Dataset Information

Local Recurrence After Minimally Invasive Curettage For Primary Giant Cell Tumor of Bone With Perioperative Bisphosphonate Is Comparable to Open Curettage: Retrospective Comparison With 9-Year Follow-Up.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the long-term oncological outcome of minimally invasive curettage (MIC) with conventional open curettage (OC).

Methods

We studied patients with primary giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) of extremities who underwent intralesional tumor curettage and cementation and perioperative bisphosphonates from February 2003 to June 2016. All cases were histology-confirmed diagnoses of GCTB. Recurrent GCTB, malignant GCTB, cases in the axial skeleton (pelvis and spine), or cases with bone grafting of the curetted cavity were excluded. The local recurrence-free (LR-free) estimates of the OC and MIC groups were compared. The hazard ratio of a local recurrence was calculated for the various factors of the patients, disease, and treatment.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 8.8 years, the overall LR rate was 24.2% (8 out of 33 patients). There was no statistical difference in LR in MIC and OC groups (27.8 % vs 20%; P = .6). The mean time to LR was 33.1 months (8 to 75). The operative time was comparable in both MIC and OC groups. None of the risk factors studied led to a significantly higher hazard of LR.

Conclusions

At a long-term follow-up of 9 years, MIC showed similar LR-free survival to OC. Combining bisphosphonates and MIC with a less invasive approach showed reasonable LR-free survival in long-term follow-up.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

SUBMITTER: Lau HW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8689217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe outcomes of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy have not been adequately compared with those of open pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of these two pancreaticoduodenectomy procedures specifically in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.MethodsBefore this study was initiated, a specific protocol was designed and has been registered in PROSEPRO (ID: CRD42020149438). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1994 and October 2019. Overall survival, disease-free survival, and time to commencing adjuvant chemotherapy were the primary endpoint measurements, whereas perioperative and short-term outcomes were the secondary endpoints.ResultsThe final analysis included 9 retrospective cohorts comprising 11,242 patients (1377 who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy and 9865 who underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy). There were no significant differences in the patients' overall survival, operative time, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, rate of vein resection, number of harvested lymph nodes, or rate of positive lymph nodes between the two approaches. However, disease-free survival, time to starting adjuvant chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, and rate of negative margins in patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy showed improvements relative to those in patients who underwent open surgery.ConclusionsMinimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy provides similar or even improved perioperative, short-term, and long-term oncological outcomes when compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence for benefit of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) over open surgical repair for de novo infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in younger patients remains conflicting because of heterogeneous study populations and small sample sizes. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative and short-term outcomes for EVAR and open surgery in younger patients using a large national disease and procedure-specific data set. METHODS:We identified patients 65 years of age or younger undergoing first-time elective EVAR or open AAA repair from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2014). We excluded patients with pararenal or thoracoabdominal aneurysms, those medically unfit for open repair, and those undergoing EVAR for isolated iliac aneurysms. Clinical and procedural characteristics were balanced using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. A supplemental analysis extended the study to those younger than 70 years. RESULTS:We identified 2641 patients, 73% (n = 1928) EVAR and 27% (n = 713) open repair. The median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 59-64 years), and 13% were female. The median follow-up time was 401 days (interquartile range, 357-459 days). Unadjusted perioperative survival was 99.6% overall (open repair, 99.1%; EVAR, 99.8%; P < .001), with 97.4% 1-year survival overall (open repair, 97.3%; EVAR, 97.4%; P = .9). Unadjusted reintervention rates were five (open repair) and seven (EVAR) reinterventions per 100 person-years (P = .8). After propensity weighting, the absolute incidence of perioperative mortality was <1% in both groups (open repair, 0.9%, EVAR, 0.2%; P < .001), and complication rates were low. Propensity-weighted survival (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.38; P = .6) and reintervention rates (open repair, 6; EVAR, 8; reinterventions per 100 person-years; P = .8) did not differ between the two interventions. The analysis of those younger than 70 years showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS:In this study of younger patients undergoing repair of infrarenal AAA, 30-day morbidity and mortality for both open surgery and EVAR are low, and the absolute mortality difference is small. The prior published perioperative mortality and 1-year survival benefit of EVAR over open AAA repair is not observed in younger patients. Further studies of long-term durability are needed to guide decision-making for open repair vs EVAR in this population.

Project description:BackgroundFollowing curettage of giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB), it is common to fill the cavity with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement, bone allograft, or artificial bone to maintain bone strength; however, there is a 2-14% risk of postoperative fractures. We conducted this retrospective study to clarify the risk factors for fractures after curettage for GCTB of the extremities.MethodsThis study included 284 patients with GCTBs of the extremities who underwent curettage at our institutions between 1980 and 2018 after excluding patients whose cavities were not filled with anything or who had additional plate fixation. The tumor cavity was filled with PMMA bone cement alone (n = 124), PMMA bone cement and bone allograft (n = 81), bone allograft alone (n = 63), or hydroxyapatite graft alone (n = 16).ResultsFractures after curettage occurred in 10 (3.5%) patients, and the median time from the curettage to fracture was 3.5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.8-8.3 months). The median postoperative follow-up period was 86.5 months (IQR, 50.3-118.8 months). On univariate analysis, patients who had GCTB of the proximal or distal femur (1-year fracture-free survival, 92.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.8-96.2) presented a higher risk for postoperative fracture than those who had GCTB at another site (100%; p = 0.0005). Patients with a pathological fracture at presentation (1-year fracture-free survival, 88.2%; 95% CI: 63.2-97.0) presented a higher risk for postoperative fracture than those without a pathological fracture at presentation (97.8%; 95% CI: 95.1-99.0; p = 0.048). Patients who received bone grafting (1-year fracture-free survival, 99.4%; 95% CI: 95.7-99.9) had a lower risk of postoperative fracture than those who did not receive bone grafting (94.4%; 95% CI: 88.7-97.3; p = 0.003).ConclusionsFor GCTBs of the femur, especially those with pathological fracture at presentation, bone grafting after curettage is recommended to reduce the risk of postoperative fracture. Additional plate fixation should be considered when curettage and cement filling without bone grafting are performed in patients with GCTB of the femur. This should be specially performed for those patients with a pathological fracture at presentation.