Background NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 sarcoma reference centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTB) aiming to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients. Since 2010, presentation to an MDTB and expert pathological review are mandatory for sarcoma patients nationwide. In the present work, the impact of surgery in a reference center on the survival of sarcoma patients investigated using this national NETSARC registry. Patients and methods Patients’ characteristics and follow-up are prospectively collected and data monitored. Descriptive, uni- and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors were conducted in the entire series ( N = 35 784) and in the subgroup of incident patient population ( N = 29 497). Results Among the 35 784 patients, 155 different histological subtypes were reported. 4310 (11.6%) patients were metastatic at diagnosis. Previous cancer, previous radiotherapy, neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), and Li–Fraumeni syndrome were reported in 12.5%, 3.6%, 0.7%, and 0.1% of patients respectively. Among the 29 497 incident patients, 25 851 (87.6%) patients had surgical removal of the sarcoma, including 9949 (33.7%) operated in a NETSARC center. Location, grade, age, size, depth, histotypes, gender, NF1, and surgery outside a NETSARC center all correlated to overall survival (OS), local relapse free survival (LRFS), and event-free survival (EFS) in the incident patient population. NF1 history was one of the strongest adverse prognostic factors for LRFS, EFS, and OS. Presentation to an MDTB was associated with an improved LRFS and EFS, but was an adverse prognostic factor for OS if surgery was not carried out in a reference center. In multivariate analysis, surgery in a NETSARC center was positively correlated with LRFS, EFS, and OS [ P < 0.001 for all, with a hazard ratio of 0.681 (95% CI 0.618–0.749) for OS]. Conclusion This nationwide registry of sarcoma patients shows that surgical treatment in a reference center reduces the risk of relapse and death.

BackgroundSurgical resection with curative intent for giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) may be associated with severe morbidity. This interim analysis evaluated reduction in surgical invasiveness after denosumab treatment in patients with resectable GCTB.MethodsPatients with primary or recurrent GCTB, for whom the initially planned surgery was associated with functional compromise or morbidity, received denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks (additional doses on days 8 and 15 of the first cycle). Planned and actual GCTB-related surgical procedures before and after denosumab treatment were reported. Patients were followed for surgical outcome, adverse events, and recurrence following resection.ResultsOverall, 222 patients were evaluable for surgical downstaging (54 % were women; median age 34 years). Lesions (67 % primary and 33 % recurrent) were located in the axial (15 %) and appendicular skeleton (85 %). At the data cutoff date, most patients had not yet undergone surgery (n = 106; 48 %) or had a less morbid procedure (n = 84; 38 %) than originally planned. Median (interquartile range) time on denosumab was 19.5 (12.4–28.6) months for the 106 patients who had not undergone surgery and were continuing on monthly denosumab. Native joint preservation was 96 % (n = 24/25) for patients with planned joint/prosthesis replacement and 86 % (n = 30/35) for patients with planned joint resection/fusion. Of the 116 patients who had surgery (median postsurgical follow-up 13.0 [8.5–17.9] months), local recurrence occurred in 17 (15 %) patients.ConclusionFor patients with resectable GCTB, neoadjuvant denosumab therapy resulted in beneficial surgical downstaging, including either no surgery or a less morbid surgical procedure.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1245/s10434-015-4634-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Unconstrained tripolar hip implants provide an additional bearing using a mobile polyethylene component between the prosthetic head and the outer metal shell. Such a design increases the effective head diameter and therefore is an attractive option in challenging situations of unstable total hip arthroplasties. We report our experience with 54 patients treated using this dual mobility implant in such situations. We ascertained its ability to restore and maintain stability, and examined component loosening and component failure. At a minimum followup of 2.2 years (mean, 4 years; range, 2.2-6

No abstract