Impact of Surgical Resection and Reasons for Poor Prognosis of Pelvic Osteosarcoma Based on the Bone Tumor Registry in Japan.
pelvic osteosarcoma
prognosis
propensity score
surgical resection
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2021
01 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
24
05
2021
revised:
24
06
2021
accepted:
29
06
2021
entrez:
20
7
2021
pubmed:
21
7
2021
medline:
21
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pelvic osteosarcoma has a poor prognosis compared to osteosarcomas in other locations, and the reasons for this remain unknown. Surgical resection of pelvic osteosarcoma is technically demanding and often results in dysfunction and complications. In this study, we investigated the reasons underlying the poor prognosis of pelvic osteosarcoma by comparing it to femoral osteosarcoma using data from the Bone Tumor Registry in Japan. We used propensity score analysis to determine whether surgical resection of pelvic osteosarcoma improved its prognosis. We demonstrated that pelvic osteosarcoma had a poor prognosis because it occurred more often in the elderly, often had larger tumor size, and had metastasis at presentation more often in comparison to femoral osteosarcoma. These three factors were also associated with the non-surgical treatment of pelvic osteosarcoma, which also led to a poor outcome. The overall survival rate was only comparable in pelvic osteosarcoma and femoral osteosarcoma in cases treated with surgical resection. Propensity score analysis revealed that surgical treatment improved the prognosis of pelvic osteosarcoma. As such, we propose that surgical resection should be considered based on tumor stage and patient age in order to improve the prognosis of pelvic osteosarcoma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34282764
pii: cancers13133320
doi: 10.3390/cancers13133320
pmc: PMC8268378
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : 20K21470
Références
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Jan;21(1):263-8
pubmed: 23975321
J Pediatr Orthop. 1998 May-Jun;18(3):350-5
pubmed: 9600562
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 20;23(9):2004-11
pubmed: 15774791
Cancer. 2012 Sep 15;118(18):4555-63
pubmed: 22359113
Bone Joint J. 2016 Apr;98-B(4):555-63
pubmed: 27037440
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Sep;438:110-5
pubmed: 16131878
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Nov 1;25(21):6346-6356
pubmed: 31175097
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Mar;88(3):575-82
pubmed: 16510825
J Surg Oncol. 2009 Jul 1;100(1):48-54
pubmed: 19384906
Int Orthop. 2019 Jul;43(7):1741-1747
pubmed: 31011764
Eur J Cancer. 2003 Jan;39(2):157-63
pubmed: 12509946
Tumori. 2012 Nov;98(6):702-8
pubmed: 23389355
Curr Oncol Rep. 2018 Feb 28;20(2):13
pubmed: 29492676
BMC Cancer. 2018 May 31;18(1):614
pubmed: 29855362
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999 Sep;81(5):796-802
pubmed: 10530839
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jan;472(1):349-59
pubmed: 23975252
Sarcoma. 2014;2014:842709
pubmed: 25100921
Cancer. 2009 Apr 1;115(7):1531-43
pubmed: 19197972
Bone Joint J. 2017 Feb;99-B(2):267-275
pubmed: 28148672
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Jan;91(1):24-32
pubmed: 22042339
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Mar;(348):196-207
pubmed: 9553553
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Jul;89(7):943-7
pubmed: 17673591
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jan 15;21(2):334-41
pubmed: 12525527
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Mar;109:36-50
pubmed: 30685685
J Surg Oncol. 2001 Oct;78(2):90-100
pubmed: 11579386
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):510-8
pubmed: 18855090
J Surg Oncol. 2008 Nov 1;98(6):415-20
pubmed: 18792969
Cancer. 2020 Sep 15;126(18):4188-4196
pubmed: 32658315