Background and purposeTelangiectatic osteosarcoma (TOS), a rare variant of osteosarcoma, may be easily misdiagnosed as aneurysmal bone cyst (ABC). The aims of this study were to investigate the diagnostic and prognostic factors of TOS by reviewing our experience with TOS and to develop a diagnostic model that may distinguish TOS from ABC.Materials and methodsWe identified 51 cases of TOS treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University from March 2001 to January 2016 and reviewed their records, imaging information and pathological studies. A diagnostic model was developed to differentiate TOS and ABC by Bayes discriminant analysis and was evaluated. The log-rank test was used to analyze the prognostic factors of TOS and to compare the outcome differences between TOS and other high-grade osteosarcoma subtypes.ResultsThe multi-disciplinary diagnostic method employed that combined clinical, imaging, and pathological studies enhanced the diagnostic accuracy. Age 18 years or younger and pathologic fracture were more common among the TOS patients than among the ABC patients (P = .004 and .005, respectively). The average white blood cell (WBC), platelet, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) values of the TOS patients were higher than those of the ABC patients (P = .002, .003, .007, and .007, respectively). Our diagnostic model, including the aforementioned factors, accurately predicted 62% and 78% of the TOS patients in the training and validation sets, respectively. The 5-year estimates of event-free survival and overall survival of the TOS patients were 52.5 ± 9.4% and 54.9 ± 8.8%, respectively, which were similar to those of patients with other osteosarcoma subtypes (P = .950 and .615, respectively). Tumor volume and the LDH level were predictive prognostic factors (P = .040 and .044) but not the presence of pathologic fracture or misdiagnosis (P = .424 and .632, all respectively).ConclusionsThe multi-disciplinary diagnostic method and diagnostic model based on predictive factors, i.e., age, the presence of pathologic fracture, and platelet, LDH, ALP and WBC levels, aided the differentiation of TOS and ABC. Smaller tumors and normal LDH levels were associated with better outcomes.
BACKGROUND More effective therapies are needed to treat progressive desmoid tumors when active surveillance and systemic therapy fail. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of sandwich isolation surgery on the local control of progressive desmoid tumors involving neurovascular bundles. METHODS A total of 27 patients with progressive desmoid tumors at extremities involving neurovascular bundles who received surgery at our hospital between August 2014 and August 2018 were identified. A total of 13 patients received sandwich isolation surgery, in which R2 resection was performed in neurovasculature-involving regions, and a biomaterial patch was used to envelop involved neurovascular structures and isolate residual tumors. In non-neurovasculature-involving regions, wide resection was performed without isolation. A total of 14 patients received traditional surgery, which included tumor resection without isolation procedure. RESULTS In sandwich isolation group, tumor progressions and local recurrences occurred in 3 patients outside the isolated neurovasculature-involving regions. However, no progressions or recurrences occurred in any patients in the isolated neurovasculature-involving regions where R2 resection was performed. Sandwich isolation surgery group and traditional surgery group shared similar baseline clinical characteristics. The estimated 3-yr event-free survival rate was 76.9% after sandwich isolation surgery, and 32.7% after traditional surgery (P = .025). Patients who received sandwich isolation surgery were less likely to have local recurrence (hazard ratio: 0.257, P = .040). No complications were noted except intermittent mild pain in operative regions (2 cases). CONCLUSION Sandwich isolation surgery is effective and safe for local control of desmoid tumors involving neurovascular bundles.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
BACKGROUND:Robotic surgery may be advantageous in neurogenic sacral tumor resection but only a few studies reported robotic-assisted neurogenic sacral tumor resection.OBJECTIVE:To propose a new surgical strategy for robotic-assisted benign sacral neurogenic tumor resection and introduce the ultrasonic osteotomy surgical system in robotic surgery.METHODS:Twelve patients who had robotic-assisted primary benign sacral neurogenic tumor resection between May 2015 and March 2021 were included. Our surgical strategy divides tumors into 4 types. Type I: Presacral tumors with diameter <10 cm. Type II: Narrow-base tumors involving the sacrum with diameter <10 cm. Type III: Broad-base tumors involving the sacrum with diameter <10 cm. Type IV: Tumors involving sacral nerve roots ≥2 levels and/or with diameter ≥10 cm.RESULTS:Five type I, 5 type II, and 1 type III patients underwent tumor resection via an anterior approach, and 1 type IV patient via a combined approach. The median operation time, blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay of type I and II were much less than those of type IV. The ultrasonic osteotomy surgical system facilitated osteotomy in 2 type II and 1 type III patients. Eleven patients had total resections, and 1 type III patient had a partial resection. During the follow-up period of 7.9 to 70.9 months (median: 28.5 months), no local recurrences or deaths were noted.CONCLUSION:With the largest single-center series to our knowledge, this surgical strategy helped to guide robotic-assisted benign sacral neurogenic tumor resection. The ultrasonic osteotomy surgical system was effective for type II and III.
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.