No abstract

No abstract

The evaluation of surgical margin is useful in determining the curative success of surgical treatment of musculoskeletal sarcoma and the degree to which later surgery will be reduced by the preoperative therapy. However, until recently no reliable evaluation method has been developed for these purposes. In this paper we propose a new method for evaluating the surgical margin as drafted in 1989 by the Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA). In this method, surgical margin was classified into four types based on the distance between the surgical margin and the reactive zone of the tumour. These classifications of surgical margin (in order to surgical extent) are curative wide margin (curative margin), wide margin, marginal margin, and intralesional margin. The surgical margin is said to be curative if the margin is more than 5 cm outside the reactive zone. It is referred to as wide if the margin is less than 5 cm. Similarly, a margin that is in the reactive zone is considered as marginal, and a margin passing through a tumour as intralesional. Moreover, wide margin is classified as adequate (at least 2 cm outside the reactive zone) or inadequate (1 cm). In our evaluation, a "thin" barrier is considered to be a 2-cm thickness of normal tissue, a "thick" barrier as a 3-cm thickness, and joint cartilage is said to be equivalent to a 5-cm thickness. In addition, a surgical margin that is outside a barrier, with normal tissue between the barrier and the reactive zone of the tumour, is considered to be curative. This method was applied in 457 cases (involving 499 surgeries) at the Cancer Institute Hospital to determine clinical significance in the treatment of musculoskeletal sarcoma (1979-1994). From the results of this study we were able to conclude that this evaluation method can be highly useful in clinical practice for establishing optimum surgery. Moreover, we found that the safety margin for high-grade musculoskeletal sarcoma is a curative margin providing an adequate wide margin of 3 cm or more when preoperative therapy is not performed or is not effective, while the safety margin for high-grade sarcoma that responds to preoperative chemo- or radiotherapy seems to be an adequate wide margin of 2 cm. Here, radiotherapy is more effective compared to chemotherapy for reducing surgical margin. An inadequate wide margin, however, combined with radiotherapy, is not enough to ensure local curative success following surgery for musculoskeletal sarcoma.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Treatment with ZA was effective in reducing SREs or delaying their appearance in patients with bone metastases from differentiated thyroid carcinoma.

Purpose: The role of chemotherapy (CT) and radiotherapy (RT) for management of extraskeletal osteosarcoma (ESOS) remains controversial. We examined disease outcomes for ESOS patients and investigated the association between CT/RT with recurrence and survival. Patients and methods: Retrospective review at 25 international sarcoma centers identified patients ≥18 years old treated for ESOS from 1971 to 2016. Patient/tumour characteristics, treatment, local/systemic recurrence, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional-hazards regression and cumulative incidence competing risks analysis were performed. Results: 370 patients with localized ESOS treated definitively with surgery presented with mainly deep tumours (n = 294, 80%). 122 patients underwent surgical resection alone, 96 (26%) also received CT, 70 (19%) RT and 82 (22%) both adjuvants. Five-year survival for patients with localized ESOS was 56% (95% CI 51%-62%). Almost half of patients (n = 173, 47%) developed recurrence: local 9% (35/370), distant 28% (102/370) or both 10% (36/370). Considering death as a competing event, there was no significant difference in cumulative incidence of local or systemic recurrence between patients who received CT, RT, both or neither (local p = 0.50, systemic p = 0.69). Multiple regression Cox analysis showed a significant association between RT and decreased local recurrence (HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.26-0.80], p = 0.01). Conclusion: Although the use of RT significantly decreased local recurrences, CT did not decrease the risk of systemic recurrence, and neither CT, nor RT nor both were associated with improved survival in patients with localized ESOS. Our results do not support the use of CT; however, adjuvant RT demonstrates benefit in patients with locally resectable ESOS.