Search

BACKGROUND: Although pediatric lower extremity sarcoma once was routinely treated with amputation, multiagent chemotherapy as well as the evolution of tumor resection and reconstruction techniques have enabled the wide adoption of limb salvage surgery (LSS). Even though infection and tumor recurrence are established risk factors for early amputation (< 5 years) after LSS, the frequency of and factors associated with late amputation (≥ 5 years from diagnosis) in children with sarcomas are not known. Additionally, the resulting psychosocial and physical outcomes of these patients compared with those treated with primary amputation or LSS that was not complicated by subsequent amputation are not well studied. Studying these outcomes is critical to enhancing the quality of life of patients with sarcomas. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How have treatments changed over time in patients with lower extremity sarcoma who are included in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS), and did primary treatment with amputation or LSS affect overall survival at 25 years among patients who had survived at least 5 years from diagnosis? (2) What is the cumulative incidence of amputation after LSS for patients diagnosed with pediatric lower extremity sarcomas 25 years after diagnosis? (3) What are the factors associated with time to late amputation (≥ 5 years after diagnosis) in patients initially treated with LSS for lower extremity sarcomas in the CCSS? (4) What are the comparative social, physical, and emotional health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes among patients with sarcoma treated with primary amputation, LSS without amputation, or LSS complicated by late amputation, as assessed by CCSS follow-up questionnaires, the SF-36, and the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 at 20 years after cancer diagnosis? METHODS: The CCSS is a long-term follow-up study that began in 1994 and is coordinated through St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital. It is a retrospective study with longitudinal follow-up of more than 38,000 participants treated for childhood cancer when younger than 21 years at one of 31 collaborating institutions between 1970 and 1999 in the United States and Canada. Participants were eligible for enrollment in the CCSS after they had survived 5 years from diagnosis. Within the CCSS cohort, we included participants who had a diagnosis of lower extremity sarcoma treated with primary amputation (547 patients with a mean age at diagnosis of 13 ± 4 years) or primary LSS (510 patients with a mean age 14 ± 4 years). The LSS cohort was subdivided into LSS without amputation, defined as primary LSS without amputation at the time of latest follow-up; LSS with early amputation, defined as LSS complicated by amputation occurring less than 5 years from diagnosis; or LSS with late amputation, defined as primary LSS in study patients who subsequently underwent amputation 5 years or more from cancer diagnosis. The cumulative incidence of late amputation after primary LSS was estimated. Cox proportional hazards regression with time-varying covariates identified factors associated with late amputation. Modified Poisson regression models were used to compare psychosocial, physical, and HRQOL outcomes among patients treated with primary amputation, LSS without amputation, or LSS complicated by late amputation using validated surveys. RESULTS: More study participants were treated with LSS than with primary amputation in more recent decades. The overall survival at 25 years in this population who survived 5 years from diagnosis was not different between those treated with primary amputation (87% [95% confidence interval [CI] 82% to 91%]) compared with LSS (88% [95% CI 85% to 91%]; p = 0.31). The cumulative incidence of amputation at 25 years after cancer diagnosis and primary LSS was 18% (95% CI 14% to 21%). With the numbers available, the cumulative incidence of late amputation was not different among study patients treated in the 1970s (27% [95% CI 15% to 38%]) versus the 1980s and 1990s (19% [95% CI 13% to 25%] and 15% [95% CI 10% to 19%], respectively; p = 0.15). After controlling for gender, medical and surgical treatment variables, cancer recurrence, and chronic health conditions, gender (hazard ratio [HR] 2.02 [95% CI 1.07 to 3.82]; p = 0.03) and history of prosthetic joint reconstruction (HR 2.58 [95% CI 1.37 to 4.84]; p = 0.003) were associated with an increased likelihood of late amputation. Study patients treated with a primary amputation (relative risk [RR] 2.04 [95% CI 1.15 to 3.64]) and LSS complicated by late amputation (relative risk [RR] 3.85 [95% CI 1.66 to 8.92]) were more likely to be unemployed or unable to attend school than patients treated with LSS without amputation to date. The CCSS cohort treated with primary amputation and those with LSS complicated by late amputation reported worse physical health scores than those without amputation to date, although mental and emotional health outcomes did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial risk of late amputation after LSS, and both primary and late amputation status are associated with decreased physical HRQOL outcomes. Children treated for sarcoma who survive into adulthood after primary amputation and those who undergo late amputation after LSS may benefit from interventions focused on improving physical function and reaching educational and employment milestones. Efforts to improve the physical function of people who have undergone amputation either through prosthetic design or integration into the residuum should be supported. Understanding factors associated with late amputation in the setting of more modern surgical approaches and implants will help surgeons more effectively manage patient expectations and adjust practice to mitigate these risks over the life of the patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Letters of recommendation (LORs) are highly influential in the residency selection process. Differences in language and length of LORs by gender have been demonstrated for applicants applying to surgical residencies and fellowships. This had yet to be studied in orthopaedic surgery. Given the gender disparity in the field, we sought to investigate the impact of gender on orthopaedic residency applicant LORs. We hypothesized that differences in length and language would be present for women applicants as compared to men.MethodsLORs for 2019 to 2020 applicants who applied to a single academic institution were selected for review. Female and male applicants were matched by medical school attended and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score. LORs were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Letters were evaluated for their word count, presence of language terms, and frequency of language terms. A similar subgroup language analysis was performed for standardized LORs (SLORs).ResultsSix hundred fifty-six applicants met the initial screening criteria-126 women and 530 men. After matching, 71 female applicants were paired with 111 male applicants. Word count was, on average, longer for female applicants. LORs for female applicants were more likely to contain language terms that characterized their ability, achievement, participation in athletics, awards received, fit, leadership, and personality traits. Of these terms, ability and participation in athletics were also found more frequently in LORs written for women. In addition, language characterizing technical skills was found more frequently in LORs of female applicants. Similar codes were found to be statistically significant in the SLOR subgroup analysis.ConclusionThis study highlights that current orthopaedic surgery residency LORs do not appear to be biased by applicant gender. LORs were longer for female applicants and described them more positively. Future female orthopaedic residency applicants should be assured that current female candidates are applying with at least similar if not greater subjective qualifications to their male counterparts based on the findings of this study.

BackgroundThe choice of a local control (LC) modality for Ewing sarcoma (EWS) of the femur is controversial. This study aimed to determine the effect of LC modality on tumor LC and patient outcomes.MethodsThe study reviewed the treatment and outcomes for 115 patients who had EWS of the femur treated with similar chemotherapy in three cooperative group trials. Patient outcomes were analyzed according to the LC modality using the log-rank test and the cumulative incidence of local or distant failure using competing risks regression.ResultsThe median age of the patients was 13 years. The most common tumor location was the proximal femur followed by the mid femur. For 55 patients with available data, the tumor was larger than 8 cm in 29 patients and 8 cm or smaller in 26 patients. For 84 patients (73 %), surgery only was performed, whereas 17 patients (15 %) had surgery plus radiation, and 14 patients (12 %) had radiation only. The 5-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was 65 % (95 % confidence interval [CI], 55-73 %), and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 70 % (95 % CI, 61-78 %). Patient outcomes did not differ significantly according to tumor location within the femur (proximal, mid or distal) or tumor size (

PurposeEURAMOS-1, an international randomized controlled trial, investigated maintenance therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b (IFN-α-2b) in patients whose osteosarcoma showed good histologic response (good response) to induction chemotherapy.Patients and methodsAt diagnosis, patients age ≤ 40 years with resectable high-grade osteosarcoma were registered. Eligibility after surgery for good response random assignment included ≥ two cycles of preoperative MAP (methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin), macroscopically complete surgery of primary tumor, < 10% viable tumor, and no disease progression. These patients were randomly assigned to four additional cycles MAP with or without IFN-α-2b (0.5 to 1.0 μg/kg per week subcutaneously, after chemotherapy until 2 years postregistration). Outcome measures were event-free survival (EFS; primary) and overall survival and toxicity (secondary).ResultsGood response was reported in 1,041 of 2,260 registered patients; 716 consented to random assignment (MAP, n = 359; MAP plus IFN-α-2b, n = 357), with baseline characteristics balanced by arm. A total of 271 of 357 started IFN-α-2b; 105 stopped early, and 38 continued to receive treatment at data freeze. Refusal and toxicity were the main reasons for never starting IFN-α-2b and for stopping prematurely, respectively. Median IFN-α-2b duration, if started, was 67 weeks. A total of 133 of 268 patients who started IFN-α-2b and provided toxicity information reported grade ≥ 3 toxicity during IFN-α-2b treatment. With median follow-up of 44 months, 3-year EFS for all 716 randomly assigned patients was 76% (95% CI, 72% to 79%); 174 EFS events were reported (MAP, n = 93; MAP plus IFN-α-2b, n = 81). Hazard ratio was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.12; P = .214) from an adjusted Cox model.ConclusionAt the preplanned analysis time, MAP plus IFN-α-2b was not statistically different from MAP alone. A considerable proportion of patients never started IFN-α-2b or stopped prematurely. Long-term follow-up for events and survival continues.

BackgroundPatients with Ewing sarcoma require local primary tumor control with surgery, radiation, or both. The optimal choice of local control for overall and local disease control remains unclear.MethodsPatients with localized Ewing sarcoma of bone who were treated on 3 consecutive protocols with standard-dose, 5-drug chemotherapy every 3 weeks were included (n=465). Propensity scores were used to control for differences between local control groups by constructing multivariate models to assess the impact of local control type on clinical endpoints (event-free survival [EFS], overall survival, local failure, and distant failure) independent of differences in their propensity to receive each local control type.ResultsPatients who underwent surgery were younger (P=.02) and had more appendicular tumors (P

Limb salvage with endoprosthetic reconstruction is the standard of care for the management of lower-extremity bone tumours in skeletally mature patients. The risk of deep postoperative infection in these procedures is high and the outcomes can be devastating. The most effective prophylactic antibiotic regimen remains unknown, and current clinical practice is highly varied. This trial will evaluate the effect of varying postoperative prophylactic antibiotic regimens on the incidence of deep infection following surgical excision and endoprosthetic reconstruction of lower-extremity bone tumours. This is a multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial, using a parallel two-arm design. 920 patients 15 years of age or older from 12 tertiary care centres across Canada and the USA who are undergoing surgical excision and endoprosthetic reconstruction of a primary bone tumour will receive either short (24 h) or long (5 days) duration postoperative antibiotics. Exclusion criteria include prior surgery or infection within the planned operative field, known colonisation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus at enrolment, or allergy to the study antibiotics. The primary outcome will be rates of deep postoperative infections in each arm. Secondary outcomes will include type and frequency of antibiotic-related adverse events, patient functional outcomes and quality-of-life scores, reoperation and mortality. Randomisation will be blocked, with block sizes known only to the methods centre responsible for randomisation, and stratified by location of tumour and study centre. Patients, care givers and a Central Adjudication Committee will be blinded to treatment allocation. The analysis to compare groups will be performed using Cox regression and log-rank tests to compare survival functions at α=0.05. This study has ethics approval from the McMaster University/Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (REB# 12-009). Successful completion will significantly impact on clinical practice and enhance patients' lives. More broadly, this trial will develop a network of collaboration from which further high-quality trials in Orthopaedic Oncology will follow.

This document is an editorial from the journal Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research® discussing the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical orthopaedics and related research. The editorial emphasizes the importance of authors disclosing their use of AI applications in their research and scientific reporting. It also addresses concerns about potential harms and challenges associated with AI tools, such as deepfakes and errors/fraud in scientific reporting. The editorial highlights the responsibility of human authors to proofread and verify the accuracy of content generated by AI tools, as well as the need to disclose any use of AI in creating or modifying figures and visuals. The journal recognizes the potential benefits of using AI applications in scientific reporting, particularly for authors whose first language is not English, but emphasizes the need for authors to take additional responsibilities when using AI tools. The editorial also states that reviewers for the journal should not use generative AI applications or tools during the review process due to copyright and confidentiality concerns, as well as the lack of independent judgment and potential biases of AI tools. The journal's standards for publishing papers on AI-based tools are similar to those for research on any topic, with an emphasis on the importance and novelty of the research questions and the demonstration of practical benefits or identification of specific harms. The editorial concludes by stating that the journal will continue to update its editorial policies and guidelines on the use of AI in response to the evolving nature of the field. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Pediatric interventional oncology (PIO) is a growing field intended to provide additional or alternative treatment options for pediatric patients with benign or malignant tumors. Large series of patients treated uniformly and subjected to rigorous endpoints for efficacy are not available. Methods: We designed a collaborative initiative to capture data from pediatric patients with benign and malignant tumors who underwent a therapeutic interventional radiology procedure. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was utilized as a measure of radiologic response and data were collected regarding improvement in pain and functional endpoints. Cumulative incidence of progressive disease was calculated using both the treated site and the patient as the analytic unit. Findings: Forty patients, 16 with malignant tumors and 24 with benign tumors, underwent a total of 88 procedures. Cryo‐ and radiofrequency ablation were the most frequently utilized techniques for both cohorts of patients. A complete or partial response, or prolonged disease stability, were achieved in approximately 40% of patients with malignant tumors and 60% of patients with benign tumors. No patients had progressive disease as their best response. Resolution of pain and improved mobility with return‐to‐baseline activity were demonstrated across patients from both cohorts. Only minor complications were experienced. Interpretation: Interventional radiology‐guided interventions can serve as an alternative or complementary approach to the treatment of benign and malignant tumors in pediatric patients. Prospective, multi‐institutional trials are required to adequately study utility, treatment endpoints, and durability of response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]