4.7 Article

Osteosarcoma of the pelvis:: Experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 334-341

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.01.142

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose : To define patients and tumor characteristics as well as therapy results, patients with pelvic osteosarcoma who were registered in the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS) were analyzed. Patients and Methods: Sixty-seven patients with a high-grade pelvic osteosarcoma were eligible for this analysis. Fifteen patients had primary metastases. All patients received chemotherapy according to COSS protocols. Thirty-eight patients underwent limb-sparing surgery, 12 patients underwent hemipelvectomy, and 17 patients did not undergo definitive surgery. Eleven patients received irradiation to the primary tumor site: four postoperatively and seven as the only form of local therapy. Results: Local failure occurred in 47 of all 67 patients (70%) and in 31 of 50 patients (62%) who underwent definitive surgery. Five-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival rates were 27% and 19%, respectively. Large tumor size (P = .0137), primary metastases (P = .0001), and no or intralesional surgery (P < .0001) were poor prognostic factors. In 30 patients with no or intralesional surgery, 11 patients with radiotherapy had better OS than 19 patients without radiotherapy (P = .0033). Among the variables, primary metastasis, large tumor, no or intralesional surgery, no radiotherapy, existence of primary metastasis (relative risk [RR] = 3.456, P = .0009), surgical margin (intralesional or no surgical excision; RR = 5.619; P < .0001), and no radiotherapy (RR = 4.196, P = .0059) were independent poor prognostic factors. Conclusion: An operative approach with wide or marginal margins improves local control and OS. If the surgical margin is intralesional or excision is impossible, additional radiotherapy has a positive influence on prognosis. (C) 2003 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available