Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of malignant bone tumors - Secondary publication.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, there are currently no general guidelines for the treatment of primary malignant bone tumors. Therefore, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association established a committee to develop guidelines for the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of primary malignant bone tumors for medical professionals in clinical practice. METHODS: The guidelines were developed in accordance with "Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Handbook 2014″ and "Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual 2017". The Japanese Orthopaedic Association's Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Committee established guideline development and systematic review committees, drawing members from orthopedic specialists leading the diagnosis and treatment of bone and soft tissue tumors. Pediatricians, radiologists, and diagnostic pathologists were added to both committees because of the importance of multidisciplinary treatment. Based on the diagnosis and treatment algorithm for primary malignant bone tumors, important decision-making points were selected, and clinical questions (CQ) were determined. The strength of recommendation was rated on two levels and the strength of evidence was rated on four levels. The recommendations published were selected based on agreement by 70% or more of the voters. RESULTS: The guideline development committee examined the important clinical issues in the clinical algorithm and selected 22 CQs. The systematic review committee reviewed the evidence concerning each CQ and a clinical value judgment was added by experts. Eventually, 25 questions were published and the text of each recommendation was determined. CONCLUSION: Since primary malignant bone tumors are rare, there is a dearth of strong evidence based on randomized controlled trials, and recommendations cannot be applied to all the patients. In clinical practice, appropriate treatment of patients with primary malignant bone tumors should be based on the histopathological diagnosis and degree of progression of each case, using these guidelines as a reference.

Comparison of clinical outcome between surgical treatment and particle beam therapy for pelvic bone sarcomas: A retrospective multicenter study in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the clinical outcomes of patients with pelvic bone sarcomas treated surgically and those treated with particle beam therapy. This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study which compared the clinical outcomes of patients with pelvic bone sarcoma who underwent surgical treatment and particle beam therapy in Japan. METHODS: A total of 116 patients with pelvic bone sarcoma treated at 19 specialized sarcoma centers in Japan were included in this study. Fifty-seven patients underwent surgery (surgery group), and 59 patients underwent particle beam therapy (particle beam group; carbon-ion radiotherapy: 55 patients, proton: four patients). RESULTS: The median age at primary tumor diagnosis was 52 years in the surgery group and 66 years in the particle beam group (P < 0.001), and the median tumor size was 9 cm in the surgery group and 8 cm in the particle beam group (P = 0.091). Overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) rates were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared among 116 patients with bone sarcoma (surgery group, 57 patients; particle beam group, 59 patients). After propensity score matching, the 3-year OS, LC, and MFS rates were 82.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.5-93.2%), 66.0% (95% CI, 43.3-81.3%), and 78.4% (95% CI, 55.5-90.5%), respectively, in the surgery group and 64.9% (95% CI, 41.7-80.8%), 86.4% (95% CI, 63.3-95.4%), and 62.6% (95% CI, 38.5-79.4%), respectively, in the particle beam group. In chordoma patients, only surgery was significantly correlated with worse LC in the univariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The groups had no significant differences in the OS, LC, and MFS rates. Among the patients with chordomas, the 3-year LC rate in the particle beam group was significantly higher than in the surgery group.

Evaluation of Changes in Activities of Daily Living and Quality of Life of Patients with Bone Metastasis Who Underwent Conservative Therapy through Bone Metastasis Cancer Boards.

Background and Objectives: Changes in activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QOL) of patients with bone metastasis who underwent surgical treatment through Bone Metastasis Cancer Boards (BMCBs), a recent multidisciplinary approach for managing bone metastases, have been reported; however, no reports exist on patients who undergo conservative treatment. In this study, we aimed to evaluate these patients' ADL and QOL and examine the factors influencing changes in these parameters. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 200 patients with bone metastases who underwent conservative therapy through BMCBs between 2013 and 2021. A reassessment was conducted within 2-8 weeks after the initial assessment. Patients' background and changes in performance status (PS), Barthel Index (BI), EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) scores, and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores were initially assessed. Furthermore, we categorized patients into two groups based on improvements or deteriorations in ADL and QOL and performed comparative analyses. Results: Significant improvements in EQ-5D (0.57 ± 0.02 versus [vs.] 0.64 ± 0.02), NRS max (5.21 ± 0.24 vs. 3.56 ± 0.21), and NRS average (2.98 ± 0.18 vs. 1.85 ± 0.13) scores were observed between the initial assessment and reassessment (all p < 0.001). PS (1.84 ± 0.08 vs. 1.72 ± 0.08) and BI (83.15 ± 1.68 vs. 84.42 ± 1.73) also showed improvements (p = 0.06, and 0.054, respectively). In addition, spinal cord paralysis (odds ratio [OR]: 3.69, p = 0.049; OR: 8.42, p < 0.001), chemotherapy (OR: 0.43, p = 0.02; OR: 0.25, p = 0.007), and NRS average scores (OR: 0.38, p = 0.02; OR: 0.14, p < 0.001) were independent factors associated with ADL and QOL. Conclusions: Patients with bone metastases who underwent conservative treatment through BMCBs exhibited an increase in QOL without a decline in ADL. The presence of spinal cord paralysis, absence of chemotherapy, and poor pain control were associated with a higher risk of deterioration in ADL and QOL.

Effect of Bone Metastasis Cancer Board on Spinal Surgery Outcomes: A Retrospective Study.

Background and Objectives: Bone metastasis cancer boards (BMCBs) focusing on the management of bone metastases have been gathering much attention. However, the association of BMCBs with spinal surgery in patients with spinal metastases remains unclear. In this retrospective single-center observational study, we aimed to clarify the effect of a BMCB on spinal metastasis treatment. Materials and Methods: We reviewed consecutive cases of posterior decompression and/or instrumentation surgery for metastatic spinal tumors from 2008 to 2019. The BMCB involved a team of specialists in orthopedics, rehabilitation medicine, radiation oncology, radiology, palliative supportive care, oncology, and hematology. We compared demographics, eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOGPS), Barthel index (BI), number of overall versus emergency surgeries, and primary tumors between patients before (2008-2012) and after (2013-2019) BMCB establishment. Results: A total of 226 patients including 33 patients before BMCB started were enrolled; lung cancer was the most common primary tumor. After BMCB establishment, the mean patient age was 5 years older (p = 0.028), the mean operating time was 34 min shorter (p = 0.025), the mean hospital stay was 34.5 days shorter (p < 0.001), and the mean BI before surgery was 12 points higher (p = 0.049) than before. Moreover, the mean number of surgeries per year increased more than fourfold to 27.6 per year (p < 0.01) and emergency surgery rates decreased from 48.5% to 29.0% (p = 0.041). Patients with an unknown primary tumor before surgery decreased from 24.2% to 9.3% (p = 0.033). Postoperative deterioration rates from 1 to 6 months after surgery of ECOGPS and BI after BMCB started were lower than before (p = 0.045 and p = 0.027, respectively). Conclusion: The BMCB decreased the emergency surgery and unknown primary tumor rate despite an increase in the overall number of spinal surgeries. The BMCB also contributed to shorter operation times, shorter hospital stays, and lower postoperative deterioration rates of ECOGPS and BI.

Association between abdominal adiposity and cognitive decline in older adults: a 10-year community-based study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the association between abdominal adiposity and change in cognitive function in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This longitudinal study included older adults aged ≥60 years without cognitive impairment who participated in the National Institute for Longevity Sciences - Longitudinal Study of Aging. MEASUREMENTS: Cognitive function was evaluated biennially using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) over 10 years. Waist circumference (WC) was measured at the naval level, and subcutaneous fat area (SFA) and visceral fat area (VFA) were assessed using baseline computed tomography scans. WC, SFA, and VFA areas were stratified into sex-adjusted tertiles. A linear mixed model was applied separately for men and women. RESULTS: This study included 873 older adults. In men, the groups with the highest levels of WC, SFA, and VFA exhibited a greater decline in MMSE score than the groups with the lowest levels (ß [95% confidence interval]: WC, -0.12 [-0.23 to -0.01]; SFA, -0.13 [-0.24 to -0.02]; VFA, -0.11 [-0.22 to -0.01]). In women, the group with the highest level of WC and SFA showed a greater decline in MMSE score than the group with the lowest level (WC, -0.12 [-0.25 to -0.01]; SFA, -0.18 [-0.30 to -0.06]), but VFA was not associated with cognitive decline. CONCLUSION: Higher WC, SFA, and VFA in men and higher WC and SFA in women were identified as risk factors for cognitive decline in later life, suggesting that abdominal adiposity involved in cognitive decline may differ according to sex.

A Combined Index Using the Mini-Mental State Examination and Lawton Index to Discriminate Between Clinical Dementia Rating Scores of 0.5 and 1: A Development and Validation Study.

Objective: To develop a combined index using cognitive function and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) to discriminate between Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scores of 0.5 and 1 in the clinical setting, and to investigate its optimal cutoff values and internal and external validities.Methods: We included outpatients aged 65-89 years with CDR scores of 0.5 or 1. The optimal cutoff values and internal validity were verified using Japanese memory clinic-based datasets between September 2010 and October 2021 [National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology (NCGG) datasets]. Cognitive function and IADL were assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Lawton Index (LI), respectively. The optimal cutoff values were defined using the Youden Index. To verify internal validity, sensitivity and specificity were calculated using stratified 5-fold cross-validation. To verify external validity, sensitivity and specificity of the optimal cutoff values were assessed in the Organized Registration for the Assessment of dementia on Nationwide General consortium toward Effective treatment (ORANGE) Registry dataset between July 2015 and March 2022, which has multicenter clinical data.Results: A total of 800 (mean age, 77.53 years; men, 50.1%) and 1494 (mean age, 77.97 years; men, 43.3%) participants comprised the NCGG and ORANGE Registry datasets, respectively. The optimum cutoff values for men and women were determined as MMSE < 25 and LI < 5 and MMSE < 25 and LI < 8, respectively; such a combined index showed good discriminative performance in internal (sensitivity/specificity: men, 92.50/73.52; women, 88.57/65.65) and external validities (men, 81.43/77.62; women, 77.64/74.67).Conclusion: The index developed is useful in discriminating between CDR scores of 0.5 and 1 and should be applicable to various settings, such as memory clinics and clinical research.