| Literature DB >> 29239274 |
Yifeng He1, Jun Wang2, Ji Zhang1, Lianjun Du1, Yong Lu1, Jianqiang Xu3, Fei Yuan4, Yimin Tan1, Xiaoyi Ding1.
Abstract
Objective To identify the prognostic factors for local recurrence of giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) through assessment of the preoperative imaging features of the tumor border. Methods Patients with GCTBs treated with intralesional procedures in the proximal tibia and distal femur were prospectively enrolled and then followed up for at least 2 years. The GCTBs were grouped according to their preoperative imaging features. GCTBs treated with en bloc resection were enrolled for investigation of the pathologic basis of specific imaging features. Differences between rates were evaluated by the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test; independent factors were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Fifty-three patients were enrolled and successfully followed up. Relapse occurred in 22 patients. Patients with a "paintbrush borders" sign (n = 21) had a significantly higher rate of local recurrence (71.43%) than patients without this sign (21.88%). The "paintbrush borders" sign was identified as an independent prognostic factor for local recurrence. Other imaging features were not significantly associated with recurrence. The "paintbrush borders" sign showed a correlation with local invasion of bone. Conclusion The "paintbrush borders" sign on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging is an independent prognostic factor for local recurrence of GCTB.Entities:
Keywords: Giant cell tumor of bone; intralesional procedure; local recurrence; preoperative imaging feature; prognosis; tumor border
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29239274 PMCID: PMC5971501 DOI: 10.1177/0300060517720345
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Med Res ISSN: 0300-0605 Impact factor: 1.671
Figure 1.Flow chart of study design. *GCTB border, including peritumoral edema, the “paintbrush borders” sign, bony ridges, and loss of the bone cortex. GCTB, giant cell tumor of bone; CT, computed tomography; MR, magnetic resonance.
Figure 2.A 59-year-old man with a giant cell tumor of bone in the proximal tibia treated with curettage. No sign of recurrence was found after 9.5 years of follow-up. (a) Axial computed tomography shows spine-like high-density bony ridges (white arrows). (b) Coronal and (c) sagittal T1-weighted images show the “paintbrush borders” sign, characterized by protrusions (black arrows) extending toward the bone from the edge of the tumor. (d) Sagittal fat-suppressed T2-weighted image shows minimal and limited peritumoral edema, which was classified as grade B in this study.
Figure 3.A 64-year-old woman with a 6-month history of knee pain. Local recurrence was confirmed after 1 year of follow-up. (a) Coronal T1-weighted image shows “paintbrush-like” irregular margins protruding toward the bone (black arrows). (b) Coronal fat-suppressed T2-weighted image shows massive peritumoral edema and joint effusion (white arrows), which was classified as grade A in this study. (c) Sagittal T2-weighted image shows a homogeneous region with high signal intensity (white arrows) indicating local relapse in the region of the penetrating irregular margins. (d) The surgical specimen was dissected to examine its correlation with the sagittal image, and recurrent tumor tissue as confirmed around the bone cement.
Figure 4.A 23-year-old woman with a giant cell tumor of bone treated with en bloc resection. (a, b) The surgical specimen was dissected to examine its correlation with the coronal image, and pathological samples were taken from this coronal section. (c) Coronal T2-weighted image shows the “paintbrush borders” sign at the upper aspect of the tumor (black arrows). (d) Photomicrograph (label A4 in Figure 4(c)) shows the tumor histology with typical multinuclear giant cells (white arrows) among numerous mononuclear cells protruding toward the bone tissue (#) (hematoxylin–eosin stain; original magnification, 100×).
Patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| ≤30 years | 31 (53.45) |
| >30 years | 27 (46.55) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 30 (51.72) |
| Female | 28 (48.28) |
| Location | |
| Proximal tibia | 30 (51.72) |
| Distal femur | 28 (48.28) |
| Peritumoral edema | |
| Grade A | 34 (58.62) |
| Grade B | 24 (41.38) |
| “Paintbrush borders” sign | |
| Present | 26 (44.83) |
| Absent | 32 (55.17) |
| Bony ridges | |
| Present | 36 (62.07) |
| Absent | 22 (37.93) |
| Loss of bone cortex | |
| Present (loss) | 47 (81.03) |
| Absent (no loss) | 11 (18.97) |
Analysis of factors influencing local recurrence.
| Local recurrence | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Present (n = 22) | Absent (n = 31) | |
| Preoperative imaging features | Peritumoral edema | ||
| Grade A | 14 | 17 | |
| Grade B | 8 | 14 | |
| “Paintbrush borders” sign | |||
| Present | 15 | 6 | |
| Absent | 7 | 25 | |
| Bony ridges | |||
| Present | 13 | 19 | |
| Absent | 9 | 12 | |
| Loss of bone cortex | |||
| Present (loss) | 20 | 24 | |
| Absent (no loss) | 2 | 7 | |
| Confounding variable analysis | Phenol | ||
| Applied | 12 | 17 | |
| Not applied | 10 | 14 | |
| Long study duration | |||
| Enrollment in former years | 10 | 13 | |
| Enrollment in latter years | 12 | 18 | |
Statistically significant difference (P < 0.05).
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors for local recurrence.
| 95% confidence interval for Exp(B) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local recurrence | B | Standard error | Wald |
|
| Exp(B) | Lower bound | Upper bound |
| Bony ridges | 0.580 | 0.778 | 0.557 | 1 | 0.456 | 1.787 | 0.389 | 8.207 |
| Peritumoral edema | −0.195 | 0.847 | 0.053 | 1 | 0.818 | 0.822 | 0.156 | 4.327 |
| “Paintbrush borders” sign | −2.613 | 0.846 | 9.544 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.073 | 0.014 | 0.385 |
| Loss of bone cortex | −1.391 | 1.138 | 1.494 | 1 | 0.222 | 0.249 | 0.027 | 2.315 |
| Sex (female) | −1.231 | 0.778 | 2.503 | 1 | 0.114 | 0.292 | 0.063 | 1.342 |
| Age (>30 years) | 1.122 | 0.765 | 2.152 | 1 | 0.142 | 3.071 | 0.686 | 13.751 |
| Location (distal femur) | 0.316 | 0.893 | 0.125 | 1 | 0.724 | 1.371 | 0.238 | 7.893 |
Statistically significant difference (P < 0.05).
B, regression coefficient; df, degree of freedom; Exp(B), exponentiated regression coefficient