Study Design. Retrospective review. Objective. To determine if adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) improves overall survival (OS) following surgical resection of chordomas. Summary of Background Data. The role of RT for the treatment of chordomas remains incompletely described. Previous studies have not found adjuvant RT to improve OS, but these studies did not group patients based on surgical margin status or radiation dose or modality. We used the National Cancer Database to investigate the role of RT in chordomas following surgical resection. Methods. Patients were stratified based on surgical margin status (positive vs. negative). Utilizing the Kaplan–Meier method, OS was compared between treatment modalities (surgical resection alone, therapeutic RT alone, and surgical resection plus therapeutic RT). OS was subsequently compared between patients treated with palliative dose (<40 Gy), low dose (40–65 Gy), and high dose (>65 Gy) RT. Similarly, OS was compared between advanced RT modalities including proton beam therapy (PBT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). A multivariable model was used to determine adjusted variables predictive of mortality. Results. One thousand four hundred seventy eight chordoma patients were identified; skull base (n = 567), sacral (n = 551), and mobile spine (n = 360). Surgical resection and therapeutic adjuvant RT improved 5-year survival in patients with positive surgical margins (82% vs. 71%, P = 0.03). No clear survival benefit was observed with the addition of adjuvant RT in patients with negative surgical margins. High dose RT was associated with improved OS compared with palliative and low dose RT (P < 0.001). Advanced RT techniques and SRS were associated with improved OS compared with EBRT. In the multivariate analysis high dose advanced RT (>65 Gy) was superior to EBRT. Conclusion. Patients with positive surgical margins benefit from adjuvant RT. Optimal OS is associated with adjuvant RT administered with advanced techniques and cumulative dose more than 65 Gy. Level of Evidence: 4
Background:The vascularized free fibula epiphyseal transfer provides an option for the preservation of limb lengthening after resection of the proximal humerus in pediatric sarcoma patients. The purpose of this study was to provide a long-term follow-up of longitudinal growth patterns and outcomes after free fibula epiphyseal transfer in upper extremity reconstruction.Methods:A retrospective review of 4 patients who underwent free fibula epiphyseal transfer after oncologic resection of the proximal humerus for osteosarcoma was performed. Oncologic details that could affect outcomes were included in the review: primary tumor pathology, location of malignancy, and presence of recurrence. Details on the reconstruction included longitudinal growth of the flap from the time of implantation to the most recently available radiograph and postoperative complications. The length of the fibula over time was measured from the humeral head to the olecranon process.Results:All patients were alive at the start of this study. The average longitudinal growth rate of the free fibula epiphyseal transfer was 0.54 ± 0.18 cm/y, and patients demonstrated satisfactory and consistent longitudinal bone growth and hypertrophy over time. All 4 patients suffered from a complication of postoperative fibula graft fracture, and 1 of 4 patients experienced unremitting peroneal nerve damage. All patients demonstrated normal wrist and hand motion with a normal arc of elbow flexion and extension.Conclusion:This study demonstrates that the vascularized fibula epiphyseal transfer offers the ability to preserve longitudinal limb growth and hypertrophy throughout adolescence.
Background Although chondrosarcomas (CS) are mostly considered radioresistant, advancements in radiotherapy have brought attention to its use in these patients. Using the largest registry of primary bone tumors, the National Cancer Database (NCDB), we sought to better characterize the current use of radiotherapy in CS patients and identify any potential survival benefit with higher radiation doses and advanced radiation therapies. Methods We retrospectively analyzed CS patients in the NCDB from 2004 to 2015 who underwent radiotherapy. The Kaplan–Meier method with statistical comparisons was used to identify which individual variables related to dosage and delivery modality were associated with improved 5-year survival rates. Multivariate proportional hazards analyses were performed to determine independent predictors of survival. Results Of 5,427 patients with a histologic diagnosis of chondrosarcoma, 680 received a form of radiation therapy (13%). The multivariate proportional hazards analysis controlling for various patient, tumor, and treatment variables, including RT dose and modality, demonstrated that while overall radiation therapy (RT) was not associated with improved survival (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76–1.20), when examining just the patient cohort with positive surgical margins, RT trended towards improved survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.58–1.13). When comparing advanced and conventional RT modalities, advanced RT was associated with significantly decreased mortality (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.80). However, advanced modality and high-dose RT both trended only toward improved survival compared to patients who did not receive any RT (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52–1.06 and HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71–1.21, respectively). Conclusions Despite the suggested radioresistance of CS, modern radiotherapies may present a treatment option for certain patients. Our results support a role for high-dose, advanced radiation therapies in selected high-risk CS patients with tumors in surgically challenging locations or unplanned positive margins. While there is an associated survival rate benefit, further, prospective studies are needed for validation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.