Costantino Errani1, Shinji Tsukamoto2, Giovanni Ciani3, Manabu Akahane4, Luca Cevolani3, Piergiuseppe Tanzi3, Akira Kido2, Kanya Honoki2, Yasuhito Tanaka2, Davide Maria Donati3. 1. Orthopaedic, Musculoskeletal Oncology Department, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, via Pupilli n1, 40136, Bologna, Italy. costantino.errani@ior.it. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan. 3. Orthopaedic, Musculoskeletal Oncology Department, Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, via Pupilli n1, 40136, Bologna, Italy. 4. Department of Public Health, Health Management and Policy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 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. RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: 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.
INTRODUCTION: 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. RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Atypical cartilaginous tumour; Chondrosarcoma; Curettage; Enchondroma; Imaging; Recurrence; Surgery
Authors: Michael Hickey; Forough Farrokhyar; Ben Deheshi; Robert Turcotte; Michelle Ghert Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-01-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Suzan H M Verdegaal; Hugo F G Brouwers; Erik W van Zwet; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Antonie H M Taminiau Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Chad Aarons; Benjamin K Potter; Sheila C Adams; J David Pitcher; H Thomas Temple Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Mohammad Al Rajeh; Juan José Hidalgo Diaz; Sybille Facca; Anne Sophie Matheron; Stéphanie Gouzou; Philippe Liverneaux Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2016-12-09
Authors: Patricio A Alfaro; Giovanni Ciani; Carlos A Herrera; Davide Maria Donati; Costantino Errani Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2019-09-09