Risk factors for local recurrence from atypical cartilaginous tumour and enchondroma of the long bones
- 207 Downloads
The purpose of our study is to verify possible clinical and radiological findings with regard to distinguishing enchondroma from atypical cartilaginous tumour (ACT). In addition, this study determined risk factors that are associated with local recurrence of enchondroma or ACT treated with curettage.
Materials and methods
We retrospectively reviewed the records of 54 patients with enchondroma and 35 patients with ACT of the long bones treated by curettage between 1986 and 2015. The minimum follow-up was 18 months. The relationship between clinical and radiological factors and the tumour type or local recurrence was assessed using Chi-square test or Fischer exact test.
Endosteal scalloping (p = 0.004) and soft tissue extension (p = 0.017) were shown to statistically favour ACT over enchondroma; by contrast, pain (p = 0.034) was more frequent in enchondroma compared to ACT. All patients with enchondroma had no local recurrence; in contrast, local recurrence occurred in four patients with ACT (11%). Soft tissue extension (p = 0.049) and the diagnosis of ACT (p = 0.021) were associated with an increased risk of local recurrence. We had a disease progression in three of four patients with local recurrence, and these had higher histological grade than the original tumour.
Our data show that endosteal scalloping and soft tissue extension could be helpful in the differential diagnosis between enchondroma and ACT. We suggest following only those patients with ACT after surgery to identify any possible recurrence and, in case of recurrence, treat these patients with resection for the risk of disease progression.
KeywordsAtypical cartilaginous tumour Enchondroma Chondrosarcoma Surgery Curettage Recurrence Imaging
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare to have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Eefting D, Schrage YM, Geirnaerdt MJA, Le Cessie S, Taminiau AH, Bovée JV, Hogendoorn PC, EuroBoNeT consortium (2009) Assessment of interobserver variability and histologic parameters to improve reliability in classification and grading of central cartilaginous tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 33(1):50–57. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817eec2b CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.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 Int J Pathol 443(6):725–733. doi: 10.1007/s00428-003-0896-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.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(4):303–313. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.O.00472 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Hanna SA, Whittingham-Jones P, Sewell MD, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Saifuddin A, Flanagan A, Cannon SR, Briggs TW (2009) Outcome of intralesional curettage for low-grade chondrosarcoma of long bones. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol 35(12):1343–1347. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2009.06.001 Google Scholar
- 15.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(13):1201–1207. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01498 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ (1993) A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop 286:241–246Google Scholar