IntroductionSarcoma is a rare type of cancer. The incidence increases with age and elderly patients may have comorbidity that affects the prognosis. The aim of this study was to describe the type and prevalence of comorbidity in a nationwide population-based study in Denmark from 2000–2013 and to analyse the impact of the different comorbidities on mortality.Material and methodsThe Danish Sarcoma Registry is a national clinical database containing all patients with sarcoma in the extremities or trunk wall from 2000 and onwards. By linking data to other registries, we were able to get patient information on an individual level including date and cause of death as well as the comorbidity type up to 10 years prior to the sarcoma diagnosis. Based on diseases in the Charlson Comorbidity Index, we pooled the patients into six categories: no comorbidity, cardiopulmonary disease, gastrointestinal disease, neurovascular disease, malignant neoplasms, and miscellaneous (diabetes, renal and connective tissue diseases). 2167 patients were included.ResultsThe prevalence of comorbidity was 20%. For patients with localized disease, comorbidity increased the disease-specific mortality significantly (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.36–2.13)). For patients with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis, comorbidity did not affect the disease-specific mortality (HR 1.05 (95% CI 0.78–1.42)). The presence of another cancer diagnosis within 10 years prior to the sarcoma diagnosis was the only significant independent prognostic factor of disease-specific mortality with an increase of 66% in mortality rate compared to patients with no comorbidity (HR 1,66 (95% CI 1.22–2.25)).ConclusionComorbidity is a strong independent prognostic factor of mortality in patients with localized disease. This study emphasizes the need for optimizing the general health of comorbid patients in order to achieve a survival benefit from treatment of patients with localized disease, as this is potentially modifiable.
We were not able to identify an increased survival after surgery for MBD over time, however, we found an increased interval from diagnosis to surgery for MBD. This study suggests that revision surgery for MBD does not pose a risk for survival.
Background. Compared to conventional hip arthroplasty, endoprosthetic reconstruction after tumor resection is associated with a substantially increased risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with reported rates of around 10% in a recent systematic review. The optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for this patient population remains unknown. Material and Methods. To establish the infection rate associated with prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis in our department, we performed a retrospective review of all adult patients who underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur after tumor resection for metastatic bone disease during a 4-year period from 2010 to 2013 (n = 105 patients). Results. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was administrated for an extended duration of a mean of 7.4 days. The overall infection rate was 3.6% (4/111 implants), infection free survival was 96% at 2 years, and the risk of amputation associated with infection was 25% (1/4 patients). Discussion. Preemptive eradication of bacterial contamination may be of value in certain clinical situations, where the risk level and consequences of implant-associated infection are unacceptable. Our findings suggest that extended postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of PJI in patients undergoing tumor resection and endoprosthetic replacement for metastatic bone disease associated impending or de facto pathologic fractures of the proximal femur.
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.