4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Outcomes of chest wall resections in pediatric sarcoma patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 109-114

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.10.035

Keywords

Rhabdomyosarcoma; Osteosarcoma; Surgery; Reconstruction

Funding

  1. MD Anderson Cancer Center Support [NIH/NCI P30 CA016672]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Chest wall tumors in pediatric patients are rare. This study evaluates outcomes in pediatric patients who have undergone chest wall resections secondary to sarcomas. Methods: A retrospective review was performed for patients <19 years old who underwent chest wall resections for sarcoma 1999-2014 at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Results: Of 44 patients, Ewing's sarcoma (n=18) and osteosarcoma (n=16) were most common. Other sarcomas included synovial sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma. Gore-Tex (R) or a Marlexr (TM) mesh and methyl methacrylate sandwich was used in 22 patients, and 9 children did not require reconstruction. Twenty-four (54.5%) patients had normal activity, 3 (6.8%) had occasional discomfort, 2 (4.5%) had pain impairing function, 7 (15.9%) required medication or physical therapy for impairment, and S (182%) needed additional surgery. live children (11A%) developed scoliosis, and all of these patients had posterior rib tumors. Median overall survival for the entire cohort was 41.9 +/- 11.82 months. Histology (p=0.003), location of tumor on the ribs (p=0.007), and surgical margins (p=0.011) were significantly associated with overall survival. Tumors on the middle and posterior (p=0.003) portions of the ribs had a lower chance of death. Conclusion: Scoliosis is more common in posterior rib resections. Histology, location of the tumor, and surgical margins impact survival, but, type of reconstruction does not. (C) 2017 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available