Search

Purpose: Machine learning (ML) models have been used to predict cancer survival in several sarcoma subtypes. However, none have investigated extremity leiomyosarcoma (LMS). ML is a powerful tool that has the potential to better prognosticate extremity LMS., Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was queried for cases of histologic extremity LMS (n = 634). Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were recorded, and ML models were developed to predict 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival. The best performing ML model was externally validated using an institutional cohort of extremity LMS patients (n = 46)., Results: All ML models performed best at the 1-year time point and worst at the 5-year time point. On internal validation within the SEER cohort, the best models had c-statistics of 0.75-0.76 at the 5-year time point. The Random Forest (RF) model was the best performing model and used for external validation. This model also performed best at 1-year and worst at 5-year on external validation with c-statistics of 0.90 and 0.87, respectively. The RF model was well calibrated on external validation. This model has been made publicly available at https://rachar.shinyapps.io/lms_app/ CONCLUSIONS: ML models had excellent performance for survival prediction of extremity LMS. Future studies incorporating a larger institutional cohort may be needed to further validate the ML model for LMS prognostication., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) is a frequent subtype within the heterogeneous group of soft tissue sarcomas (STS). The use of radiotherapy (RT) has become an important component of a multimodal approach to treating STS. Key studies have demonstrated that the addition of RT improves rates of local control in STS, though the effect on overall survival (OS) is less clear. Furthermore, there is very limited and conflicting evidence regarding effect of RT on overall survival in UPS. The purposes of this investigation were to examine the association between RT and OS in UPS patients undergoing surgical resection and to determine independent prognostic indicators of OS in this patient population., Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent surgical treatment for primary UPS from 1993 to 2021. Associations between RT and OS were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank testing. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine independent prognostic factors of OS., Results: One hundred and fourteen patients who underwent surgical resection of primary UPS were included in the study. Ninety-six (84.2 %) patients received RT perioperatively. Use of RT was associated with improved OS on log-rank testing (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.11-0.36; p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, RT was an independent predictor of improved OS (HR 0.18; 95 % CI 0.09-0.39; p < 0.001) while metastasis at presentation (HR 4.82; 95 % CI 2.26-10.27; p < 0.001) and older age (HR 1.92; 95 % CI 1.20-3.36; p = 0.02) were predictive of decreased OS. Use of RT was not significantly associated with a lower rate of local recurrence in our cohort (p = 0.49)., Conclusions: Use of RT in combination with surgery was an independent prognostic indicator of improved overall survival in UPS patients. Older age and metastasis at presentation were associated with worse overall survival. Based on this and other available studies, treatment for UPS should involve limb-sparing resection when feasible with RT to ensure optimal survival., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest ATB: BMJ Case Reports: Editorial or governing board; Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research: Editorial or governing board; Exparel/pacira: Stock or stock Options; Journal of Oncology Practice: Editorial or governing board; Journal of Surgical Oncology: ad hoc reviewer; Lancet - Oncology: Editorial or governing board; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society: Board or committee member; Onkos Surgical: Paid consultant; Pediatric Blood and Cancer: Editorial or governing board; Rare Tumors: Editorial or governing board; Rush Orthopedic Journal: Editorial or governing board. MWC: Educational speaking: Stryker Spine; Consulting: Orthofix, Alphatec Spine, HT Medical, Spinal Elements; Royalties: Alphatec Spine, Spinal Elements; Committee or Board Member: MSTS, CSRS, AO Spine; Research/fellowship grants: CSRS, AO Spine., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Proactive deprescribing is the process of tapering or stopping a medicine before harm occurs. This study aimed to specify and validate, with an international sample of healthcare professionals, a proactive deprescribing process of steps and constituent activities. We developed a proactive deprescribing process framework of steps which we populated with literature-derived activities required to be undertaken by healthcare professionals. We distributed a survey to healthcare professionals internationally, requesting for each activity the frequency of its occurrence in practice and whether it was important. Extended response questions investigated barriers and enablers to deprescribing. The 263 survey respondents were from 25 countries. A proactive deprescribing process was developed comprising four steps: (1) identify a patient for potential stop of a medicine, (2) evaluate a patient for potential stop of a medicine, (3) stop a medicine(s), and (4) monitor after a medicine has been stopped, and 17 activities. All activities were considered important by ≥70% of respondents. Nine activities required healthcare professionals to undertake in direct partnership with the patient and/or caregiver, of which seven were only sometimes undertaken. Deprescribing interventions should include a focus on addressing the barriers and enablers of healthcare professionals undertaking the activities that require direct partnership with the patient and/or caregiver., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is most often treated with intralesional curettage; however, periarticular lesions have been shown to increase risk for osteoarthritis. Additionally, the location of these lesions may occasionally preclude a joint-sparing procedure in recurrent tumors. This study sought to investigate rates of secondary arthroplasty in long-term follow-up of knee GCTB. Cases of knee GCTB treated at our institution were reviewed. Rates of recurrence and secondary arthroplasty were recorded, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed. The records of 40 patients were reviewed. Local recurrence occurred in 25% of patients. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) probability was 87.4% (95% CI, 77.0-97.7), 72.4% (95% CI, 57.6-87.2), and 72.4% (95% CI, 57.6-87.2), respectively. Function improved after surgery with a mean preoperative MSTS score of 14.9 (standard deviation [SD] 8.4) and mean postoperative MSTS score of 25.1 (SD 5.6) ( p <0.001). Three patients had evidence of radiographic osteoarthritis at the last follow-up though they did not require arthroplasty. Arthroplasty was performed as a secondary procedure in six patients. Five patients underwent arthroplasty for recurrent tumors after initial treatment with curettage and one patient underwent patellar arthroplasty for osteoarthritis after initial treatment with an allograft composite arthroplasty. Arthroplasty is performed as a secondary procedure in patients with GCTB at a relatively infrequent rate and more often for cases of recurrent disease than for osteoarthritis. Overall, patients treated for GCTB have improved functional outcomes after surgery than before. Large, multi-institutional studies may be required to assess the incidence of secondary osteoarthritis requiring arthroplasty as this was an infrequent finding in our cohort., Competing Interests: A.T.B.: (BMJ Case Reports: Editorial or governing board; Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research: Editorial or governing board; exparel/pacira: Stock or stock Options; Journal of Oncology Practice: Editorial or governing board; Journal of Surgical Oncology: ad hoc reviewer; Lancet - Oncology: Editorial or governing board; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society: Board or committee member; Onkos Surgical: Paid consultant; Pediatric Blood and Cancer: Editorial or governing board; Rare Tumors: Editorial or governing board; Rush Orthopedic Journal: Editorial or governing board; Swim Across America Cancer Research Grant: Research support); S.G.: (Onkos Surgical: Paid consultant; Stock or stock Options; USMI: Stock or stock Options); M.W.C.: (Alphatec Spine: IP royalties; Paid consultant; AO Spine North America: Board or committee member; Research support; Cervical Spine Research Society: Board or committee member; CSRS: Research support; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: Paid presenter or speaker; K2M: Paid presenter or speaker; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society: Board or committee member; North American Spine Society: Board or committee member; Orthofix, Inc.: Paid presenter or speaker; Spinal Elements: Paid consultant. All other authors have no pertinent financial disclosures or pertinent conflicts of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)