Surgical treatment of low-grade chondrosarcoma involving the appendicular skeleton: long-term functional and oncological outcomes
- 76 Downloads
The traditional treatment for chondrosarcoma is wide local excision (WLE), as these tumors are resistant to chemotherapy and radiation treatment. While achieving negative margins has traditionally been the goal of chondrosarcoma resection, multiple studies have demonstrated good short-term results after intralesional procedures for low-grade chondrosarcomas (LGCS) with curettage and adjuvant treatments (phenol application, cauterization or cryotherapy) followed by either cementation or bone grafting. Due to the rarity of this diagnosis and the recent application of this surgical treatment modality to chondrosarcoma, most of the information regarding treatment outcomes is retrospective, with short or intermediate-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term results of patients with LGCS of bone treated with intralesional curettage (IC) treatment versus WLE. This retrospective analysis aims to characterize the oncologic outcomes (local recurrence, metastases) and functional outcomes in these two treatment groups at a single institution.
Using an institutional musculoskeletal oncologic database, we retrospectively reviewed medical records of all patients with LGCS of the appendicular skeleton that underwent surgical treatment between 1985 and 2007. Thirty-two patients (33 tumors) were identified with LGCS; 17 treated with IC and 15 with WLE.
Seventeen patients (18 tumors) with a minimum clinical and radiologic follow-up of 10 years were included. Nine patients were treated with IC (four with no adjuvant, three with additional phenol, one with liquid nitrogen and one with H2O2) with either bone graft or cement augmentation, and nine others were treated with WLE and reconstruction with intercalary/osteoarticular allograft or megaprosthesis. The mean age at surgery was 41 years (range 14–66 years) with no difference (p = 0.51) between treatment cohorts. There was a mean follow-up of 13.5 years in the intralesional cohort (range 10–19 years) and 15.9 years in the WLE cohort (range 10–28 years, p = 0.36). Tumor size varied significantly between groups and was larger in patients treated with WLE (8.2 ± 3.1 cm versus 5.4 ± 1.2 cm, at the greatest dimension, p = 0.021). There were two local recurrences (LR), one in the intralesional group and one in the wide local excision group, occurring at 3.5 months and 2.9 years, respectively, and both required revision. No further LR could be detected with long-term follow-up. The MSTS score at final follow-up was significantly higher for patients managed with intralesional procedures (28.7 ± 1.7 versus 25.7 ± 3.4, p = 0.033). There were less complications requiring reoperation in the intralesional group compared with the wide local excision group, although this difference was not found to be statistically significant (one versus four patients, respectively; p = 0.3).
This series of low-grade chondrosarcoma, surgically treated with an intralesional procedures, with 10-year follow-up, demonstrates excellent local control (88.9%). Complications were infrequent and minor and MSTS functional scores were excellent. Wide resection of LGCS was associated with lower MSTS score and more complications. In our series, the LR in both groups were detected within the first 3.5 years following the index procedure, and none were detected in the late surveillance period.
KeywordsChondrosarcoma Low grade Intralesional treatment Wide local excision
All authors have demonstrated (1) substantial contributions to research design, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; (2) drafting the paper or revising it critically; (3) approval of the submitted and final versions.
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 3.Hickey M, Farrokhyar F, Deheshi B, Turcotte R, Ghert M (2011) A systematic review and meta-analysis of intralesional versus wide resection for intramedullary grade I chondrosarcoma of the extremities. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1705–1709. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1532-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Mirra JM, Gold R, Downs J, Eckardt JJ (1985) A new histologic approach to the differentiation of enchondroma and chondrosarcoma of the bones. A clinicopathologic analysis of 51 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214–237Google Scholar
- 7.Welkerling H, Kratz S, Ewerbeck V, Delling G (2003) A reproducible and simple grading system for classical chondrosarcomas. Analysis of 35 chondrosarcomas and 16 enchondromas with emphasis on recurrence rate and radiological and clinical data. Virchows Arch 443:725–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-003-0896-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Mermerkaya MU, Bekmez S, Karaaslan F, Danisman M, Kosemehmetoglu K, Gedikoglu G et al (2014) Intralesional curettage and cementation for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones: retrospective study and literature review. World J Surg Oncol 12:336. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7819-12-336 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Verdegaal SHM, Brouwers HFG, van Zwet EW, Hogendoorn PCW, Taminiau AHM (2012) Low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones treated with intralesional curettage followed by application of phenol, ethanol, and bone-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1201–1207. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01498 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Dierselhuis EF, Gerbers JG, Ploegmakers JJW, Stevens M, Suurmeijer AJH, Jutte PC (2016) Local treatment with adjuvant therapy for central atypical cartilaginous tumors in the long bones: analysis of outcome and complications in one hundred and eight patients with a minimum follow-up of two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:303–313. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.O.00472 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR, Fedenko AN, Learch T (2006) Influence of cryosurgery on treatment outcome of low-grade chondrosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 451:201–207. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000229293.98850.5d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Murphey MD, Flemming DJ, Boyea SR, Bojescul JA, Sweet DE, Temple HT (1998) Enchondroma versus chondrosarcoma in the appendicular skeleton: differentiating features. Radiographics 18:1213–1215. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.18.5.9747616 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Group ESESNW (2014) Bone sarcomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25(Suppl 3):iii113– iii 23Google Scholar
- 28.Czerniak B. Dorfman, Czerniak S (2015) Bone tumors E-book. Elsevier Health SciencesGoogle Scholar