Segmental excision versus intralesional curettage with adjuvant therapy for giant cell tumour of bone

Japanese orthopaedic association (JOA) clinical practice guidelines on the management of malignant bone tumors - Secondary publication

BACKGROUND

In Japan, there are currently no general guidelines for the treatment of primary malignant bone tumors. Therefore, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association established a committee to develop guidelines for the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of primary malignant bone tumors for medical professionals in clinical practice.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed in accordance with "Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Handbook 2014″ and "Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual 2017". The Japanese Orthopaedic Association's Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Committee established guideline development and systematic review committees, drawing members from orthopedic specialists leading the diagnosis and treatment of bone and soft tissue tumors. Pediatricians, radiologists, and diagnostic pathologists were added to both committees because of the importance of multidisciplinary treatment. Based on the diagnosis and treatment algorithm for primary malignant bone tumors, important decision-making points were selected, and clinical questions (CQ) were determined. The strength of recommendation was rated on two levels and the strength of evidence was rated on four levels. The recommendations published were selected based on agreement by 70% or more of the voters.

RESULTS

The guideline development committee examined the important clinical issues in the clinical algorithm and selected 22 CQs. The systematic review committee reviewed the evidence concerning each CQ and a clinical value judgment was added by experts. Eventually, 25 questions were published and the text of each recommendation was determined.

CONCLUSION

Since primary malignant bone tumors are rare, there is a dearth of strong evidence based on randomized controlled trials, and recommendations cannot be applied to all the patients. In clinical practice, appropriate treatment of patients with primary malignant bone tumors should be based on the histopathological diagnosis and degree of progression of each case, using these guidelines as a reference.

Application of biomaterials in periodontal tissue repair and reconstruction in the presence of inflammation under periodontitis through the foreign body response: Recent progress and perspectives

Periodontitis would cause dental tissue damage locally. Biomaterials substantially affect the surrounding immune microenvironment through treatment-oriented local inflammatory remodeling in dental periodontitis. This remodeling process is conducive to wound healing and periodontal tissue regeneration. Recent progress in understanding the foreign body response (FBR) and immune regulation, including cell heterogeneity, and cell-cell and cell-material interactions, has provided new insights into the design criteria for biomaterials applied in treatment of periodontitis. This review discusses recent progress and perspectives in the immune regulation effects of biomaterials to augment or reconstruct soft and hard tissue in an inflammatory microenvironment of periodontitis.

Is a Short-course of Preoperative Denosumab as Effective as Prolonged Therapy for Giant Cell Tumor of Bone?

BACKGROUND

Denosumab is an inhibitor of monoclonal receptor activator of nuclear factor-ĸB ligand, approved to treat giant cell tumors of bone (GCTB). It is commonly used for unresectable tumors and for downstaging the tumor to perform less-morbid procedures. Although denosumab has been used extensively for GCTBs, there are no recommendations regarding the duration of therapy. The risk factors associated with local recurrence (LR) in patients receiving preoperative denosumab for GCTB also are unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is short-course (three doses or fewer) preoperative denosumab treatment as effective as longer course (more than three doses) of treatment in terms of achieving a clinical, radiologic, and histologic response in patients with GCTB? (2) Is there an increased risk of LR after short-course denosumab therapy compared with long-course denosumab therapy; and after controlling for confounding variables, what factors were associated with LR after surgery for GCTB in patients receiving preoperative denosumab?

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed using an institutional database of 161 skeletally mature patients with a histologic diagnosis of GCTB who received denosumab between November 2010 and July 2019 to downstage the tumor before surgery. In general, we used denosumab when we thought it would facilitate either resection or curettage (by formation of a sclerotic rim around the osteolytic lesion), when a less-morbid procedure than initially planned might be performed, and in patients with complex presentations like cortical breech and soft tissue extension, pathological fracture, thinning of more than three cortices of the extremity. From 2010 to late 2015, denosumab was administered for approximately 4 to 6 months; starting in late 2015 through 2020, the number of denosumab doses has been reduced. We divided patients into two groups: Those who received three or fewer doses of denosumab (short-course, n = 98) and those who received more than three doses of denosumab (long-course, n = 63). Comparing those in the long-course group with those in the short-course group whose procedures were performed at least 2 years ago, there were no differences in loss to follow-up before 2 years (3% [3 of 98] versus. 3% [2 of 63]). The mean patient age was 30 years (± 6.1) and the mean number of denosumab doses was 4.4 (range 1 to 14). Overall, 77% (37 of 48) of patients taking short-course denosumab and 75% (27 of 36) of patients on long-course denosumab underwent curettage, and the remaining patients with an inadequate bony shell around the tumor or destruction of articular cartilage in both groups underwent tumor resection. With the numbers available, the patients with short- and long-course denosumab were not different in terms of age, sex, MSTS score on presentation, lesion size, lesion location, Campanacci grade, presence of pathological fracture and pulmonary metastasis on presentation, and the type of surgery performed (curettage versus resection). We analyzed the change in the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score, change in Campanacci grade, radiologic objective tumor response (defined as a partial or complete response, per the modified inverse Choi criteria), and histologic response (defined as reduction of more than 90% of osteoclast-like giant cells or a reduction of more than 50% of mesenchymal spindle-like stromal cells, along with evidence of lamellar or woven bone formation, when compared with the biopsy sample) between the two groups (short- and long-course denosumab). LR rates were compared between the two groups, and after controlling for confounding variables, factors associated with LR in all operated patients were analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

RESULTS

With the numbers available, there was no difference between the short- and long-course denosumab groups in terms of mean percentage improvement in MSTS score (20 [± 18.5] versus 24 [± 12.6]; p = 0.37), radiologic objective tumor response (90% [43 of 48] versus 81% [29 of 36]; p = 0.24) and histologic response (79% [38 of 48] versus 83% [30 of 36]; p = 0.81). With the numbers available, there was no difference between the short- and long-course denosumab groups in terms of Kaplan-Meier survivorship free from LR at 5 years after surgery (73% [95% confidence interval, 68 to 76] versus 64% [95% CI 59 to 68]; log-rank p = 0.50). After controlling for potential confounding variables like age, sex, Campanacci grade and MSTS score on presentation, number of denosumab doses administered before surgery, clinical, radiologic and histologic response to denosumab, and time duration between denosumab therapy and surgery, we found that tumors involving the bones of the hand and the foot (hazard ratio 7.4 [95% CI 2.0 to 27.3]; p = 0.009) and curettage (HR 6.4 [95% CI 2.8 to 23.0]; p = 0.037) were independently associated with a higher risk of LR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary, single-center study, we found that a short-course of preoperative denosumab (three or fewer doses) was associated with no differences in clinical scores, histological and radiological response, or LR-free survivorship, compared with longer-course of denosumab (more than three doses). Fewer preoperative doses can reduce the complications and costs associated with more-prolonged therapy. Denosumab must be used cautiously before curettage for GCTB, and only if the benefit of joint salvage outweighs the possibility of LR. However, given the small number of patients, potentially clinically important differences might have been missed, and so our findings need to be confirmed by larger, multicenter, prospective trials.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Extended curettage versus en bloc resection for the treatment of grade 3 giant cell tumour of the knee with pathologic fracture: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

For the treatment of giant cell tumour of the bone (GCTB) around the knee, preserving the native joint confers advantages over scarifying it. But, there is a controversy about the efficacy of intralesional curettage versus en bloc resection for treatment of such lesions. In this study, we compared local recurrence, functional outcomes, and complications of extended curettage and en bloc resection in these lesions.

METHODS

Patients with grade 3 GCTB of the distal femur or proximal tibia who were presented with a pathologic fracture and treated with either en bloc resection (n = 22) or extended curettage (n = 20) were included. The mean follow-up of the patients was 6.4 ± 1.9 years in the resection group and 5.5 ± 2.4 years in the extended curettage group. The primary outcome was a local recurrence. Secondary outcomes were limb function evaluated by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and rate of complications.

RESULTS

Local recurrence was seen in four (20%) patients of the curettage group and three (13.7%) patients of the resection group (P = 0.69). The mean MSTS score was 24 ± 1.9 in the resection group and 26.5 ± 1.3 in the curettage group (P < 0.001). The number of complications was not significantly different between the two study groups (P = 0.49). However, the number of complications that required revision surgery was significantly more in the resection group (P = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

In grade 3 GCTB around the knee with pathologic fracture, extended curettage results in comparable oncologic outcomes to en bloc resection, while providing better function and a lower rate of revision.

Radius' Giant Cell Tumor: Allograft with Conservation of Distal Radioulnar Joint

Purpose  Giant cell tumor of the distal radius are frequent lesions, and different types of surgeries have been described. Functional results, after conservative treatment or arthrodesis, often find a decreased strength and range of motion. The sacrifice of the distal radioulnar joint could be one of the causes. We report the case of a 26-year-old patient who presented with a Campanacci Grade III giant cell tumor of the distal radius. We managed his case by the association of en bloc resection and allograft reconstruction with the preservation of distal radioulnar joint. Hypothesis  This procedure could improve functional results, without increasing the risk of recurrence at 2 years follow-up. Case Report  The originality of our technique was the possibility of distal radioulnar joint conservation. We preserved a long portion of cortex bone all through the ulnar side of the distal radius. We then used an allograft of distal radius, fixed by a reconstruction anatomical plate. Results  At 2 years follow-up, the range of motion was 100° with 60° of palmar flexion, 40° of extension, 75° of pronation, and 70° of supination. Radial and ulnar inclination were 10 and 15°, respectively. MTS (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score) 1993 was 88% and DASH score was 6. Concerning grip strength, it was measured at 85% in comparison with the other side. Pronation and supination strengths were 80 and 73%, respectively, in comparison with the other side. At follow-up, standard X-rays showed no recurrence. The allograft was well integrated. Conclusion  Conservative treatment of the distal radioulnar joint allowed an almost ad integrum recovery, concerning strengths and range of motion. It allows a better functional recovery, without increasing the risk of recurrence.