Four decades ago, specialized chemotherapy regimens turned osteosarcoma, once considered a uniformly fatal disease, into a disease in which a majority of patients survive. Though significant survival gains were made from the 1960s to the 1980s, further outcome improvements appear to have plateaued. This study aims to comprehensively review all significant, published data regarding osteosarcoma and outcome in the modern medical era in order to gauge treatment progress. Our results indicate that published survival improved dramatically from 1960s to 1980s and then leveled, or in some measures decreased. Recurrence rates decreased in the 1970s and then leveled. In contrast, published limb salvage rates have increased significantly every recent decade until the present. Though significant gains have been made in the past, no improvement in published osteosarcoma survival has been seen since 1980, highlighting the importance of a new strategy in the systemic management of this still very lethal condition.

Background Biopsy tissue can be obtained through a fine needle, a wider coring needle, or through an open surgical incision. Though much literature exists regarding the diagnostic yield of these techniques individually, none compare accuracy of diagnosis in the same mass. Questions/purposes We asked how the diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration, core biopsy, and open surgical biopsy compare in regard to identifying malignancy, establishing the exact diagnosis, and guiding the appropriate treatment of soft tissue masses. Patients and MethodsWe prospectively studied 57 patients with palpable extremity soft tissue masses, performing fine-needle aspiration, followed by core biopsy, followed by surgical biopsy of the same mass. Results Open surgical biopsy was 100% accurate on all accounts. With regard to determining malignancy, fineneedle aspiration and core biopsy had 79.17% and 79.2% sensitivity, 72.7% and 81.8% specificity, 67.9% and 76% positive predictive value, 82.8% and 84.4% negative predictive value, and an overall accuracy of 75.4% and 80.7%, respectively. In regard to determining exact diagnosis, fineneedle aspiration had a 33.3% accuracy and core biopsy had a 45.6% accuracy. With regard to eventual treatment, fine-needle aspiration was 38.6% accurate and core biopsy was 49.1% accurate.

Background The proximal femur is the most common site of surgery for bone metastases, and stabilization may be achieved through intramedullary fixation (IMN) or endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR). Intramedullary devices are less expensive, less invasive, and may yield improved function over endoprostheses. However, it is unclear which, if either, has any advantages. Questions/purposes We determined whether function, complications, and survivorship differed between the two approaches. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 158 patients with 159 proximal femur metastatic lesions treated with surgical stabilization. Forty-six were stabilized with IMN and 113 were treated with EPR. The minimum followup was 0.25 months (mean, 16 months; median, 17 months; range, 0.25-86 months). Results The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 24 of 30 (80%) after IMN and 21 of 30 (70%) after EPR. There were 12 complications (26%) in the IMN group, including 10 nonunions, six of which went on to mechanical failure. There were complications in 20 of 113 (18%) of the EPR group, which consisted of 10 dislocations (9%) and 10 infections (9%). There were no mechanical failures with EPR. Both implants remained functional for the limited lifespan of these patients in each group at all time intervals. EPRs were associated with increased implant longevity compared with IMNs (100% versus 85% 5-year survival, respectively) and a decreased rate of mechanical failure (0% versus 11%, respectively) when compared with the intramedullary devices. Conclusions Patients with metastatic disease to the proximal femur may live for long periods of time, and these patients may undergo stabilization with either IMN or EPR with comparable functional scores and the implant survivorship exceeding patient survivorship at all time intervals. Endoprostheses demonstrate a lower mechanical failure rate and a higher rate of implant survivorship without mechanical failure than IMN devices.