The Effectiveness of “Two-Week” Referrals for Suspected Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcoma

The two-week “wait” target introduced in 2000 requires that patients with suspected cancer referred by general practitioners should be seen within two weeks. We reviewed patients who had been referred under this standard to the North of England Bone and Soft Tissue Tumour Service, to determine if the referral guidelines had been followed, and what proportion of patients referred under the guideline had malignant tumours. 40 patients were referred under the guideline between January 2004 and December 2005. Ten of these patients (2548%) had malignant tumours, compared with 243 of 507 (48%) of those referred from other sources. In 9 of the 40 cases, the patient did not meet the criteria for urgent referral. Although this target has focussed attention on shortening the time to diagnosis and treatment, prioritising patients referred from general practitioners has the potential to disadvantage those with malignant tumours referred from other sources

Follow up after Primary Treatment of Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Survey of Current Practice in the United Kingdom

Despite the clinical and financial implications, there is little evidence about how patients who have been treated for soft tissue sarcoma should be followed up. The purpose of this study was to determine current practice in the United Kingdom. 192 clinicians treating patients with soft tissue sarcoma were surveyed with a postal questionnaire enquiring about frequency and method of follow up and how patients would be followed up in each of 3 clinical scenarios: a patient with a trunk or extremity tumour at low risk of relapse; a patient with a trunk or extremity tumour at high risk of relapse; and a patient with a retroperitoneal or abdominal tumour. 155 (81%) clinicians responded. Clinic visits and X-rays were the most frequently used methods of follow up. Chest CT scans, local site imaging, and blood tests were used infrequently. The intensity and methods of follow up varied with each of the clinical scenarios. There was a seven-to-twenty fold variation in cost between the least and the most expensive regimes. Respondents were generally supportive of the development of the clinical trial in this area

FOS Expression in Osteoid Osteoma and Osteoblastoma: A Valuable Ancillary Diagnostic Tool

Osteoblastoma and osteoid osteoma together are the most frequent benign bone-forming tumor, arbitrarily separated by size. In some instances, it can be difficult to differentiate osteoblastoma from osteosarcoma. Following our recent description of FOS gene rearrangement in these tumors, the aim of this study is to evaluate the value of immunohistochemistry in osteoid osteoma, osteoblastoma, and osteosarcoma for diagnostic purposes. A total of 337 cases were tested with antibodies against c-FOS: 84 osteoblastomas, 33 osteoid osteomas, 215 osteosarcomas, and 5 samples of reactive new bone formation. In all, 83% of osteoblastomas and 73% of osteoid osteoma showed significant expression of c-FOS in the osteoblastic tumor cell component. Of the osteosarcomas, 14% showed c-FOS expression, usually focal, and in areas with severe morphologic atypia which were unequivocally malignant: 4% showed more conspicuous expression, but these were negative for FOS gene rearrangement. We conclude that c-FOS immunoreactivity is present in the vast majority of osteoblastoma/osteoid osteoma, whereas its expression is usually focal or patchy, in no more than 14% of osteosarcoma biopsies. Therefore, any bone-forming tumor cases with worrying histologic features would benefit from fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis for FOS gene rearrangement. Our findings highlight the importance of undertaking a thorough assessment of expression patterns of antibodies in the light of morphologic, clinical, and radiologic features

Survival of massive allografts in segmental oncological bone defect reconstructions

Reconstructions of large segmental bone defects after resection of bone tumours with massive structural allografts have a high number of reported complications including fracture, infection and non-union. Our goal is to report the survival and complications of massive allografts in our patients. A total of 32 patients were evaluated for fracture, infection, non-union rate and survival of their massive allograft reconstructions. The average follow-up for this group was five years and three months. The total fracture rate was 13% with a total infection rate of 16%. We found a low union rate of 25%. The total survival of the allografts was 80.8% (± 18.7%) after five years. We found a five-year allograft survival of 80.8% which is comparable with other studies

A population-scale temporal case–control evaluation of COVID-19 disease phenotype and related outcome rates in patients with cancer in England (UKCCP)

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission