Carol D Morris1, Lisa A Teot2, Mark L Bernstein3, Neyssa Marina4, Mark D Krailo5, Doojduen Villaluna6, Katherine A Janeway7, Steven G DuBois8, Richard G Gorlick9, Robert Lor Randall10. 1. Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Pathology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Pediatrics, IWK Health Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 5. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 6. Statistics and Data Center, Children's Oncology Group, Monrovia, California. 7. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California. 9. Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Montefiore, Bronx, New York. 10. Department of Orthopaedics, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complete surgical resection of primary tumors is critical for long-term control of high-grade osteosarcoma. Uniform assessment of the extent of surgical resection is important in clinical trials, though the accuracy of this reporting has been poorly studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients 5-40 years of age with newly diagnosed high-grade resectable osteosarcoma treated as part of the AOST0331 clinical trial at Children's Oncology Group institutions. The extent of surgical resection of the primary tumor was graded as wide or radical by the treating institution. Central assessment of the extent of resection by two orthopedic oncologists was compared with institutional assessment by reviewing pathology and operative reports. RESULTS: We included 956 patients who had data available for central review. The extent of resection reported by treating institutions was 536/956 (56%) radical and 420/956 (44%) wide. The extent of resection assessed by central review was 162/956 (17%) radical and 794/956 (83%) wide. The overall discordance rate for the cohort was 43%. CONCLUSIONS: Institutional reports of radical resection in high-grade osteosarcoma significantly over-estimate the proportion of patients undergoing radical resection. This highlights the need for centralized review and improved accuracy of reporting of the extent of resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:351-354.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Complete surgical resection of primary tumors is critical for long-term control of high-grade osteosarcoma. Uniform assessment of the extent of surgical resection is important in clinical trials, though the accuracy of this reporting has been poorly studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients 5-40 years of age with newly diagnosed high-grade resectable osteosarcoma treated as part of the AOST0331 clinical trial at Children's Oncology Group institutions. The extent of surgical resection of the primary tumor was graded as wide or radical by the treating institution. Central assessment of the extent of resection by two orthopedic oncologists was compared with institutional assessment by reviewing pathology and operative reports. RESULTS: We included 956 patients who had data available for central review. The extent of resection reported by treating institutions was 536/956 (56%) radical and 420/956 (44%) wide. The extent of resection assessed by central review was 162/956 (17%) radical and 794/956 (83%) wide. The overall discordance rate for the cohort was 43%. CONCLUSIONS: Institutional reports of radical resection in high-grade osteosarcoma significantly over-estimate the proportion of patients undergoing radical resection. This highlights the need for centralized review and improved accuracy of reporting of the extent of resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:351-354.
Authors: M Sluga; R Windhager; S Lang; H Heinzl; P Krepler; F Mittermayer; M Dominkus; A Zoubek; R Kotz Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: P Picci; L Sangiorgi; L Bahamonde; P Aluigi; J Bibiloni; M Zavatta; M Mercuri; A Briccoli; M Campanacci Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: G Rosen; B Caparros; A G Huvos; C Kosloff; A Nirenberg; A Cacavio; R C Marcove; J M Lane; B Mehta; C Urban Journal: Cancer Date: 1982-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860