Search

Background: Moderately hypofractionated, preoperative radiotherapy in patients with soft tissue sarcomas (HYPORT‐STS; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03819985) investigated a radiobiologically equivalent, moderately hypofractionated course of preoperative radiotherapy (RT) 15 × 2.85 Gy in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Here, the authors report longer term follow‐up to update local control and report late toxicities, as well as functional and patient‐reported outcomes. Methods: HYPORT‐STS was a single‐center, open‐label, single‐arm, prospective phase 2 clinical trial that enrolled 120 eligible adult patients with localized STS of the extremities or superficial trunk between 2018 and 2021. Patients received a 3‐week course of preoperative RT followed by surgery 4–8 weeks later. End points and follow‐up were analyzed from the date of surgery. Results: The median follow‐up was 43 months (interquartile range, 37–52 months), and the 4‐year local recurrence‐free survival rate was 93%. Overall RT‐related late toxicities improved with time from local therapy (p <.001), and few patients had grade ≥2 toxicities (9%; n = 8 of 88) at 2 years. These included: 2% grade ≥2 skin toxicity, 2% fibrosis, 3% lymphedema, and 1% joint stiffness. Four patients (3%) had bone fractures. Both functional outcomes, as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating Scale (p <.001), and quality of life, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐General (p <.001), improved with time from treatment, and both measures were better in follow‐up at 2 years compared with baseline. Conclusions: Long‐term follow up suggests that moderately hypofractionated preoperative RT for patients with STS is safe and effective. Higher grade late toxicities affect a minority of patients. Late toxicities decrease over time, whereas functional outcomes and health‐related quality of life seem to improve with more time from combined modality treatment. Favorable local control is maintained with long‐term follow‐up, late toxicities are lower than historical controls, and functional outcomes and quality of life improve with time. These findings suggest that preoperative, moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy delivered over 3 weeks for patients with soft tissue sarcoma is safe and effective, but a multicenter phase 3 trial comparing hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current functional assessment tools for orthopaedic oncology are long surveys that contribute to patients' survey fatigue and yet lack the ability to discern meaningful differences in a patient population that is often mobile but unable to perform strenuous activities. We sought to determine whether a shorter, novel tool based on existing, validated surveys could better capture differences in a sample of orthopaedic oncology patients. Questions/purposes: (1) Can a concise fixed-item functional tool derived from the 50 items in the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score for the lower extremity (TESS LE) and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) demonstrate similar responsiveness in terms of sensitivity and specificity? (2) What is the precision and accuracy of the concise tool compared with the TESS LE and LEFS? Methods: Functional outcome data were collected and maintained in a longitudinally maintained database at a single institution. Patients were included in the study if (1) they had undergone a tumor excision or a nononcologic orthopaedic procedure (for example, arthroplasty for osteoarthritis) for a bone or soft tissue tumor affecting lower extremity function, and (2) they had completed the LEFS, TESS LE, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health tool on at least two clinic visits. Between September 2014 and April 2022, we treated 14,234 patients for primary bone or soft tissue sarcoma, metastatic disease to bone, or orthopaedic sequelae of chronic cancer care. Approximately 6% (854 of 14,234) were excluded due to the need of a language translator. Approximately 2% (278 of 13,380) refused or were unable to participate. Seventy-two percent (9433 of 13,102) of the patients had an operation on a lower extremity. Of these, 4% (339 of 9433) of the patients completed the TESS LE, LEFS, and Item 3 of the PROMIS global health tool on ≥ 2 clinic visits. Of the patients in the current study, 49% (167 of 339) were women, and 27% (93 of 339) had metastatic carcinoma. Twelve percent (41 of 339) of the patients died before the end of the study period. Spearman rank-order correlation, principal component analysis (PCA), and item response theory (IRT) modeling identified 14 highly discriminating items from the TESS LE and LEFS. Multiple linear stepwise regression (MLSR) was performed with the dependent variable being the summary score of the 14 items derived from the TESS LE and LEFS and standardized to a percentage of 100. The beta coefficient from the MLSR was used to derive a weight for each of the 14 items. Evaluation of the model with 10 to 17 variables was performed to ensure that the model with the 14 items met the most criteria for fit with the PCA, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and the IRT modeling criteria. The responsiveness (sensitivity and specificity) of the change scores in the shortened 14-item survey, the 30-item TESS LE, and the 20-item LEFS as compared with the dichotomized changes in Item 3 of the PROMIS global health tool was evaluated using ROCs. The concordance (accuracy and precision) of the 14 items derived from the LEFS and TESS LE was evaluated. Results: The responsiveness (sensitivity and specificity) of the shortened 14-item survey, the TESS LE, and the LEFS to the criterion target of the PROMIS global health tool (Item 3) was similar, with areas under the curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.62 to 0.65 for the ROC curves. The responsiveness of the 14-item survey to the TESS LE showed sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 90%, with an AUC of 0.98 (p < 0.001). The responsiveness of the 14 items to the LEFS showed sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 86%, with an AUC of 0.96. The validity of the 14 items to the TESS LE was measured by concordance, with a precision of 0.98 and an accuracy of 0.97. Concordance of the 14 items to the LEFS showed a precision of 0.98 and accuracy of 0.83. Conclusion: The concise 14 items derived from patient-reported responses in the TESS LE and LEFS outcome measures showed similar responsiveness (sensitivity and specificity) as the original TESS LE and LEFS for cancer patients after lower extremity orthopaedic surgery performed for oncologic and nononcologic indications. The concise 14 items have a similar ability to the TESS LE and LEFS to tell the clinician or patient how they are functioning compared with other patients. These 14 items are shorter than the combined 50 items of the TESS LE and LEFS while retaining the capacity to describe a broad range of lower extremity function for orthopaedic oncology patients. We have named the 14-item survey the Lower Extremity Oncology Functional Assessment Tool (LEO). Level of Evidence Level II, diagnostic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients who have undergone segmental replacement of the distal femur or proximal tibia after tumor resection can be associated with considerable morbidity, pain, and risk of complications because the procedure often results in removal of long, well-fixed stems from the diaphysis. A less-aggressive surgical approach, such as debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), may be attractive to patients and surgeons because of less morbidity, but the likelihood of eradicating infection in comparison to the traditional two-stage revision is not well established for oncology patients. Furthermore, the relative risk of subsequent amputation for DAIR versus two-stage revision has not been defined for this population. Questions/purposes: (1) How does DAIR compare with two-stage revision in terms of infection control for patients with distal femoral or proximal tibial segmental modular endoprostheses? (2) Is DAIR as an initial procedure associated with an increased risk of amputation compared with two-stage revision for infection? Methods: From the longitudinally maintained orthopaedic oncology surgical database at our institution, we identified 69 patients who had been treated for a clinical diagnosis of PJI at the knee between 1993 and 2015. We excluded 32% (22) of patients who did not meet at least one of the major criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) for PJI, 3% (2) of patients who underwent immediate amputation, 3% (2) of patients who had a follow-up time of < 24 months, and 7% (5) of patients who did not have a primary tumor of the distal femur or proximal tibia. The study consisted of 38 patients, of whom eight underwent two-stage revision, 26 underwent DAIR, and four underwent extended DAIR (removal of all segmental components but with retention of stems and components fixed in bone) for their initial surgical procedure. To be considered free of infection, patients had to meet MSIS standards, including no positive cultures, drainage, or surgical debridement for a minimum of 2 years from the last operation. Factors associated with time-dependent risk of infection relapse, clearance, amputation, and patient survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves and the log-rank test to compare factors. Association of demographic and treatment factors was assessed using chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Results: Continuous infection-free survival at 5 years was 16% (95% CI 2% to 29%) for patients undergoing DAIR compared with 75% (95% CI 45% to 100%) for patients undergoing two-stage revision (p = 0.006). The median (range) number of total surgical procedures was 3 per patient (1 to 10) for DAIR and 2 (2 to 5) for two-stage revision. Twenty-nine percent (11 of 38) of patients eventually underwent amputation. Survival without amputation was 69% (95% CI 51% to 86%) for DAIR compared with 88% (95% CI 65% to 100%) for two-stage revision at 5 years (p = 0.34). The cumulative proportion of patients achieving infection-free status (> 2 years continuously after last treatment) and limb preservation was 58% (95% CI 36% to 80%) for patients initially treated with DAIR versus 87% (95% CI 65% to 100%) for patients first treated with two-stage revision (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Infection control was better with two-stage revision than DAIR. The chance of eventual clearance of infection with limb preservation was better when two-stage revision was chosen as the initial treatment. However, the loss to follow-up in the two-stage revision group would likely make the true proportion of infection control lower than our estimate. Our experience would suggest that the process of infection eradication is a complex and difficult one. Most patients undergo multiple operations. Nearly one-third of patients eventually underwent amputation, and this was a serious risk for both groups. While we cannot strongly recommend one approach over the other based on our data, we would still consider the use of DAIR in patients who present with acute short duration of symptoms (< 3 weeks), no radiographic signs of erosion around fixed implants, and organisms other than Staphylococcus aureus. We would advocate the extended DAIR procedure with removal of all segmental or modular components, and we would caution patients that there is a high likelihood of needing further surgery. A prospective trial with strict adherence to indications may be needed to evaluate the relative merits of an extended DAIR procedure versus a two-stage revision. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOMN) has become a standard practice in the detection and prevention of nerve damage and postoperative deficit. While multicenter studies have addressed this inquiry, there have been no systematic reviews to date. This systematic review identifies the leading causes of IONM alerts during adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeries. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a literature search was performed in PubMed and Embase. IONM alert causes were grouped by equivalent terms used across different studies and binned into larger categories, including surgical maneuver, Changes in blood pressure/temperature, Oxygenation, Anesthesia, Patient position, and Unknown. Results: Inclusion criteria were studies on adult patients receiving ASD correction surgery using IONM with documented alert causes. 1544 references were included in abstract review, 128 in full text review, and 16 studies qualified for data extraction. From those studies, there was a total of 3945 adult patients with 299 IONM alerts. Surgical maneuver led the alert causes (258 alerts/86.3%), with signal loss most commonly occurring at correction or osteotomy (101/33.8% and 95/31.8% respectively). Pedicle screw placement caused 35 alerts (11.7%). Changes in temperature and blood pressure were the third largest category (34/11.4%). Conclusions: The most frequent causes of IONM alerts in ASD surgery were surgical maneuvers such as correction, osteotomy, and pedicle screw placement. This information provides spine surgeons with a quantitative perspective on the causes of IONM changes and show that most occur at predictable times during ASD surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Large metastatic lesions of the diaphysis can cause considerable pain and result in difficult surgical challenges. Resection and cemented intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction offer one solution to the problem, but it is an extensive operation that might not be tolerated well by a debilitated patient. The risk of aseptic loosening and revision after intercalary endoprosthetic replacement has varied in previous reports, which have not examined the risk of revision in the context of patient survival. Questions/purposes (1) In a small case series from one institution, what is the survivorship of patients after cemented intercalary endoprosthetic replacement for diaphyseal metastasis, and what is the cumulative incidence of revision for any reason? (2) What are the complications associated with cemented intercalary reconstruction? (3) What is the functional outcome after the procedure as assessed by the MSTS93 score? Methods We retrospectively studied 19 patients with diaphyseal long bone metastases who were treated with resection and cemented intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction by five participating surgeons at one referral center from 2006 to 2017. There were 11 men and eight women with a median age of 59 years (range 46 to 80 years). The minimum follow-up required for this series was 12 months; however, patients who reached an endpoint (death, radiographic loosening, or implant revision) before that time were included. One of these 19 patients was lost to follow-up but was not known to have died. The median follow-up was 24 months (range 0 to 116 months). Eight of the 19 patients presented with pathologic fractures. Ten of 19 lesions involved the femur, and nine of 19 were in the humerus. The most common pathologic finding was renal cell carcinoma (in 10 of 19). Survival estimates of the patients were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A competing risks estimator was used to evaluate implant survival, using death of the patient as the competing risk. We also estimated the cumulative incidence of aseptic loosening in a competing risk analysis. Radiographs were analyzed for radiolucency at the bone-cement-implant interfaces, fracture, integrity of the cement mantle, and component position stability. Complications were assessed using record review that was performed by an individual who was not involved in the initial care of the patients. Functional outcomes were assessed using the MSTS93 scoring system. Results Patient survivorship was 68% (95% CI 50% to 93%) at 1 year, 53% (95% CI 34% to 81%) at 2 years, and 14% (95% CI 4% to 49%) at 5 years; the median patient survival time after reconstruction was 25 months (range 0 to 116 months). In the competing risk analysis, using death as the competing risk, the cumulative incidence of implant revision was 11% (95% CI 2% to 29%) at 1 year and 16% (95% CI 4% to 36%) at 5 years after surgery; however, the cumulative incidence of aseptic loosening (with death as a competing risk) was 22%(95% CI 6% to 43%) at 1 year and 33% (95% CI 13% to 55%) at 5 years after surgery. Other complications included one patient who died postoperatively of cardiac arrest, one patient with delayed wound healing, two patients with bone recurrence, and one patient who experienced local soft tissue recurrence that was excised without implant revision. Total MSTS93 scores improved from a mean of 12.6 6 8.1 (42% 6 27%) preoperatively to 21.5 6 5.0 (72% 6 17%) at 3 months postoperatively (p < 0.001) and 21.6 6 8.5 (72% 6 28%) at 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.98; 3 months versus 2 years). Conclusion Resection of diaphyseal metastases with intercalary reconstruction can provide stability and shortterm improvement in function for patients with advanced metastatic disease and extensive cortical destruction. Aseptic loosening is a concern, particularly in the humerus; however, the competing risk analysis suggests the procedure is adequate for most patients, because many in this series died of disease without undergoing revision. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]