Clinicopathologic features and prognosis of osteosarcoma in Turkish adults

Survival Outcomes for Adolescent and Young Adults With Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Patients with adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer are recognized as a vulnerable subpopulation in high-income countries (HICs). Although survival gaps between HIC and low- and middle-income country (LMIC) children with cancer are well described, LMIC AYAs have been neglected. We conducted a systematic review to describe cancer outcomes among LMIC AYAs.

METHODS

We captured English language studies published from 2010 onward reporting LMIC AYA cancer survival outcomes. LMICs were defined according to World Bank 2019 classifications, whereas AYAs were defined as diagnosed between age 15 and 39 years. Cohorts were considered AYA if >75% of patients were AYA, the mean/median age and standard deviation were between 15 and 39 years, or the range was within 5 years of the AYA range (ie, 10-45 years). Cohort characteristics were abstracted, including country, cancer type, and cancer outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 6,207 studies identified by the search strategy, 658 underwent full-text review; 60 met inclusion criteria. No low-income countries were represented. Forty-four (73.3%) studies were conducted in upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) although these represented only 12 of 55 countries currently classified as UMICs. The most common cancers studied were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (n = 13 studies), breast cancer (n = 5), and osteosarcoma (n = 3). Five-year overall survival was highly variable, ranging from 39% to 63% for ALL, 60%-85% for breast cancer, and 47%-83% for osteosarcoma.

CONCLUSION

Although three billion AYAs reside in LMICs, their cancer outcomes are neglected in the current literature. Existing data indicate variable survival, ranging from comparable with HIC outcomes to substantially inferior. These studies, however, represent only a limited number of LMICs and are biased toward UMICs. Systematic efforts to describe and improve LMIC AYA cancer outcomes are required.

A predictive model with a risk-classification system for cancer-specific survival in patients with primary osteosarcoma of long bone

•

Seven clinical factors were significantly related to the prognosis of patients with long bone osteosarcoma.

•

The established nomogram can help surgeons evaluate the prognosis of osteosarcoma patients in the most common sites.

•

High-risk individuals can be identified through risk-stratification system.

Background

Osteosarcoma (OS), most commonly occurring in long bone, is a group of malignant tumors with high incidence in adolescents. No individualized model has been developed to predict the prognosis of primary long bone osteosarcoma (PLBOS) and the current AJCC TNM staging system lacks accuracy in prognosis prediction. We aimed to develop a nomogram based on the clinicopathological factors affecting the prognosis of PLBOS patients to help clinicians predict the cancer-specific survival (CSS) of PLBOS patients.

Method

We studied 1199 PLBOS patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2015 and randomly divided the dataset into training and validation cohorts at a proportion of 7:3. Independent prognostic factors determined by stepwise multivariate Cox analysis were included in the nomogram and risk-stratification system. C-index, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to verify the performance of the nomogram.

Results

Age, Histological type, Surgery of primary site, Tumor size, Local extension, Regional lymph node (LN) invasion, and Distant metastasis were identified as independent prognostic factors. C-indexes, calibration curves and DCAs of the nomogram indicating that the nomogram had good discrimination and validity. The risk-stratification system based on the nomogram showed significant differences (P < 0.05) in CSS among different risk groups.

Conclusion

We established a nomogram with risk-stratification system to predict CSS in PLBOS patients and demonstrated that the nomogram had good performance. This model can help clinicians evaluate prognoses, identify high-risk individuals, and give individualized treatment recommendation of PLBOS patients.

Comparison of clinical features, management and outcomes of osteosarcoma located in proximal fibula and proximal tibia: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

The aim of this study was to compare proximal fibular and proximal tibial sites regarding osteosarcoma in the proximal crus. Furthermore, we proposed a hypothesis explaining the differences.

Methods

From Jaunary 2000 to February 2015, 28 patients with non-metastatic proximal fibular osteosarcoma and 214 patients with non-metastatic proximal tibial osteosarcoma underwent surgery were identified in our center. All clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching of patients in a 1:2 ratio was conducted based on age, gender and Enneking stage. To analyze possible factors resulting in amputation, we investigated extraosseous tumor volumes (ETVS), the nearest of the blood vessel to reactive zone (NBR) and the nearest of the blood vessel to tumor (NBT).

Results

Amputation rates were higher in the proximal fibula cohort (35.7%) than in the proximal tibia cohort (14.3%; p = 0.046). Comparing possible clinical characteristics related with amputation between two cohorts, the proximal fibula cohort had larger ETVS (p = 0.000). Moreover, the proximal fibula cohort had a smaller NBT for anterior tibial vessels (p = 0.025), a smaller NBR for posterior tibial vessels (p = 0.013) and a smaller NBT for posterior tibial vessels (p = 0.007) than the proximal tibia cohort. Univarite and multivariable analyses showed that NBT for posterior tibial vessels was the only independent factor associated with amputation. The 3-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates for the proximal fibula cohort vs. the proximal tibia cohort were 52.6% vs. 78.0% (p = 0.045) and 63.7% vs. 81.2% (p = 0.177), respectively. The MSTS scores for the functional evaluation of limb-salvaging surgery were similar in both groups (p = 0.212).

Conclusions

Amputation rates among patients were higher when osteosarcoma was located in proximal fibula than in proximal tibia. A smaller NBT for posterior tibial vessels was associated with higher amputation rates. Prognosis of the proximal fibula cohort was poorer than that of the proximal tibia cohort of osteosarcoma patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5062-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Nomogram application to predict overall and cancer-specific survival in osteosarcoma

Purpose

A prognostic nomogram was applied to predict survival in osteosarcoma patients.

Patients and methods

Data collected from 2,195 osteosarcoma patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 1983 and 2014 were analyzed. Independent prognostic factors were identified via univariate and multivariate Cox analyses. These were incorporated into a nomogram to predict 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates. Internal and external data were used for validation. Concordance indices (C-indices) were used to estimate nomogram accuracy.

Results

Patients were randomly assigned into a training cohort (n=1,098) or validation cohort (n=1,097). Age at diagnosis, tumor site, histology, tumor size, tumor stage, use of surgery, and tumor grade were identified as independent prognostic factors via univariate and multivariate Cox analyses (all P<0.05) and then included in the prognostic nomogram. C-indices for OS and CSS prediction in the training cohort were 0.763 (95% CI 0.761–0.764) and 0.764 (95% CI 0.762–0.765), respectively. C-indices for OS and CSS prediction in the external validation cohort were 0.739 (95% CI 0.737–0.740) and 0.740 (95% CI, 0.738–0.741), respectively. Calibration plots revealed excellent consistency between actual survival and nomogram prediction.

Conclusion

Nomograms were constructed to predict OS and CSS for osteosarcoma patients in the SEER database. They provide accurate and individualized survival prediction.

Prevalence of Metastasis at Diagnosis of Osteosarcoma: An International Comparison

BACKGROUND

Osteosarcoma (OS) is the most common primary malignant bone tumor in many countries, with metastatic disease responsible for most patient deaths. This study compares the prevalence of metastatic OS at diagnosis across countries to inform the critical question of whether diagnostic delay or tumor biology drives metastases development prior to diagnosis.

PROCEDURE

A literature search of the PubMed database was conducted to compare the prevalence of metastatic disease at the time of OS diagnosis between countries. A pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals was calculated for each study meeting inclusion criteria. Studies were grouped for analysis based on human development index (HDI) scores.

RESULTS

Our analysis found an 18% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15%, 20%) average global pooled proportion of metastasis at OS diagnosis. The average prevalence of metastasis at diagnosis increased as HDI groupings decreased, with very high HDI, high HDI, and medium/low HDI groups found to be 15% (95% CI: 13%, 17%), 20% (95% CI: 14%, 28%), and 31% (95% CI: 15%, 52%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evidence suggests there is a biological baseline for metastatic OS at diagnosis, which is observed in countries with very high HDI. In countries with medium/low HDI, where there are more barriers to accessing healthcare, the higher prevalence of metastasis may result from treatment delay or an artificial prevalence inflation due to patients with less severe symptoms not presenting to clinic. Additional research in countries with medium/low HDI may reveal that earlier detection and treatment could improve patient outcomes in those countries.

Gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with osteosarcoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with recurrent or refractory osteosarcoma are considered to have a very poor prognosis, and new regimens are needed to improve the prognosis in this setting. Gemcitabine, a nucleoside antimetabolite, is an analog of deoxycytidine which mainly inhibits DNA synthesis through interfering with DNA chain elongation and depleting deoxynucleotide stores, resulting in gemcitabine-induced cell death. Here we performed a systemic analysis to evaluate gemcitabine based chemotherapy as salvage treatment for patients with recurrent or refractory osteosarcoma.

METHODS

Clinical studies evaluating the impact of gemcitabine based regimens on response and safety for patients with osteosarcoma were identified by using a predefined search strategy. Pooled response rates (RRs) of treatment were calculated.

RESULTS

In gemcitabine based regimens, 4 clinical studies which included 66 patients with recurrent or refractory osteosarcoma were considered eligible for inclusion. Systemic analysis suggested that, in all patients, pooled RR was 12.1% (8/66) in gemcitabine based regimens. Major adverse effects were hematologic toxicity, including grade 3 or 4 anemia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia in gemcitabine based treatment. No treatment related death occurred in gemcitabine based treatment.

CONCLUSION

This systemic analysis suggests that gemcitabine based regimens are associated with mild activity with good tolerability in treating patients with recurrent or refractory osteosarcoma.

Ifosfamide-containing regimens for treating patients with osteosarcomas

BACKGROUND

This systemic analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an ifosfamide- containing regimen in treating patients with osteosarcoma.

METHODS

Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of Ifosfamide-containing regimen on response and safety for patients with osteosarcoma were identified by using a predefined search strategy. Pooled response rate (RR) of treatment were calculated.

RESULTS

When ifosfamide-containing regimens were evaluated, 4 clinical studies which including 134 patients with osteosarcoma were considered eligible for inclusion. Systemic analysis suggested that, in all patients, pooled RR was 44.8% (60/134) in ifosfamide-containing regimens. Major adverse effects were neutropenia, leukopenia, and fatigue inIfosfamide-containing regimens; No treatment related death occurred in cantharidin combined regimens.

CONCLUSION

This systemic analysis suggests that ifosfamide-containing regimens are associated with good response rate and acceptable toxicity in treating patients with osteosarcoma, but this result should be confirmed by randomized clinical trials.