Search

Purpose: Patients who undergo surgical stabilization for impending or pathologic fractures secondary to metastasis are often treated with radiation therapy to the involved site. We sought to retrospectively analyze outcomes from single versus multifraction regimens of radiation therapy in this setting. Methods and Materials: From our institutional radiation database, we identified 87 patients between 2004 and 2016 who had an impending or pathologic fracture from metastatic disease and who underwent surgical fixation in conjunction with either neoadjuvant (within 5 weeks before surgery) or adjuvant (within 10 weeks after surgery) radiation therapy, representing 99 total treatment sites. Patients were included on the basis of intention to treat with bimodality therapy. Baseline patient characteristics were compared using 2-sided t tests and Fisher's exact tests. Cumulative incidence of local failure, reirradiation, and reoperation were calculated using the Fine-Gray method for competing risks. Freedom from complication was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Baseline characteristics between the single (n = 52) and multifraction (n = 47) cohorts were similar with the exception of higher rates of synchronous bony metastasis (83% vs 60%, P = .01) and female patients (71% vs 43%, P = .004) in the single fraction cohort. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups. After a median follow-up of 13 months, there was no significant difference in the single and multifraction cohorts, respectively, in the 1-year cumulative incidence rates of local failure (4% vs 7%, P = .58), reirradiation (5% vs 4%, P = .95), reoperation (4% vs 0%, P = .30), or 1-year freedom from complication (90% vs 95%, P = .40). Conclusions: This is the first study comparing outcomes between single and multifraction radiation therapy in conjunction with surgical stabilization of an impending or pathologic fracture. We found no difference in outcomes between single and multifraction regimens in this setting. Given these findings, single fraction perioperative radiation therapy may be a viable treatment option in appropriately selected patients pending prospective validation of these findings.

Introduction: Chondrosarcoma is the second most common sarcoma of bone. This sarcoma is generally unresponsive to chemotherapy and radiation and is primarily managed through surgical excision. Pelvic chondrosarcoma presents a distinct therapeutic challenge due the complexity of resection, frequent recurrence and metastasis, and high post-operative morbidity. Methods: The SEER database was queried for pelvic chondrosarcoma diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. Cases were described by age, sex, tumor size, extension, grade, metastasis, and therapeutic intervention. These same variables were assessed for the upper extremities, lower extremities, skull and facial bones, thoracic bones, and vertebral column. Results: In total, 472 cases of pelvic chondrosarcoma were identified, representing 18.4% out of 2571 cases of chondrosarcoma distributed throughout the skeletal system. Among pelvic cases, 288 were male and 184 were female, with a median age of diagnosis of 54. Median tumor size was 96 mm, 64.9% of tumors were considered extracompartmental, and 11.3% of tumors were metastatic at time of diagnosis. The 2, 5, and 10-year survival rates for all cases of primary chondrosarcoma of the pelvis are 76.7%, 61.8%, and 52.2%, respectively. Survival was worse for patients with metastasis, male sex, age >60, tumor size >8 cm, dedifferentiated histology, and no surgical resection. On multivariate assessment high grade and metastasis most significantly predicted worse overall survival. Conclusion: Pelvic chondrosarcoma commonly presents with high-risk features including larger tumor size, extracompartmental extension, and metastatic disease at diagnosis, predicting worse overall survival compared to non-pelvic tumors, and were the least amenable to surgical resection.

Case. A right-handed 8-year-old female patient presented with a conventional, high-grade osteosarcoma involving her right humerus; through-shoulder amputation was recommended. After consultation, total humerus resection with expandable, total humeral endoprosthesis reconstruction was performed with a sleeve to encourage soft-tissue ingrowth. At three-year follow-up she has received one lengthening procedure and her functional scores are excellent.Conclusion. Total humeral resection and replacement in the pediatric population are rare and although early reports of expandable total humeral endoprosthesis outcomes demonstrate high failure rates, this patient’s success indicates that expandable total humeral replacement is a viable option.

Background: Massive endoprostheses provide orthopaedic oncologists with many reconstructive options after tumor resection, although failure rates are high. Because the number of these procedures is limited, failure of these devices has not been studied or classified adequately. This investigation is a multicenter review of the use of segmental endoprostheses with a focus on the modes, frequency, and timing of failure. Methods: Retrospective reviews of the operative databases of five institutions identified 2174 skeletally mature patients who received a large endoprosthesis for tumor resection. Patients who had failure of the endoprosthesis were identified, and the etiology and timing of failure were noted. Similar failures were tabulated and classified on the basis of the risk of amputation and urgency of treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to identify dependent relationships among mode of failure, anatomic location, and failure timing. A literature review was performed, and similar analyses were done for these data. Results: Five hundred and thirty-four failures were identified. Five modes of failure were identified and classified: soft-tissue failures (Type 1), aseptic loosening (Type 2), structural failures (Type 3), infection (Type 4), and tumor progression (Type 5). The most common mode of failure in this series was infection; in the literature, it was aseptic loosening. Statistical dependence was found between anatomic location and mode of failure and between mode of failure and time to failure. Significant differences were found in the incidence of failure mode Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 when polyaxial and uniaxial joints were compared. Significant dependence was also found between failure mode and anatomic location in the literature data. Conclusions: There are five primary modes of endoprosthetic failure, and their relative incidences are significantly different and dependent on anatomic location. Mode of failure and time to failure also show a significant dependence. Because of these relationships, cumulative reporting of segmental failures should be avoided because anatomy-specific trends will be missed. Endoprosthetic design improvements should address failure modes specific to the anatomic location. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Improved understanding and advances in treatment regimens have led to increased longevity among patients diagnosed with extremity soft tissue sarcomas. Limb salvage techniques and implants have improved and continue to evolve to accommodate the increasing demands and survival of these patients. Methods: The current report is a review of the literature for recent advancements in techniques, implant design, and outcomes in the fi eld of limb salvage therapy using segmental megaprostheses for the treatment of extremity sarcomas. We report on our experience in this fi eld utilizing a classifi cation system of failure mechanisms to outline to discuss current controversies in management. Results: Five mechanisms of failure have been identifi ed: soft-tissue failure, aseptic loosening, structural failure, infection, and tumor progression. Infection was the most common mode of failure in our series, accounting for 34% of cases. Soft-tissue failure occurred most commonly in the joints that depend heavily on periarticular muscles and ligaments for stability due to their high degree of functional range of motion. We observed a 28% soft-tissue failure rate about the shoulder and hip, aseptic loosening accounted for 19% of implant failures, and structural failure was seen in 17% of cases. Seventeen percent of cases failed due to tumor progression, an etiology that is defined by biological factors, surgical technique, and adjuvant therapies. Conclusions: Surgical techniques and megaprosthesis designs are constantly changing in order to meet the challenge of increasing functional demands and longevity in this unique patient population. A classifi cation system defi ned by treatment failure etiologies provides the framework for discussion of current controversies in limb salvage therapy as well as a guide for advancement and potential solutions in this challenging arena.