4.2 Article

Primary central chondrosarcoma of long bone, limb girdle and trunk: Analysis of 174 cases by numerical scoring on histology

Journal

PATHOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 65, Issue 9, Pages 468-475

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pin.12324

Keywords

grade; pathology; prognosis; primary central chondrosarcoma; statistical analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [25462349]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H04956, 25462349] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aims of this study were: (i) to elucidate clinicopathological characteristics of pcCHS of long bones (L), limb girdles (LG) and trunk (T) in Japan; (ii) to investigate predictive pathological findings for outcome of pcCHS of L, LG and T, objectively; and (iii) to elucidate a discrepancy of grade between biopsy and resected specimens. Clinicopathological profiles of 174 pcCHS (79 male, 95 female), of L, LG, and T were retrieved. For each case, a numerical score was given to 18 pathological findings. The average age was 50.5 years (15-80 years). Frequently involved sites were femur, humerus, pelvis and rib. The 5-year and 10-year disease-specific survival (DSS) rates [follow-up: 1-258 months (average 65.5)] were 87.0% and 80.4%, respectively. By Cox hazards analysis on pathological findings, age, sex and location, histologically higher grade and older age were unfavorable predictors, and calcification was a favorable predictor in DSS. The histological grade of resected specimen was higher than that of biopsy in 37.7% (26/69 cases). In conclusion, higher histological grade and older age were predictors for poor, but calcification was for good prognosis. Because there was a discrepancy in grade between biopsy and resected specimens, comprehensive evaluation is necessary before definitive operation for pcCHS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available