Management of limb length discrepancy after bone sarcoma resection about the knee in the skeletally immature.

Patients with bone sarcomas increasingly choose limb salvage. This can lead to issues with limb length discrepancy (LLD) for the skeletally immature. We synthesize management options into an algorithm and report our results. Patients with bone sarcomas involving any location from the femoral diaphysis to the tibial diaphysis 12 years or younger were reviewed. Our clinical pathway prescribed patients with metadiaphyseal lesions to intercalary allograft reconstruction, epiphyseal lesions and less than 5 cm expected LLD to osteoarticular allograft and patients with more than 5 cm expected LLD to extendable prosthesis. Twenty patients met inclusion criteria: 11 with osteoarticular allografts, 5 with extendable prostheses and 4 with intercalary allografts; median age 11.5 years; median follow-up 8.2 years; and final median LLD 1.6 cm. Five patients had contralateral epiphysiodesis, two patients underwent contralateral femoral shortening and a median of 6 (range 4-8) lengthenings were performed for extendable prostheses. Four patients had residual LLD over 3 cm. There were 13 revisions in 8 patients and 2 amputations. Limb-salvage in paediatric bone sarcoma of the knee can be managed with multiple techniques producing satisfactory results in regards to LLD. Careful pre-operative planning and shared decision making is a requisite given the high rate of secondary procedures for both LLD and reconstructive failures. Level of evidence: Level III Retrospective Comparative Study.

What is the Value of Radiology Input During a Multidisciplinary Orthopaedic Oncology Conference?

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary orthopaedic oncology conferences are important in developing the treatment plan for patients with suspected orthopaedic bone and soft tissue tumors, involving physicians from several services. Past studies have shown the clinical value of these conferences; however, the impact of radiology input on the management plan and time cost for radiology to staff these conferences has not been fully studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does radiology input at multidisciplinary conference help guide clinical management and improve clinician confidence? (2) What is the time cost of radiology input for a multidisciplinary conference? METHODS: This prospective study was conducted from October 2020 to March 2022 at a tertiary academic center with a sarcoma center. A single data questionnaire for each patient was sent to one of three treating orthopaedic oncologists with 41, 19, and 5 years of experience after radiology discussion at a weekly multidisciplinary conference. A data questionnaire was completed by the treating orthopaedic oncologist for 48% (322 of 672) of patients, which refers to the proportion of those three oncologists' patients for which survey data were captured. A musculoskeletal radiology fellow and musculoskeletal fellowship-trained radiology attending physician provided radiology input at each multidisciplinary conference. The clinical plan (leave alone, follow-up imaging, follow-up clinically, recommend different imaging test, core needle biopsy, surgical excision or biopsy or fixation, or other) and change in clinical confidence before and after radiology input were documented. A second weekly data questionnaire was sent to the radiology fellow to estimate the time cost of radiology input for the multidisciplinary conference. RESULTS: In 29% (93 of 322) of patients, there was a change in the clinical plan after radiology input. Biopsy was canceled in 30% (24 of 80) of patients for whom biopsy was initially planned, and surgical excision was canceled in 24% (17 of 72) of patients in whom surgical excision was initially planned. In 21% (68 of 322) of patients, there were unreported imaging findings that affected clinical management; 13% (43 of 322) of patients had a missed finding, and 8% (25 of 322) of patients had imaging findings that were interpreted incorrectly. For confidence in the final treatment plan, 78% (251 of 322) of patients had an increase in clinical confidence by their treating orthopaedic oncologist after the multidisciplinary conference. Radiology fellows and attendings spent a mean of 4.2 and 1.5 hours, respectively, reviewing and presenting at a multidisciplinary conference each week. The annual combined prorated time cost for the radiology attending and fellow was estimated at USD 24,310 based on national median salary data for attendings and internal salary data for fellows. CONCLUSION: In a study taken at one tertiary-care oncology program, input from radiology attendings and fellows in the setting of a multidisciplinary conference helped to guide the final treatment plan, reduce procedures, and improve clinician confidence in the final treatment plan, at an annual time cost of USD 24,310. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Multidisciplinary orthopaedic oncology conferences can lead to changes in management plans, and the time cost to the radiologists should be budgeted for by the radiology department or parent institution.

What Are Risk Factors for and Outcomes of Late Amputation After Treatment for Lower Extremity Sarcoma: A Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Report.

BACKGROUND: Although pediatric lower extremity sarcoma once was routinely treated with amputation, multiagent chemotherapy as well as the evolution of tumor resection and reconstruction techniques have enabled the wide adoption of limb salvage surgery (LSS). Even though infection and tumor recurrence are established risk factors for early amputation (< 5 years) after LSS, the frequency of and factors associated with late amputation (≥ 5 years from diagnosis) in children with sarcomas are not known. Additionally, the resulting psychosocial and physical outcomes of these patients compared with those treated with primary amputation or LSS that was not complicated by subsequent amputation are not well studied. Studying these outcomes is critical to enhancing the quality of life of patients with sarcomas. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How have treatments changed over time in patients with lower extremity sarcoma who are included in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), and did primary treatment with amputation or LSS affect overall survival at 25 years among patients who had survived at least 5 years from diagnosis? (2) What is the cumulative incidence of amputation after LSS for patients diagnosed with pediatric lower extremity sarcomas 25 years after diagnosis? (3) What are the factors associated with time to late amputation (≥ 5 years after diagnosis) in patients initially treated with LSS for lower extremity sarcomas in the CCSS? (4) What are the comparative social, physical, and emotional health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes among patients with sarcoma treated with primary amputation, LSS without amputation, or LSS complicated by late amputation, as assessed by CCSS follow-up questionnaires, the SF-36, and the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 at 20 years after cancer diagnosis? METHODS: The CCSS is a long-term follow-up study that began in 1994 and is coordinated through St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. It is a retrospective study with longitudinal follow-up of more than 38,000 participants treated for childhood cancer when younger than 21 years at one of 31 collaborating institutions between 1970 and 1999 in the United States and Canada. Participants were eligible for enrollment in the CCSS after they had survived 5 years from diagnosis. Within the CCSS cohort, we included participants who had a diagnosis of lower extremity sarcoma treated with primary amputation (547 patients with a mean age at diagnosis of 13 ± 4 years) or primary LSS (510 patients with a mean age 14 ± 4 years). The LSS cohort was subdivided into LSS without amputation, defined as primary LSS without amputation at the time of latest follow-up; LSS with early amputation, defined as LSS complicated by amputation occurring less than 5 years from diagnosis; or LSS with late amputation, defined as primary LSS in study patients who subsequently underwent amputation 5 years or more from cancer diagnosis. The cumulative incidence of late amputation after primary LSS was estimated. Cox proportional hazards regression with time-varying covariates identified factors associated with late amputation. Modified Poisson regression models were used to compare psychosocial, physical, and HRQOL outcomes among patients treated with primary amputation, LSS without amputation, or LSS complicated by late amputation using validated surveys. RESULTS: More study participants were treated with LSS than with primary amputation in more recent decades. The overall survival at 25 years in this population who survived 5 years from diagnosis was not different between those treated with primary amputation (87% [95% confidence interval [CI] 82% to 91%]) compared with LSS (88% [95% CI 85% to 91%]; p = 0.31). The cumulative incidence of amputation at 25 years after cancer diagnosis and primary LSS was 18% (95% CI 14% to 21%). With the numbers available, the cumulative incidence of late amputation was not different among study patients treated in the 1970s (27% [95% CI 15% to 38%]) versus the 1980s and 1990s (19% [95% CI 13% to 25%] and 15% [95% CI 10% to 19%], respectively; p = 0.15). After controlling for gender, medical and surgical treatment variables, cancer recurrence, and chronic health conditions, gender (hazard ratio [HR] 2.02 [95% CI 1.07 to 3.82]; p = 0.03) and history of prosthetic joint reconstruction (HR 2.58 [95% CI 1.37 to 4.84]; p = 0.003) were associated with an increased likelihood of late amputation. Study patients treated with a primary amputation (relative risk [RR] 2.04 [95% CI 1.15 to 3.64]) and LSS complicated by late amputation (relative risk [RR] 3.85 [95% CI 1.66 to 8.92]) were more likely to be unemployed or unable to attend school than patients treated with LSS without amputation to date. The CCSS cohort treated with primary amputation and those with LSS complicated by late amputation reported worse physical health scores than those without amputation to date, although mental and emotional health outcomes did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial risk of late amputation after LSS, and both primary and late amputation status are associated with decreased physical HRQOL outcomes. Children treated for sarcoma who survive into adulthood after primary amputation and those who undergo late amputation after LSS may benefit from interventions focused on improving physical function and reaching educational and employment milestones. Efforts to improve the physical function of people who have undergone amputation either through prosthetic design or integration into the residuum should be supported. Understanding factors associated with late amputation in the setting of more modern surgical approaches and implants will help surgeons more effectively manage patient expectations and adjust practice to mitigate these risks over the life of the patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Complete tumor necrosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy defines good responders in patients with Ewing sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Survival in patients who have Ewing sarcoma is correlated with postchemotherapy response (tumor necrosis). This treatment response has been categorized as the response rate, similar to what has been used in osteosarcoma. There is controversy regarding whether this is appropriate or whether it should be a dichotomy of complete versus incomplete response, given how important a complete response is for in overall survival of patients with Ewing sarcoma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact that the amount of chemotherapy-induced necrosis has on (1) overall survival, (2) local recurrence-free survival, (3) metastasis-free survival, and (4) event-free survival in patients with Ewing sarcoma. METHODS: In total, 427 patients who had Ewing sarcoma or tumors in the Ewing sarcoma family and received treatment with preoperative chemotherapy and surgery at 10 international institutions were included. Multivariate Cox proportional-hazards analyses were used to assess the associations between tumor necrosis and all four outcomes while controlling for clinical factors identified in bivariate analysis, including age, tumor volume, location, surgical margins, metastatic disease at presentation, and preoperative radiotherapy. RESULTS: Patients who had a complete (100%) tumor response to chemotherapy had increased overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48; p < .01), recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.82; p = .01), metastasis-free survival (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.46; p ≤ .01), and event-free survival (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16-0.41; p ≤ .01) compared with patients who had a partial (0%-99%) response. CONCLUSIONS: Complete tumor necrosis should be the index parameter to grade response to treatment as satisfactory in patients with Ewing sarcoma. Any viable tumor in these patients after neoadjuvant treatment should be of oncologic concern. These findings can affect the design of new clinical trials and the risk-stratified application of conventional or novel treatments.

Current Orthopaedic Residency Letters of Recommendation Are Not Biased by Gender of Applicant.

Letters of recommendation (LORs) are highly influential in the residency selection process. Differences in language and length of LORs by gender have been demonstrated for applicants applying to surgical residencies and fellowships. This had yet to be studied in orthopaedic surgery. Given the gender disparity in the field, we sought to investigate the impact of gender on orthopaedic residency applicant LORs. We hypothesized that differences in length and language would be present for women applicants as compared to men. METHODS: LORs for 2019 to 2020 applicants who applied to a single academic institution were selected for review. Female and male applicants were matched by medical school attended and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score. LORs were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Letters were evaluated for their word count, presence of language terms, and frequency of language terms. A similar subgroup language analysis was performed for standardized LORs (SLORs). RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-six applicants met the initial screening criteria-126 women and 530 men. After matching, 71 female applicants were paired with 111 male applicants. Word count was, on average, longer for female applicants. LORs for female applicants were more likely to contain language terms that characterized their ability, achievement, participation in athletics, awards received, fit, leadership, and personality traits. Of these terms, ability and participation in athletics were also found more frequently in LORs written for women. In addition, language characterizing technical skills was found more frequently in LORs of female applicants. Similar codes were found to be statistically significant in the SLOR subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that current orthopaedic surgery residency LORs do not appear to be biased by applicant gender. LORs were longer for female applicants and described them more positively. Future female orthopaedic residency applicants should be assured that current female candidates are applying with at least similar if not greater subjective qualifications to their male counterparts based on the findings of this study.

Oncological and Functional Outcomes in Joint-sparing Resections of the Proximal Femur for Malignant Primary Bone Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Joint-sparing resections (JSR) of the proximal femur allow for preservation of the proximal femoral growth plate and native hip joint, but whether this offers fewer complications or better function and longevity of the reconstruction remains unknown. In this study, we compared the functional outcomes of pediatric patients with bone sarcomas undergoing JSR of the proximal femur with intercalary allograft (ICA) reconstruction to those undergoing proximal femoral resections (PFR) with allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstructions. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing JSR with ICA reconstruction and PFR with APC reconstructions between 1995 and 2013 at a tertiary pediatric referral center. Primary outcomes included major and minor complications and secondary outcomes included the need for a secondary procedure, presence of local or distant relapse, survival status, and the presence of pain and ambulatory status (limp, assistive device, highest level of function). We assessed differences in outcomes using the Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent a JSR and ICA reconstruction, while 7 patients underwent a PFR with APC reconstruction. Median patient follow-up was 60.4 months (interquartile range: 36.8 to 112.9) Patients undergoing JSR and ICA reconstruction were younger than patients undergoing PFR with APC reconstruction (7.7 vs. 11.7 y, P=0.043); however, we found no other statistically significant differences in patient demographics. There were no statistically significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the study groups; however, patients who underwent JSR with ICA had more major complications (62.5% vs. 42.9%, P=0.29) and a lower rate of minor complications (25% vs. 28.6%, P=0.22). CONCLUSION: Treatment of proximal femoral bone sarcomas in pediatric and adolescent patients remains a challenging enterprise. JSR with ICA reconstruction in the proximal femur, when feasible, may provide a similar function and risk of intermediate-term major and minor complications when compared with PFR with APC reconstruction. Further long-term studies are required to determine the impact of the native femoral head retention with respect to revision rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Tumors of the scapula: A retrospective analysis identifying predictors of malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Osseous tumors of the shoulder girdle occur most frequently in the proximal humerus, scapula and clavicle. Prior studies have determined that tumors occurring in the scapula have a higher risk of malignancy, but few have looked exclusively at tumors of this site to describe incidence, clinical features and potential predictors of malignancy. As imaging technologies for diagnosis have improved, it is important to re-evaluate if patterns of incidence have changed and if new imaging findings could potentially be predictors of malignancy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis identified 173 patients from a pediatric and an adult hospital between 1990 and 2015. All patients with tumors of the scapula either of bony origin or with bony invasion were included. Diagnosis, tumor location, and patient demographics were collected. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of malignancy. RESULTS: Chondrosarcoma and osteochondroma were the most common malignant and benign tumors, respectively. Benign tumors were more prevalent in the pediatric population. Tumors occurred most frequently in the body of the scapula. Risk for malignancy increased with age (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.12), tumors invading multiple sites (OR 10.85, 95% CI 2.37-49.72) and tumors that were lucent (OR 7.02, 95% CI 1.14-43.21) or had a mixed radiographic appearance (OR 11.47, 95% CI 1.36-99.65). CONCLUSIONS: Including neoplasia in the differential diagnosis for shoulder complaints is important because the scapula is a site of increased risk of malignancy. Patterns of incidence and prevalence have not changed in the last years with the use of more advance techniques of imaging studies. Older age, lucent or mixed imaging, and tumors that span multiple sites of the scapula were found to be predictors of malignancy. Additional cross-sectional anatomy studies may be warranted for further evaluation in patients presenting with these characteristics given the higher concern for malignant disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Prognostic Study.

Survival and prognosis with osteosarcoma: outcomes in more than 2000 patients in the EURAMOS-1 (European and American Osteosarcoma Study) cohort.

BACKGROUND: High-grade osteosarcoma is a primary malignant bone tumour mainly affecting children and young adults. The European and American Osteosarcoma Study (EURAMOS)-1 is a collaboration of four study groups aiming to improve outcomes of this rare disease by facilitating randomised controlled trials. METHODS: Patients eligible for EURAMOS-1 were aged ≤40 years with M0 or M1 skeletal high-grade osteosarcoma in which case complete surgical resection at all sites was deemed to be possible. A three-drug combination with methotrexate, doxorubicin and cisplatin was defined as standard chemotherapy, and between April 2005 and June 2011, 2260 patients were registered. We report survival outcomes and prognostic factors in the full cohort of registered patients. RESULTS: For all registered patients at a median follow-up of 54 months (interquartile range: 38-73) from biopsy, 3-year and 5-year event-free survival were 59% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57-61%) and 54% (95% CI: 52-56%), respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that the most adverse factors at diagnosis were pulmonary metastases (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.95-2.81), non-pulmonary metastases (HR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.38-2.73) or an axial skeleton tumour site (HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.10-2.13). The histological subtypes telangiectatic (HR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.33-0.80) and unspecified conventional (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88) were associated with a favourable prognosis compared with chondroblastic subtype. The 3-year and 5-year overall survival from biopsy were 79% (95% CI: 77-81%) and 71% (95% CI: 68-73%), respectively. For patients with localised disease at presentation and in complete remission after surgery, having a poor histological response was associated with worse outcome after surgery (HR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.76-2.58). In radically operated patients, there was no good evidence that axial tumour site was associated with worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, data from >2000 patients registered to EURAMOS-1 demonstrated survival rates in concordance with institution- or group-level osteosarcoma trials. Further efforts are required to drive improvements for patients who can be identified to be at higher risk of adverse outcome. This trial reaffirms known prognostic factors, and owing to the large numbers of patients registered, it sheds light on some additional factors to consider.