1 / 22

SPINDLE CELL SARCOMA OF BONE AN ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME

SPINDLE CELL SARCOMA OF BONE AN ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME. David PEAKE Robert J GRIMER, David SPOONER, Simon R CARTER, Roger M TILLMAN, Seggy ABUDU, Mark DAVIES. To investigate treatment, outcome and prognostic factors for “spindle cell sarcomas of bone”

klarika
Download Presentation

SPINDLE CELL SARCOMA OF BONE AN ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SPINDLE CELL SARCOMA OF BONE AN ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME David PEAKE Robert J GRIMER, David SPOONER, Simon R CARTER, Roger M TILLMAN, Seggy ABUDU, Mark DAVIES

  2. To investigate treatment, outcome and prognostic factors for “spindle cell sarcomas of bone” Retrospective review of prospective database (1970 – 2001) Pathology diagnosis as made at the time THE STUDY

  3. All primary bone sarcomas that were NOT Osteosarcoma Ewing’s sarcoma Chondrosarcoma SPINDLE CELL SARCOMA OF BONE DEFINITION

  4. Prospective from 1986 (but includes all tumour cases since 1970) >15,000 patients Records patient details, diagnosis, treatment, outcome, function etc THE DATABASE

  5. 183 patients - 116 male : 67 Female 179 primary : 4 secondary 3 RT / 1 Paget’s Stage: 10 low grade 173 high grade 26 metastases at presentation RESULTS

  6. AGE Mean 45 yrs 76 <40 60 40-60 47 >60

  7. 157 limb : 26 axial 78 distal femur 26 pelvis 23 proximal femur 21 proximal tibia 10 humerus 25 other SITE 34 had a pathological fracture at presentation (18%)

  8. MFH 74 Spindle cell sarcoma 56 Leiomyosarcoma 24 Fibrosarcoma 18 Angiosarcoma 11 HISTOLOGY

  9. HISTOLOGY VARIED WITH TIME !

  10. As per osteosarcoma Chemotherapy when appropriate Surgical excision MANAGEMENT

  11. 131 (71%) received chemotherapy Doxorubicin / Cisplatin 84 Doxorubicin / HDMTX 10 Doxorubicin / Ifosfamide 10 Others 15 Unknown 12 CHEMOTHERAPY

  12. Chemotherapy dependant on age 84% under age 40 56% aged 40-60 18% over age 60 Neoadjuvant in 83% of those who had it 30% had better than 90% necrosis No conclusion possible about best regime CHEMOTHERAPY - 2

  13. 150 patients had surgery 37 amputation (25%) 113 LSS (75%) Trend towards increased amputation in older patients and those with pathological fracture SURGERY

  14. Stage 3 disease median survival 13 months High grade, non axial, non metastatic disease (n = 125): Overall survival 62% at 5 years 58% at 10 years OUTCOME

  15. OVERALL SURVIVAL (no mets, limb) • 62% at 5 years (+ 4%) • 58% at 10 years (+ 4%)

  16. Limb salvage > amputation HR 5.4 Necrosis > 90% HR 5.4 Limb > central HR 1.9 Age < 40 HR 2.0 Not significant Diagnosis Type of chemotherapy PROGNOSTIC FACTORS (p<0.05)

  17. Survival according to age < 40 yrs 40 – 60 yrs > 60 yrs

  18. Survival according to histology LMS MFH Fibrosarcoma Angiosarcoma Sarcoma N.S.

  19. 15% overall 20% in LSS cases 7% after amputation Highest in distal femur (28%) Decreasing risk by decade Not increased with pathological fracture 73% died after LR Mean survival 11 months after LR LOCAL RECURRENCE

  20. Marginal margins HR 3.5 (1.5-8.0) p = 0.002 < 90% necrosis HR 11.6 (1.3 – 100) p = 0.026 RISK FACTORS FOR LOCAL RECURRENCE Univariate

  21. Huvos, 1985 MFH (n=130) 53% Little, 1993 MFH (n=39) 53% Yokoyama, 1993 MFH(n=34) 43% Picci, 1997 MFH (n=51) 67% Bielack, 1997 MFH (n=125) 59% Bramwell,1999 MFH (n=41) 59% COMPARISON (63% at 5 yrs)

  22. “Spindle cell sarcoma of bone” describes a heterogeneous group of primary bone sarcomas (cf soft tissue sarcoma) behaves like, if not better than, osteosarcoma matched for age should be treated the same as osteosarcoma why not register for same trials (especially for OS > 40)? CONCLUSION

More Related