4.4 Article

Location of pulmonary metastasis in pediatric osteosarcoma is predictive of outcome

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 46, 期 7, 页码 1333-1337

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.12.013

关键词

Osteosarcoma; Pulmonary metastases; Thoracotomy; Lobectomy; Wedge resection; Surgery

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM008792, T32 GM008792-10] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The 3-year survival after pulmonary metastasectomy for osteosarcoma (OS) is approximately 30%. Resection of metastatic disease can prolong life in pediatric patients with OS. Our objective is to assess the outcome of pediatric patients with pulmonary metastases located centrally as compared with peripheral lesions. Methods: A retrospective review of patients 0 to 21 years old with a diagnosis of OS with pulmonary metastases on computed tomographic scan between 1985 and 2000 was completed. Demographics, metastasis location, survival, morbidity, and mortality were evaluated. Results: Of 115 patients who had pulmonary metastasis secondary to OS, there were 96 wedge resections and 13 lobectomy/pneumonectomies in 84 patients. The morbidity of wedge resection was 9% and lobectomy/pneumonectomy was 8%. There were no deaths from surgery. The median survival for patients undergoing lobectomy compared with wedge resection was 0.61 and 1.14 years, respectively, but did not reach statistical significance. The median overall survival for the entire cohort was 0.75 years. The median overall survival after initial detection of metastatic disease was 1.06 years among the patients with peripheral disease, compared with 0.38 years in patients with central disease (P = .008). Conclusion: Patients with central pulmonary metastases in OS have a very poor prognosis, even after operative treatment, compared with those with peripheral disease. Patients with central lesions may benefit from other nonsurgical treatment options. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据