Advertisement

Bone Sarcoma pp 235-260 | Cite as

Follow-Up Evaluation and Surveillance After Treatment of Bone Sarcomas

  • Colleen M. Costelloe
  • Patrick P. Lin
Chapter
Part of the MD Anderson Cancer Care Series book series (MDCCS)

Chapter Overview

Successful follow-up of patients treated for bone sarcoma requires a ­proactive regimen of regularly scheduled clinic visits, during which the patient receives evaluations appropriate to treatment issues that change predictably with increasing time from the surgery. Early issues include wound healing and ­resumption of basic mobility, leading into a period of heightened surveillance for tumor recurrence, followed by long-term issues centering on the integrity of hardware and reconstructions. Abnormalities that present in each of these phases produce characteristic findings on the medical history, physical examination, and imaging studies. Imaging is an essential part of the follow-up regimen. Radiographs can reveal complications such as tumor recurrence, hardware loosening, infection, or allograft resorption. Other studies, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, are commonly indicated when an abnormality is suspected and can be optimized for patients with metallic hardware. Outcome measures, such as performance tests, are useful for assessing many factors that affect the lives of bone sarcoma patients; these factors include mobility, function, pain, and emotional acceptance. Scheduled clinic visits and well-balanced patient assessment can optimize patient outcome.

Keywords

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Aseptic Loosening Ewing Sarcoma Bone Sarcoma Metallic Artifact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Suggested Readings

  1. Antoch G, Bogt F, Freudenberg L, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET-CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA. 2003;290:3199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aoki J, Endo K, Watanabe H, et al. FDG-PET for evaluating musculoskeletal tumors: a review. J Orthop Sci. 2003;8:435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arush MW, Israel O, Postovsky S, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography with 18fluoro-deoxyglucose in the detection of local recurrence and distant metastases of pediatric sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;49:901–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babyn PS, Wihlborg CE, Tjong JK, Alman BA, Silberberg PJ. Local complications after limb-salvage surgery for pediatric bone tumours: a pictorial essay. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2001;52:35–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Psychometric validation of the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire, 30-item version and a diagnosis-specific module for head and neck cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 1992;31(3):311–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costelloe CM, Kumar R, Yasko AW, et al. Imaging characteristics of locally recurrent tumors of bone. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:855–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costelloe CM, Macapinlac HA, Madewell JE, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT as an indicator of progression-free and overall survival in osteosarcoma. J Nucl Med. 2009;50:340–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daut RL, Cleeland DS, Flanery RC. Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain. 1983;17:197–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis AM, Wright JG, Williams JI, et al. Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:508–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clinic Orthop. 1993;286:241–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Eustace S, Tello R, DeCarvalho V, et al. A comparison of whole-body turboSTIR MR imaging and planar 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate scintigraphy in the examination of patients with suspected skeletal metastases. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1655–61.Google Scholar
  12. Healey JH, Nikolic ZG, Athanasian E, Boland PJ. Quality of life as defined by orthopedic oncology patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:591–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacLeod CM, editor. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Columbia University Press; 1949. p. 191–205.Google Scholar
  14. Keogh CF, Munk PL, Gee R, Chan LP, Marchinkow LO. Imaging of the painful hip arthroplasty. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:115–20.Google Scholar
  15. Lansky SB, List MA, Lansky LL, Ritter-Sterr C, Miller DR. The measurement of performance in childhood cancer patients. Cancer. 1987;60:1651–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ma J, Costelloe CM, Madewell JE, et al. Fast dixon-based multisequence and multiplanar MRI for whole-body detection of cancer metastases. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29:1154–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marchese VG, Ogle S, Womer RB, Dormans J, Ginsberg JP. An examination of outcome measures to assess functional mobility in childhood survivors of osteosarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2004;42:41–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller TT. Imaging of hip arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2006;10:30–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ohashi K, El-Khoury GY, Bennett DL, Restrepo JM, Berbaum KS. Orthopedic hardware complications diagnosed with multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2005;237:570–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pfeilschifter J, Diel IJ. Osteoporosis due to cancer treatment: pathogenesis and management. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1570–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Reuther G, Mutschler W. Detection of local recurrent disease in musculoskeletal tumors: magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography. Skeletal Radiol. 1990;19:85–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH, et al. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:1207–13.Google Scholar
  23. Viano AM, Gronemeyer SA, Haliloglu M, Hoffer FA. Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;18:287–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Völker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, et al. Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weissman B. Imaging of hip replacement. Radiology. 1997;202:611–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Zubrod CG, Schneiderman M, Frei E, et al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphamide. J Chronic Dis. 1960;11:7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Musculoskeletal Imaging, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Unit 1475, Division of Diagnostic ImagingThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic Oncology, Unit 1448, Division of SurgeryThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations