header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES OF SURGICALLY TREATED RADIATION-INDUCED PELVIC BONE SARCOMAS? A COMPARATIVE COHORT ANALYSIS

The Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) and Canadian Orthopaedic Research Society (CORS) Annual General Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, 8–11 June 2022. Part 2 of 2.



Abstract

Radiation induced sarcoma of bone is a rare but challenging disease process associated with a poor prognosis. To date, series are limited by small patient numbers; data to inform prognosis and the optimal management for these patients is needed. We hypothesized that patients with radiation-induced pelvic bone sarcomas would have worse surgical, oncologic, and functional outcomes than patients diagnosed with primary pelvic bone sarcomas

This was a multi-institution, comparative cohort analysis. A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients diagnosed with a radiation-induced pelvic and sacral bone sarcoma between January 1st, 1985 and January 1st, 2020 (defined as a histologically confirmed bone sarcoma of the pelvis in a previously irradiated field with a minimum 3-year interval between radiation and sarcoma diagnosis). We also identified a comparison group including all patients diagnosed with a primary pelvic osteosarcoma/spindle cell sarcoma of bone (i.e. eligible for osteosarcoma-type chemotherapy) during the same time interval. The primary outcome measure was disease-free and overall survival.

We identified 85 patients with primary osteosarcoma of the pelvis (POP) and 39 patients with confirmed radiation induced sarcoma of the bony pelvis (RISB) undergoing surgical resection. Patients with RISB were older than patients with POP (50.5 years vs. 36.5 years, p67.7% of patients with POP underwent limb salvage as compared to 77% of patients with RISB; the type of surgery was not different between groups (p=.0.24). There was no difference in the rate of margin positive surgery for RISB vs. POP (21.1% vs. 14.1%, p=0.16). For patients undergoing surgical resection, the rate of surgical complications was high, with more RISB patients experiencing complications (79.5%) than POP patients (64.7%); this approached statistical significance (p=0.09).

15.4% of patients with RISB died perioperative period (within 90 days of surgery) as compared to 3.5% of patients with POP (p= 0.02). For patients undergoing surgical resection, 5-year OS was significantly worse for patients with RISB vs. POP (27.3% vs. 47.7%, p=0.02). When considering only patients without metastatic disease at presentation, a significant difference in 5-year survival remains for patients with RISB vs. POP (28.6% vs. 50%, p=0.03) was a trend towards poorer 5-year DFS for patients with RISB vs. POP (30% vs. 47.5%), though this did not achieve statistical significance (p=0.09).

POP and RISB represent challenging disease processes and the oncologic outcomes are similarly poor between the two; however, the disease course for patients with RISB appears to be worse overall. While surgery can result in a favorable outcome for a small subset of patients, surgical treatment is fraught with complications.


Email: