Intralesional margin after excision of a high-grade osteosarcoma: Is it a catastrophe?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Treatment of high-grade osteosarcoma (OS) relies on a combination of systemic chemotherapy and radical surgical excision of the tumor. Little is known on what happens in case of an irrefutably inadequate (intralesional) margin. We aimed to describe the outcome of patients with high-grade OSs of the trunk and the extremities where planned wide resection resulted in an intralesional margin. METHODS: A retrospective study from the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group registry and the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital databases including data from 53 patients surgically treated between the years 1990 and 2017. RESULTS: Local recurrence was observed in 13/53 patients. All patients with local recurrence where the neoadjuvant chemotherapy response could be retrieved (n = 9) were shown to be poor responders. None of the patients with good response to chemotherapy relapsed. Postoperative radiotherapy was not associated with improved local control of the disease. Re-excision surgery was performed in only seven patients, and two of them had tumor relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Good response to chemotherapy salvages the outcome of surgical excision with a poor margin in patients with high-grade OSs and a watchful waiting strategy may be justified in these cases. Poor responders have a higher recurrence risk and their approach should be individualized.

Silver-coated (Agluna®) tumour prostheses can be a protective factor against infection in high risk failure patients.

INTRODUCTION: Endoprostheses in the treatment of extremity sarcomas are associated with late complications including periprosthetic infection. This study analysed the incidence of infection in patients undergoing endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) with a silver-coated prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised a retrospective single centre study of 394 consecutive patients treated with resection and EPR for primary extremity bone tumours. RESULTS: 89 patients at risk for infection were treated with a silver-coated (Agluna®) EPR (22.6%), compared to 305 patients treated with a non-silver EPR (77.4%). The incidence of periprosthetic infection, requiring revision as the primary endpoint was 34/394 (8.6%); 11 patients (12.4%) in the silver group and 23 patients (7.5%) in the non-silver group (p = 0.154). Overall implant survival was 90.9% and 95.3% at 1-year and 86.8% and 91.8% at 5-years in the silver-coated and non-silver coated group, respectively (p = 0.193). Infection was treated in the silver group by washout of the prosthesis in 2/11, debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in 1/11 and single-stage revision in 1/11, and in the non-silver group by washout in 1/23 or DAIR in 2/23. Two-stage revision was successful in 2/11in the silver group, and in 11/23 in the non-silver group. Amputation was required in 4/11 in the silver group and 9/23 in the non-silver group. One patient in the silver group died due to disease with an infected EPR. CONCLUSIONS: Silver-coated prostheses in high risk patients show similar infection free survival as non-silver coated prosthesis in standard sites in primary bone tumours of the extremities.

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

BACKGROUND: The 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/PURPOSES: The 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. METHODS: Between 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. RESULTS: With 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). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction 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 EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Management and prognostic significance of pathological fractures through chondrosarcoma of the femur.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to report overall survival, local recurrence and development of metastasis in a group of patients with femur chondrosarcoma that presented with or without a pathological fracture. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed, and 182 patients (39 pathological fractures) that had been treated by oncologic surgery for femoral chondrosarcoma were included. The mean age of the series was 50 years (range, eight to 90) and 114 patients were male (63%). Mean follow-up was 113 months (range, three to 216). Cancer-specific overall survival, development of metastasis and local recurrence were analysed, grouping patients by grade (grade I / grade 2-3 / dedifferentiated). RESULTS: Disease-specific survival in the entire group of chondrosarcoma of the femur was 69% (CI95% 63-76) at 5 years. Five-year disease-specific survival in the fracture group was 49% lower than in the control group 75% (p = 0.0001). Survival of patients with grade 1 chondrosarcoma with fracture was significantly less than those without fracture (p = 0.02) but there was no difference in those with grade 2-3 (p = 0.49) and dedifferentiated tumours (p = 0.09). The local recurrence rate of the entire series was 27%. Only dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas with an associated pathological fracture had a significantly higher rate of local recurrence. There was no relationship between development of metastases and fracture. CONCLUSION: A pathological fracture of the femur has a negative prognostic influence in grade 1 chondrosarcoma and increases the risk of local recurrence in dedifferentiated femur chondrosarcomas.