weighted 5-year reconstruction survival rates were modular prosthesis (85.4%), osteoarticular allograft (67.6%), allograft prosthesis composites (85.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (84.1%), and cement spacer (88.0%). Reconstruction survival data was unavailable for composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty and claviculo-pro-humero technique. Major complications included shoulder joint instability: modular prosthesis (26.2%), osteoarticular allograft (41.5%), allograft prosthesis composites (33.9%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (17%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (6.1%), claviculo-pro-humero technique (2.0%), and cement spacer (8.7%). Aseptic loosening of the prosthesis occurred: modular prosthesis (3.9%) and reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (5.7%). Allograft fracture was observed in 54.9% of patients with osteoarticular allograft. CONCLUSION: The complication profiles differed among reconstruction methods. Weighted mean MSTS scores exceeded 70% in all methods except cement spacer, and the 5-year reconstruction survival rate surpassed 80% for all methods except osteoarticular allograft. Proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection should consider potential complications and patients' individual factors.

Histological and imaging features of myoepithelial carcinoma of the bone and soft tissue.

OBJECTIVE: To depict histological and imaging features of myoepithelial carcinoma of the bone and soft tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined histological features in 22 patients with myoepithelial carcinoma of the bone (4 patients) and soft tissue (18 patients) at a single institution. Imaging analysis of 15 patients (bone, 3 patients; soft tissue, 12 patients;) with preoperative images involved classifying lytic bone lesions via the modified Lodwick-Madewell classification; the growth patterns of soft tissue lesions were classified as well-defined, focally invasive, or diffusely invasive. RESULTS: Local recurrence occurred in eight out of 22 patients (36.3%). Four of 22 patients (18.2%) had metastasis at presentation, whereas 11 of 22 patients (50.0%) had distant metastasis during follow-up. Severe cytological pleomorphism was observed in 14 of 22 patients (63.6%), and 10 of 22 tumors (45.5%) showed ≥ 10 mitoses/10 high-power fields. Vascular invasion was observed in 10 of 22 patients (45.5%). Extracapsular/extraskeletal infiltration into the surrounding tissues was assessed in 20 patients, with 14 of them (70%) showing infiltration beyond the tumor border. Regarding imaging of bone lesions, two patients had Ludwick type IIIB, whereas one patient had type II. The growth pattern of soft tissue lesions was well-defined in two patients (16.7%), focally invasive in seven patients (58.3%), and diffusely invasive in three (25.0%) out of 12 patients. CONCLUSION: Myoepithelial carcinoma of the bone and soft tissue presents high risk of local recurrence and distant metastasis. Histological and imaging features might be important to understand the aggressive behavior of the tumor.

Risk of complications and implant survival of surgical treatment of proximal femoral metastasis: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The patients with femoral metastasis in the inter- or subtrochanteric area could be treated with intramedullary nailing or prosthetic reconstruction, however, it is controversial which surgical treatment could offer less complications and implant failure. Our purpose was to define the risk of complications and implant survival in patients treated with intramedullary nailing or prosthetic reconstruction. METHODS: We analyzed studies reporting the risk of complications, reoperations and removal of the implant in patients treated with intramedullary nailing, hemiarthroplasty, arthroplasty or megaprosthesis. RESULTS: We analyzed 27 studies (1346 patients) reporting patients treated with intramedullary nail (51%), hemiarthroplasty (15%), arthroplasty (2%), megaprosthesis with (25%) or without (7%) acetabular component. No difference was found in the overall risk of complications between patients treated with intramedullary nailing 6%, hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty 7% and megaprosthesis 11% (p = 0.23). However, patients treated with megaprosthesis had increased risk of reoperation due to infection (70%), compared to the patients treated with intramedullary nail (13%), and patients treated with hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty (23%) (p = 0.02). Revision due to disease progression was required in 61% of the patients treated with intramedullary nail, but not in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty, total arthroplasty, and megaprosthesis (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with megaprosthesis had higher risk of reoperation due to infection, while patients treated with intramedullary nailing had higher risk of revision due to disease progression. Regarding patients treated with megaprosthesis, the risk of reoperation due to dislocation was higher in those treated with acetabular component.

Similar complications, implant survival, and function following modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur for primary bone tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of consensus regarding the best type of reconstruction of the proximal femur following bone tumor resection. The objective of this study was to analyze the complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes following modular prosthesis (MP) and allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) reconstruction of the proximal femur after primary bone tumor resections. METHODS: We performed a search in the PubMed and Scopus libraries, obtaining 1 843 studies. We included studies reporting functional outcomes, complications, and implant survival of proximal femur reconstruction with MP or APC following primary bone tumor resection with a 2-year minimum follow-up. We excluded studies analyzing metastatic patients or studies with pooled data in which it was impossible to separate the data of patients with primary bone tumors from those with bone metastases. RESULTS: We analyzed 18 studies (483 patients) reporting on 234 (48%) patients with MP reconstruction and 249 (52%) patients with APC reconstruction. The risk of complications was similar in patients with MP reconstruction (29%; 95% CI [0.11; 0.47]) and APC reconstruction (36%; 95% CI [0.24; 0.47]) (p = 0.48). Implant survival following MP reconstruction ranged from 81 to 86% at 5 years, 75 to 86% at 10 years, and 82% at 15 years. Implant survival following APC reconstruction ranged from 86 to 100% at 5 years and 86% at 10 years, and 86% at 15 years. Functional outcomes following MP reconstruction and APC reconstruction ranged from 24.0 to 28.3 and from 21.9 to 27.8, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with primary bone tumor of the proximal femur who underwent MP or APC reconstruction seem to have similar complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes.

Diagnostic challenges in low-grade central osteosarcoma.

Aims: Low-grade central osteosarcoma (LGCOS), a rare type of osteosarcoma, often has misleading radiological and pathological features that overlap with those of other bone tumours, thereby complicating diagnosis and treatment. We aimed to analyze the clinical, radiological, and pathological features of patients with LGCOS, with a focus on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 49 patients with LGCOS (Broder's grade 1 to 2) treated between January 1985 and December 2017 in a single institute. We examined the presence of malignant features on imaging (periosteal reaction, cortical destruction, soft-tissue invasion), the diagnostic accuracy of biopsy, surgical treatment, and oncological outcome. Results: Based on imaging, 35 of 49 patients (71.4%) exhibited malignant features. Overall, 40 of 49 patients (81.6%) had undergone a biopsy before en-bloc resection: 27 of 40 patients (67.5%) were diagnosed on the first biopsy, which was more accurate when carried out by open rather than needle biopsy (91.3% vs 35.3% diagnostic accuracy, respectively; p < 0.001). Of the 40 patients treated by en-bloc resection, surgical margins were wide in 38 (95.0%) and marginal in two (5.0%). Furthermore, nine of 49 patients (18.4%) underwent curettage (intralesional margin) without previous biopsy. All patients with a positive margin developed local recurrence. Distant metastases occurred in five of 49 patients (10.2%). The mean five-year overall survival (OS) and distant relapse-free survival (D-RFS) were 89.3% (SD 5.1%) and 85.7% (SD 5.5%), respectively. Univariate analysis showed that the occurrence of distant metastasis was a poor prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio 11.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.92 to 69.17; p < 0.001). Local recurrence was a poor prognostic factor for D-RFS (HR 8.72, 95% CI 1.69 to 45.0; p = 0.002). Conclusion: The diagnosis of LGCOS can be challenging because it may present with non-malignant features and has a low diagnostic accuracy on biopsy. If precisely diagnosed, LGCOS can be successfully treated by surgical excision with wide margins.