Current status and unanswered questions on the use of Denosumab in giant cell tumor of bone

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody to RANK ligand approved for use in giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone. Due to its efficacy, Denosumab is recommended as the first option in inoperable or metastatic GCT. Denosumab has also been used pre-operatively to downstage tumours with large soft tissue extension to allow for less morbid surgery. The role of Denosumab for conventional limb GCT of bone is yet to be defined. Further studies are required to determine whether local recurrence rates will be decreased with the adjuvant use of Denosumab along with surgery. The long term use and toxicity of this agent is unknown as is the proportion of patients with primary or secondary resistance. It is advised that complicated cases of GCT requiring Denosumab treatment should be referred and followed up at expert centres. Collaborative studies involving further clinical trials and rigorous data collection are strongly recommended to identify the optimum use of this drug

Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome, complications and survival of the three most commonly used surgical reconstructions of the proximal humerus after transarticular tumour resection. Between 1985 and 2005, 38 consecutive proximal humeral reconstructions using allograft-prosthesis composite (n = 10), osteoarticular allograft (n = 13) or a modular tumour prosthesis (n = 14) were performed in our clinic. The mean follow-up was ten years (1–25). Of these, 27 were disease free at latest follow-up (mean 16.8 years) and ten had died of disease. The endoprosthetic group presented the smallest complication rate of 21% (n = 1), compared to 40% (n = 4) in the allograft-prosthesis composite and 62% (n = 8) in the osteoarticular allograft group. Only one revision was performed in the endoprosthetic group, in a case of shoulder instability. Infection after revision (n = 3), pseudoarthrosis (n = 2), fracture of the allograft (n = 3) and shoulder instability (n = 4) were the major complications of allograft use in general. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significantly better implant survival for the endoprosthetic group (log-rank p = 0.002). At final follow-up the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society scores were an average of 72% for the allograft-prosthetic composite (n = 7, median follow-up 17 years), 76% for the osteoarticular allograft (n = 3, 19 years) and 77% for the endoprosthetic reconstruction (n = 10, 5 years) groups. An endoprosthetic reconstruction after transarticular proximal humeral resection resulted in the lowest complication rate, highest implant survival and comparable functional results when compared to allograft-prosthesis composite and osteoarticular allograft use. We believe that the surgical approach that best preserves the abductor mechanism and provides sufficient surgical exposure for tumour resection contributed to better functional results and glenohumeral stability in the endoprosthetic group

LUMiC(A (R)) Endoprosthetic Reconstruction After Periacetabular Tumor Resection:Short-term Results

Reconstruction of periacetabular defects after pelvic tumor resection ranks among the most challenging procedures in orthopaedic oncology, and reconstructive techniques are generally associated with dissatisfying mechanical and nonmechanical complication rates. In an attempt to reduce the risk of dislocation, aseptic loosening, and infection, we introduced the LUMiC(A (R)) prosthesis (implantcast, Buxtehude, Germany) in 2008. The LUMiC(A (R)) prosthesis is a modular device, built of a separate stem (hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented or cemented) and acetabular cup. The stem and cup are available in different sizes (the latter of which is also available with silver coating for infection prevention) and are equipped with sawteeth at the junction to allow for rotational adjustment of cup position after implantation of the stem. Whether this implant indeed is durable at short-term followup has not been evaluated. (1) What proportion of patients experience mechanical complications and what are the associated risk factors of periacetabular reconstruction with the LUMiC(A (R)) after pelvic tumor resection? (2) What proportion of patients experience nonmechanical complications and what are the associated risk factors of periacetabular reconstruction with the LUMiC(A (R)) after pelvic tumor resection? (3) What is the cumulative incidence of implant failure at 2 and 5 years and what are the mechanisms of reconstruction failure? (4) What is the functional outcome as assessed by Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score at final followup? We performed a retrospective chart review of every patient in whom a LUMiC(A (R)) prosthesis was used to reconstruct a periacetabular defect after internal hemipelvectomy for a pelvic tumor from July 2008 to June 2014 in eight centers of orthopaedic oncology with a minimum followup of 24 months. Forty-seven patients (26 men [55%]) with a mean age of 50 years (range, 12-78 years) were included. At review, 32 patients (68%) were alive. The reverse Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median followup, which was equal to 3.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-4.3). During the period under study, our general indications for using this implant were reconstruction of periacetabular defects after pelvic tumor resections in which the medial ilium adjacent to the sacroiliac joint was preserved; alternative treatments included hip transposition and saddle or custom-made prostheses in some of the contributing centers; these were generally used when the medial ilium was involved in the tumorous process or if the LUMiC(A (R)) was not yet available in the specific country at that time. Conventional chondrosarcoma was the predominant diagnosis (n = 22 [47%]); five patients (11%) had osseous metastases of a distant carcinoma and three (6%) had multiple myeloma. Uncemented fixation (n = 43 [91%]) was preferred. Dual-mobility cups (n = 24 [51%]) were mainly used in case of a higher presumed risk of dislocation in the early period of our study; later, dual-mobility cups became the standard for the majority of the reconstructions. Silver-coated acetabular cups were used in 29 reconstructions (62%); because only the largest cup size was available with silver coating, its use depended on the cup size that was chosen. We used a competing risk model to estimate the cumulative incidence of implant failure. Six patients (13%) had a single dislocation; four (9%) had recurrent dislocations. The risk of dislocation was lower in reconstructions with a dual-mobility cup (one of 24 [4%]) than in those without (nine of 23 [39%]) (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.89; p = 0.038). Three patients (6%; one with a preceding structural allograft reconstruction, one with poor initial fixation as a result of an intraoperative fracture, and one with a cemented stem) had loosening and underwent revision. Infections occurred in 13 reconstructions (28%). Median duration of surgery was 6.5 hours (range, 4.0-13.6 hours) for patients with an infection and 5.3 hours (range, 2.8-9.9 hours) for those without (p = 0.060); blood loss was 2.3 L (range, 0.8-8.2 L) for patients with an infection and 1.5 L (range, 0.4-3.8 L) for those without (p = 0.039). The cumulative incidences of implant failure at 2 and 5 years were 2.1% (95% CI, 0-6.3) and 17.3% (95% CI, 0.7-33.9) for mechanical reasons and 6.4% (95% CI, 0-13.4) and 9.2% (95% CI, 0.5-17.9) for infection, respectively. Reasons for reconstruction failure were instability (n = 1 [2%]), loosening (n = 3 [6%]), and infection (n = 4 [9%]). Mean MSTS functional outcome score at followup was 70% (range, 33%-93%). At short-term followup, the LUMiC(A (R)) prosthesis demonstrated a low frequency of mechanical complications and failure when used to reconstruct the acetabulum in patients who underwent major pelvic tumor resections, and we believe this is a useful reconstruction for periacetabular resections for tumor or failed prior reconstructions. Still, infection and dislocation are relatively common after these complex reconstructions. Dual-mobility articulation in our experience is associated with a lower risk of dislocation. Future, larger studies will need to further control for factors such as dual-mobility articulation and silver coating. We will continue to follow our patients over the longer term to ascertain the role of this implant in this setting. Level IV, therapeutic study

External validation and adaptation of a dynamic prediction model for patients with high‐grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma

Background and Objectives: A dynamic prediction model for patients with soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities was previously developed to predict updated overall survival probabilities throughout patient follow‐up. This study updates and externally validates the dynamic model. Methods: Data from 3826 patients with high‐grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma, treated surgically with curative intent were used to update the dynamic PERsonalised SARcoma Care (PERSARC) model. Patients were added to the model development cohort and grade was included in the model. External validation was performed with data from 1111 patients treated at a single tertiary center. Results: Calibration plots show good model calibration. Dynamic C‐indices suggest that the model can discriminate between high‐ and low‐risk patients. The dynamic C‐indices at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after surgery were equal to 0.697, 0.790, 0.822, 0.818, 0.812, and 0.827, respectively. Conclusion: Results from the external validation show that the dynamic PERSARC model is reliable in predicting the probability of surviving an additional 5 years from a specific prediction time point during follow‐up. The model combines patient‐, treatment‐specific and time‐dependent variables such as local recurrence and distant metastasis to provide accurate survival predictions throughout follow‐up and is available through the PERSARC app.Peer reviewe

Individualized approach to the surgical management of fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur

Abstract Background Fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur presents with heterogeneous clinical manifestations dictating different surgical approaches. However, to date there are no clear recommendations to guide the choice of surgical approach and no general guidelines for the optimal orthopedic management of these lesions. The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment outcomes of angled blade plates and intramedullary nails, using as outcome indicators revision-free survival, pain, function and femoral neck-shaft-angle. Based on a review of published literature and our study findings, we propose a treatment algorithm, taking into account different factors, which may play a role in the selection of one surgical approach over another. Methods Data were evaluated in thirty-two patients (18 male) from a combined cohort from the Netherlands and Austria, who had a surgical intervention using an angled blade plate (n = 27) or an intramedullary nail (n = 5) between 1985 and 2015, and who had a minimal follow-up of one year. The primary outcome was success of the procedure according to the revised Henderson classification. Secondary outcomes, which were assessed at one year and at the end of follow-up included: function (as measured by walking ability), pain and change in femoral neck-shaft angle over time. Results Analysis of data showed that revision-free survival was 72% after a median follow-up of 4.1 years. Revision was necessary in two patients for structural failure due to a fracture distal to an angled blade plate and in 7 patients due to angled blade plate-induced iliotibial tract pain. At the end of follow-up 91% of all patients had good walking ability and 91% were pain free. There was no significant postoperative change in femoral neck shaft angle. Conclusion Our data show that fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur can be adequately and safely treated with angled blade plates or intramedullary nails, providing these are used according to specific characteristics of the individual patient. Based on published literature and our own experience, we propose an individualized, patient-tailored approach for the surgical management of fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur

Pain in fibrous dysplasia: relationship with anatomical and clinical features

Background and purpose — Fibrous dysplasia (FD) is a rare bone disorder associated with pain, deformities, and pathological fractures. The pathophysiological mechanism of FD-related pain remains ill-understood. We evaluated the degree of pain and the potential contributory factors in 2 patient cohorts from Austria and the Netherlands. Patients and methods — 197 patients (16–85 years) with FD (Graz n = 105, Leiden n = 92) completed a survey concerning the presence and severity of pain at their FD site. Sex, age, type of FD, and localization of FD lesions were examined for a relationship with the presence and severity of pain. Results — Of 197 patients from the combined cohort (61% female, mean age 49 (SD 16) years, 76% monostotic) who completed the questionnaires, 91 (46%) reported pain at sites of FD lesions. Severity of pain was higher in patients with lesions of the lower extremities and ribs compared with upper extremity or craniofacial lesions. Severe subtypes of FD (polyostotic/McCune–Albright syndrome) were more often associated with pain, often severe. Interpretation — Our data suggest that almost 50% of patients with FD report pain at FD sites, thus representing a major clinical manifestation of the disorder, importantly also in patients with monostotic lesions. Lesions in lower extremities and ribs were more painful

What Are the Long-term Results of MUTARS(A (R)) Modular Endoprostheses for Reconstruction of Tumor Resection of the Distal Femur and Proximal Tibia?

Modular endoprostheses are commonly used to reconstruct defects of the distal femur and proximal tibia after bone tumor resection. Because limb salvage surgery for bone sarcomas is relatively new, becoming more frequently used since the 1980s, studies focusing on the long-term results of such prostheses in treatment of primary tumors are scarce. (1) What proportion of patients experience a mechanical complication with the MUTARS(A (R)) modular endoprosthesis when used for tumor reconstruction around the knee, and what factors may be associated with mechanical failure? (2) What are the nonmechanical complications? (3) What are the implant failure rates at 5, 10, and 15 years? (4) How often is limb salvage achieved using this prosthesis? Between 1995 and 2010, endoprostheses were the preferred method of reconstruction after resection of the knee in adolescents and adults in our centers. During that period, we performed 114 MUTARS(A (R)) knee replacements in 105 patients; no other endoprosthetic systems were used. Four patients (four of 105 [4%]) were lost to followup, leaving 110 reconstructions in 101 patients for review. The reverse Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median followup, which was equal to 8.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0-9.7). Mean age at surgery was 36 years (range, 13-82 years). Predominant diagnoses were osteosarcoma (n = 56 [55%]), leiomyosarcoma of bone (n = 10 [10%]), and chondrosarcoma (n = 9 [9%]). In the early period of our study, we routinely used uncemented uncoated implants for primary reconstructions. Later, hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants were the standard. Eighty-nine reconstructions (89 of 110 [81%]) were distal femoral replacements (78 uncemented [78 of 89 {88%}, 42 of which were HA-coated [42 of 78 {54%}]) and 21 (21 of 110 [19%]) were proximal tibial replacements. In 26 reconstructions (26 of 110 [24%]), the reconstruction was performed for a failed previous reconstruction. We used a competing risk model to estimate the cumulative incidence of implant failure. Complications of soft tissue or instability occurred in seven reconstructions (seven of 110 [6%]). With the numbers we had, for uncemented distal femoral replacements, we could not detect a difference in loosening between revision (five of 17 [29%]) and primary reconstructions (eight of 61 [13%]) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.72; 95% CI, 0.55-5.38; p = 0.354). Hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented implants had a lower risk of loosening (two of 42 [5%]) than uncoated uncemented implants (11 of 36 [31%]) (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-1.06; p = 0.060). Structural complications occurred in 15 reconstructions (15 of 110 [14%]). Infections occurred in 14 reconstructions (14 of 110 [13%]). Ten patients had a local recurrence (10 of 101 [10%]). With failure for mechanical reasons as the endpoint, the cumulative incidences of implant failure at 5, 10, and 15 years were 16.9% (95% CI, 9.6-24.2), 20.7% (95% CI, 12.5-28.8%), and 37.9% (95% CI, 16.1-59.7), respectively. We were able to salvage some of the failures so that at followup, 90 patients (90 of 101 [89%]) had a MUTARS(A (R)) in situ. Although no system has yet proved ideal to restore normal function and demonstrate long-term retention of the implant, MUTARS(A (R)) modular endoprostheses represent a reliable long-term option for knee replacement after tumor resection, which seems to be comparable to other modular implants available to surgeons. Although the number of patients is relatively small, we could demonstrate that with this prosthesis, an uncemented HA-coated implant is useful in achieving durable fixation. Level IV, therapeutic stud