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.

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.

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.

Erratum to: Editorial: Do Orthopaedic Surgeons Belong on the Sidelines at American Football Games?

In the November Editorial, "Editorial: Do Orthopaedic Surgeons Belong on the Sidelines at American Football Games?" a statistic was attributed to a JAMA study (Ref. 10) that should have been attributed to an article from the New York Times (Ref. 16). The sentence in question should read: "We accept that critique, provided that the skeptics acknowledge that the best-case estimate in support of the safety of football would result in a CTE prevalence estimate of 9%, since only another 1200 ex-NFL players have died [16] since this research group [10] began studying football players' brains."

MRI guided needle localization in a patient with recurrence pleomorphic sarcoma and post-operative scarring.

MRI-guided wire localization is commonly used for surgical localization of breast lesions. Here we introduce an alternative use of this technique to help with surgical resection of a recurrent pleomorphic sarcoma embedded in extensive post-treatment scar tissue. We describe a case of recurrent pleomorphic soft tissue sarcoma in the thigh after treatment with neoadjuvant therapy, surgery, and radiation. Due to the distortion of the normal tissue architecture and formation of extensive scar tissue from prior treatment, wire localization under MRI was successfully used to assist the surgeon in identifying the recurrent tumor for removal.

Comparison of MAPIE versus MAP in patients with a poor response to preoperative chemotherapy for newly diagnosed high-grade osteosarcoma (EURAMOS-1): an open-label, international, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We designed the EURAMOS-1 trial to investigate whether intensified postoperative chemotherapy for patients whose tumour showed a poor response to preoperative chemotherapy (≥10% viable tumour) improved event-free survival in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma. METHODS: EURAMOS-1 was an open-label, international, phase 3 randomised, controlled trial. Consenting patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, high-grade osteosarcoma aged 40 years or younger were eligible for randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either postoperative cisplatin, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (MAP) or MAP plus ifosfamide and etoposide (MAPIE) using concealed permuted blocks with three stratification factors: trial group; location of tumour (proximal femur or proximal humerus vs other limb vs axial skeleton); and presence of metastases (no vs yes or possible). The MAP regimen consisted of cisplatin 120 mg/m2, doxorubicin 37·5 mg/m2 per day on days 1 and 2 (on weeks 1 and 6) followed 3 weeks later by high-dose methotrexate 12 g/m2 over 4 h. The MAPIE regimen consisted of MAP as a base regimen, with the addition of high-dose ifosfamide (14 g/m2) at 2·8 g/m2 per day with equidose mesna uroprotection, followed by etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day over 1 h on days 1-5. The primary outcome measure was event-free survival measured in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00134030. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2005, and June 30, 2011, 2260 patients were registered from 325 sites in 17 countries. 618 patients with poor response were randomly assigned; 310 to receive MAP and 308 to receive MAPIE. Median follow-up was 62·1 months (IQR 46·6-76·6); 62·3 months (IQR 46·9-77·1) for the MAP group and 61·1 months (IQR 46·5-75·3) for the MAPIE group. 307 event-free survival events were reported (153 in the MAP group vs 154 in the MAPIE group). 193 deaths were reported (101 in the MAP group vs 92 in the MAPIE group). Event-free survival did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [95% CI 0·78-1·23]); hazards were non-proportional (p=0·0003). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (268 [89%] patients in MAP vs 268 [90%] in MAPIE), thrombocytopenia (231 [78% in MAP vs 248 [83%] in MAPIE), and febrile neutropenia without documented infection (149 [50%] in MAP vs 217 [73%] in MAPIE). MAPIE was associated with more frequent grade 4 non-haematological toxicity than MAP (35 [12%] of 301 in the MAP group vs 71 [24%] of 298 in the MAPIE group). Two patients died during postoperative therapy, one from infection (although their absolute neutrophil count was normal), which was definitely related to their MAP treatment (specifically doxorubicin and cisplatin), and one from left ventricular systolic dysfunction, which was probably related to MAPIE treatment (specifically doxorubicin). One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction was reported in the MAP group: bone marrow infarction due to methotrexate. INTERPRETATION: EURAMOS-1 results do not support the addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to postoperative chemotherapy in patients with poorly responding osteosarcoma because its administration was associated with increased toxicity without improving event-free survival. The results define standard of care for this population. New strategies are required to improve outcomes in this setting. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, National Cancer Institute, European Science Foundation, St Anna Kinderkrebsforschung, Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen, Parents Organization, Danish Medical Research Council, Academy of Finland, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Semmelweis Foundation, ZonMw (Council for Medical Research), Research Council of Norway, Scandinavian Sarcoma Group, Swiss Paediatric Oncology Group, Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, University College London Hospitals, and Biomedical Research Centre.

Local Control Modality and Outcome for Ewing Sarcoma of the Femur: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: The choice of a local control (LC) modality for Ewing sarcoma (EWS) of the femur is controversial. This study aimed to determine the effect of LC modality on tumor LC and patient outcomes. METHODS: The study reviewed the treatment and outcomes for 115 patients who had EWS of the femur treated with similar chemotherapy in three cooperative group trials. Patient outcomes were analyzed according to the LC modality using the log-rank test and the cumulative incidence of local or distant failure using competing risks regression. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 13 years. The most common tumor location was the proximal femur followed by the mid femur. For 55 patients with available data, the tumor was larger than 8 cm in 29 patients and 8 cm or smaller in 26 patients. For 84 patients (73 %), surgery only was performed, whereas 17 patients (15 %) had surgery plus radiation, and 14 patients (12 %) had radiation only. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was 65 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 55-73 %), and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 70 % (95 % CI, 61-78 %). Patient outcomes did not differ significantly according to tumor location within the femur (proximal, mid or distal) or tumor size (<8 vs ≥8 cm). The findings showed no statistically significant differences in EFS, OS, cumulative incidence of local failure, or cumulative incidence of distant failure according to LC modality (surgery, surgery plus radiation, or radiation). CONCLUSIONS: The LC modality did not significantly affect disease outcome for EWS of the femur. Further study of treatment complications and functional outcome may help to define the optimal LC modality.

Predictors of soft-tissue complications and deep infection in allograft reconstruction of the proximal tibia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Reconstruction of the proximal tibia after wide resection of malignant tumors in the pediatric population is very challenging. Advocates of allograft reconstruction argue as advantages bone preservation, biological reconstruction that facilitates reattachment of the extensor mechanism and other soft-tissue structures, delay of metallic prosthesis use and preservation of the distal femoral growth plate. However, complications are significant, infection being very common. METHODS: Under IRB-approved protocol, 32 patients (17 males, 15 females), 13 years old in average (2-20), who underwent 33 allograft reconstructions of the proximal tibia, were evaluated for the occurrence of soft-tissue complications and/or deep infection (infection affecting the allograft). Potential predictors of soft-tissue complications and deep infection, categorized as pre- and perioperative variables, were analyzed in relation to the risk for developing a soft-tissue complication or a deep infection. RESULTS: The prevalence of soft-tissue complications was 48% (16/33). However, we were not able to identify any significant predictors. The prevalence of deep (allograft) infection was 15% (5/33). Multivariate logistic regression determined higher BMI at the index surgical procedure and lower pre-operative WBC to be independent predictors of deep infection. For each unit of increase in BMI, the odds of deep infection increased by 40% (OR = 1.40; CI = 1.07-3.06; P < 0.05). For each one unit (1,000) of increase in the pre-operative white cell-count, the odds of deep infection decreased by 70% (OR = 0.30; 95%CI = 0.01-0.89; P < 0.05). Four of the five deep infections were in patients with soft-tissue complications, mainly wound dehiscence. However, wound dehiscence or soft-tissue complications were not predictive of deep infection. CONCLUSION: Soft-tissue complications are prevalent in allograft reconstruction of the proximal tibia. Prevention is important as these may progress to deep infection. Careful attention to nutritional (BMI) and immunological status may help in patient selection for allograft reconstruction. If allograft reconstruction is opted for, efforts should focus on optimization of these factors as they proved to be independent predictors of subsequent deep infection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:811-817. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Intensified Chemotherapy With Dexrazoxane Cardioprotection in Newly Diagnosed Nonmetastatic Osteosarcoma: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: Although chemotherapy has improved outcome of osteosarcoma, 30-40% of patients succumb to this disease. Survivors experience substantial morbidity and mortality from anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. We hypothesized that the cardioprotectant dexrazoxane would (i) support escalation of the cumulative doxorubicin dose (600 mg/m(2)) and (ii) not interfere with the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy measured by necrosis grading in comparison to historical control data. PROCEDURE: Children and adolescents with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma were treated with MAP (methotrexate, doxorubicin, cisplatin) or MAPI (MAP/ifosfamide). Dexrazoxane was administered with all doxorubicin doses. Cardioprotection was assessed by measuring left ventricular fractional shortening. Interference with chemotherapy-induced cytotoxicity was determined by measuring tumor necrosis after induction chemotherapy. Feasibility of intensifying therapy with either high cumulative-dose doxorubicin or high-dose ifosfamide/etoposide was evaluated for "standard responders" (SR, <98% tumor necrosis at definitive surgery). RESULTS: Dexrazoxane did not compromise response to induction chemotherapy. With doxorubicin (450-600 mg/m(2)) and dexrazoxane, grade 1 or 2 left ventricular dysfunction occurred in five patients; 4/5 had transient effects. Left ventricular fractional shortening z-scores (FSZ) showed minimal reductions (0.0170 ± 0.009/week) over 78 weeks. Two patients (<1%) had secondary leukemia, one as a first event, a similar rate to what has been observed in prior trials. Intensification with high-dose ifosfamide/etoposide was also feasible. CONCLUSIONS: Dexrazoxane cardioprotection was safely administered. It did not impair tumor response or increase the risk of secondary malignancy. Dexrazoxane allowed for therapeutic intensification increasing the cumulative doxorubicin dose in SR to induction chemotherapy. These findings support the use of dexrazoxane in children and adolescents with osteosarcoma.

Assessing the Prognostic Significance of Histologic Response in Osteosarcoma: A Comparison of Outcomes on CCG-782 and INT0133-A Report From the Children's Oncology Group Bone Tumor Committee.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of histologic response for osteosarcoma may have changed with induction chemotherapy schedules over time. We hypothesized that the increased intensity of induction therapy provided on INT0133 compared to the Children's Cancer Group study CCG-782 would diminish the impact of histologic response on the risk of events after definitive surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed for patients aged <22 with newly diagnosed nonmetastatic osteosarcoma enrolled on CCG-782 and INT0133. Clinical factors were evaluated for association with response and outcome. Good response was defined as <5% viable tumor at resection. Associations of response, study, and postdefinitive surgery event-free survival (EFS-DS) were determined using Cox proportional hazard models. EFS-DS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methodology. RESULTS: Data were available for 814 patients (206 CCG-782, 608 INT0133). For good responders, 10-year EFS-DS (±SE) was 75.4% ± 7.7% for CCG-782 and 70.8% ± 3.1% for INT0133. For poor responders, 10-year EFS-DS was 39.9% ± 4.9% for CCG-782 and 58.4% ± 3.1% for INT0133. Histologic response predicted outcome across studies (P < 0.0001). Significant interaction between study and histologic response was observed for EFS-DS (P = 0.011). Using proportional hazards regression, INT0133 poor responders had less risk of events compared to CCG-782 poor responders (relative hazard ratio (RHR) = 0.6:1), but good responders on INT0133 had a greater risk of events compared to CCG-782 good responders (RHR = 1.53:1). CONCLUSION: We observed an inverse relationship between the predictive value of tumor necrosis and intensity of induction therapy, raising questions about the true prognostic value of histologic response. This highlights the need for novel markers to develop strategies for treatment in future trials.

CT-based Structural Rigidity Analysis Is More Accurate Than Mirels Scoring for Fracture Prediction in Metastatic Femoral Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Controversy continues regarding the appropriate assessment of fracture risk in long bone lesions affected by disseminated malignancy. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this ongoing Musculoskeletal Tumor Society-sponsored, multi-institutional prospective cross-sectional clinical study is to compare CT-based structural rigidity analysis (CTRA) with physician-derived Mirels scoring for predicting pathologic fracture in femoral bone lesions. We hypothesized CTRA would be superior to Mirels in predicting fracture risk within the first year based on (1) sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value; (2) receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis; and (3) fracture prediction after controlling for potential confounding variables such as age and lesion size. METHODS: Consented patients with femoral metastatic lesions were assigned Mirels scores by the individual enrolling orthopaedic oncologist based on plain radiographs and then underwent CT scans of both femurs with a phantom of known density. The CTRA was then performed. Between 2004 and 2008, six study centers performed CTRA on 125 patients. The general indications for this test were femoral metastatic lesions potentially at risk of fracture. The enrolling physician was allowed the choice of prophylactic stabilization or nonsurgical treatment, and the local treating oncology team along with the patient made this decision. Of those 125 patients, 78 (62%) did not undergo prophylactic stabilization and had followup sufficient for inclusion, which was fracture through the lesion within 12 months of CTRA, death within 12 months of CTRA, or 12-month survival after CTRA without fracture, whereas 15 (12%) were lost to followup and could not be studied here. The mean patient age was 61 years (SD, 14 years). There were 46 women. Sixty-four of the lesions were located in the proximal femur, 13 were in the diaphysis, and four were distal. Osteolytic lesions prevailed (48 lesions) over mixed (31 lesions) and osteoblastic (15 lesions). The most common primary cancers were breast (25 lesions), lung (14 lesions), and myeloma (11 lesions). CTRA was compared with Mirels based on sensitivity/specificity analysis, ROC, and fracture prediction by multivariate analysis. For the CTRA, reduction greater than 35% in axial, bending, or torsional rigidities at the lesion was considered at risk for fracture, whereas a Mirels score of 9 or above, as suggested in the original manuscript, was used as the definition of impending fracture. RESULTS: CTRA provided higher sensitivity (100% versus 66.7%), specificity (60.6% versus 47.9%), positive predictive value (17.6% versus 9.8%), and negative predictive value (100% versus 94.4%) compared with the classic Mirels definition of impending fracture (≥ 9), although there was considerable overlap in the confidence intervals. ROC curve analysis found CTRA to be better than the Mirels score regardless of what Mirels score cutoff was used. After controlling for potential confounding variables including age, lesion size, and Mirels scores, multivariable logistic regression indicated that CTRA was a better predictor of fracture (likelihood ratio test = 10.49, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CT-based structural rigidity analysis is better than Mirels score in predicting femoral impending pathologic fracture. CTRA appears to provide a substantial advance in the accuracy of predicting pathological femur fracture over currently used clinical and radiographic criteria. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Does CT-based Rigidity Analysis Influence Clinical Decision-making in Simulations of Metastatic Bone Disease?

BACKGROUND: There is a need to improve the prediction of fracture risk for patients with metastatic bone disease. CT-based rigidity analysis (CTRA) is a sensitive and specific method, yet its influence on clinical decision-making has never been quantified. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: What is the influence of CTRA on providers' perceived risk of fracture? (2) What is the influence of CTRA on providers' treatment recommendations in simulated clinical scenarios of metastatic bone disease of the femur? (3) Does CTRA improve interobserver agreement regarding treatment recommendations? METHODS: We conducted a survey among 80 academic physicians (orthopaedic oncologists, musculoskeletal radiologists, and radiation oncologists) using simulated vignettes of femoral lesions presented as three separate scenarios: (1) no CTRA input (baseline); (2) CTRA input suggesting increased risk of fracture (CTRA+); and (3) CTRA input suggesting decreased risk of fracture (CTRA-). Participants were asked to rate the patient's risk of fracture on a scale of 0% to 100% and to provide a treatment recommendation. Overall response rate was 62.5% (50 of 80). RESULTS: When CTRA suggested an increased risk of fracture, physicians perceived the fracture risk to be slightly greater (37% ± 3% versus 42% ± 3%, p < 0.001; mean difference [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 5% [4.7%-5.2%]) and were more prone to recommend surgical stabilization (46% ± 9% versus 54% ± 9%, p < 0.001; mean difference [95% CI] = 9% [7.9-10.1]). When CTRA suggested a decreased risk of fracture, physicians perceived the risk to be slightly decreased (37% ± 25% versus 35% ± 25%, p = 0.04; mean difference [95% CI] = 2% [2.74%-2.26%]) and were less prone to recommend surgical stabilization (46% ± 9% versus 42% ± 9%, p < 0.03; mean difference [95% CI] = 4% [3.9-5.1]). The effect size of the influence of CTRA on physicians' perception of fracture risk and treatment planning varied with lesion severity and specialty of the responders. CTRA did not increase interobserver agreement regarding treatment recommendations when compared with the baseline scenario (κ = 0.41 versus κ = 0.43, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this survey study, CTRA had a small influence on perceived fracture risk and treatment recommendations and did not increase interobserver agreement. Further work is required to properly introduce this technique to physicians involved in the care of patients with metastatic lesions. Given the number of preclinical and clinical studies outlining the efficacy of this technique, better education through presentations at seminars/webinars and symposia will be the first step. This should be followed by clinical trials to establish CTRA-based clinical guidelines based on evidence-based medicine. Increased exposure of clinicians to CTRA, including its underlying methodology to study bone structural characteristics, may establish CTRA as a uniform guideline to assess fracture risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analyses.