| Literature DB >> 33138794 |
Jie Zang1, Wei Guo2, Rongli Yang1, Xiaodong Tang1, Haijie Liang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chondrosarcoma (CS) most commonly involves the pelvis. This study aimed to analyze differences in clinical characteristics and prognostic factors between primary and secondary conventional pelvic CS, and provide reference for clinical diagnosis and treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Chondrosarcoma; Pelvis; Primary; Secondary
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33138794 PMCID: PMC7607637 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07530-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1The study flowchart
Comparison of primary and secondary chondrosarcoma of pelvis in terms of clinical characteristics
| Variable | Primary | Secondary | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 29 (53.7%) | 18 (69.2%) | 0.23 |
| Female | 25 (46.3%) | 8 (30.8%) | ||
| Age | Mean ± SD (years) | 48.5 ± 12.8 | 32.2 ± 8.8 | 0.000 |
| < 40 (years) | 11 (20.4%) | 21 (80.8%) | 0.000 | |
| ≥40 (years) | 43 (79.6%) | 5 (19.2%) | ||
| Tumor Site | I | 5 (9.3%) | 7 (26.9%) | 0.023 |
| I:illium | I + P | 6 (11.1) | 2 (7.7%) | |
| P:periacetabulum | I + P + I-P | 10 (18.5%) | 1 (3.8%) | |
| I-P:ischium-pubis | I + P + I-P + S | 2 (3.7%) | 0 | |
| F:femoral | I + P + I-P + F | 1 (1.9%) | 0 | |
| S:sacrum | I + P + S | 1 (1.9%) | 0 | |
| I + S | 1 (1.9%) | 0 | ||
| P | 3 (5.6%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
| P + I-P | 25 (46%) | 9 (34.6%) | ||
| P + I-P + F | 0 | 1 (3.8%) | ||
| I + P | 0 | 4 (15.4%) | ||
| I + P + F | 0 | 1 (3.8%) | ||
| Enneking Stage | IA | 1 (1.9%) | 2 (7.7%) | 0.439 |
| IB | 3 (5.6%) | 2 (7.7%) | ||
| IIA | 6 (11.1%) | 1 (3.8%) | ||
| IIB | 40 (74.1%) | 21 (80.8%) | ||
| III | 4 (7.4%) | 0 | ||
| Soft Tissue Mass | Mean ± SD (cm) | 6.6 ± 4.3 | 10.6 ± 4.5 | 0.002 |
| <8 cm | 29 (53.7%) | 8 (30.8%) | 0.016 | |
| ≥8 cm | 25 (46.3%) | 18 (69.2%) | ||
| Margin | Wide | 22 (40.7%) | 10 (38.5%) | 0.809 |
| Marginal | 19 (35.2%) | 8 (30.8%) | ||
| Intralesional | 13 (24.3%) | 8 (30.8%) | ||
| Initial Tumor Grade | I | 4 (7.4%) | 7 (26.9%) | 0.002 |
| II | 38 (70.4%) | 19 (73.1%) | ||
| III | 12 (22.2%) | 0 |
Comparison of postoperative follow-up results of primary and secondary pelvic chondrosarcoma
| Variable | Primary | Secondary | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alive without disease | 27 (50%) | 17 (65.4%) | 0.016 |
| Alive with disease | 3 (5.6%) | 5 (19.2%) | |
| Death | 24 (44.4%) | 4 (15.4%) | |
| Postoperative hemorrhage (perioperative period) | 1 (1.9%) | 0 | |
| Septic shock (perioperative) | 1 (1.9%) | 0 | |
| Cerebral hemorrhage | 2 (3.7%) | 0 | |
| Myocardial infarction | 1 (1.9%) | 0 | |
| pulmonary embolism | 1 (1.9%) | 0 | |
| Pulmonary metastasis | 12 (22.2%) | 2 (7.7%) | |
| Cachexia | 4 (7.4%) | 2 (7.7%) | |
| Brain metastases | 2 (3.7%) | 0 | |
| Follow-up time | |||
| Mean ± SD (Months) | 40 ± 28.2 | 68.8 ± 38.6 | 0.002 |
Comparison of primary and secondary chondrosarcoma of pelvis in terms of local recurrence
| Variable | Primary | Secondary | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Local recurrence,n(%) | No | 34 (63.0) | 17 (65.4) | 0.436 |
| Yes | 20 (37.0) | 9 (34.6) | ||
| Recurrence time after first treatment (months) | Median (IQR) | 14.0 (8.0–21.8) | 38.5 (25.0–59.5) | < 0.001 |
| Pathological progression after recurrencea,n(%) | No | 7 (58.3) | 5 (55.6) | 1.000 |
| Yes | 5 (41.7) | 4 (44.4) |
aReceived second surgical treatment: Primary N = 12; secondary N = 9
IQR interquartile range
Fig. 2Overall survival of primary and secondary pelvic CS
Fig. 3Effect of initial tumor classification on survival of patients with pelvic CS
Multivariable analysis designed to analyze independent factors associated with overall survival
| Viable | HR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Tumor Grade | 0.005 | ||
| Grade II vs Grade I | 14.837 | 1.110–198.286 | 0.041 |
| Grade III vs Grade I | 161.445 | 5.954–4377.516 | 0.003 |
Comparison of literature on pelvic chondrosarcoma
| Author | Years of study | Number of patient | Patholy subtype | Pathology grade | Followup (year) | Local recurrence(%) | Surgical margin | Overall survival | Risk factors for OS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bus et al. [ | 1985 to 2013 | 162 | Conventional primary central | 1( | 12.6 (median) | 38% | Wide 51%;marginal 26%;intralesional 23% | 59% | Tumor grade,resection margins,tumor size,soft-tissue infiltration |
| Stihsen et al. [ | 1967 to 2012 | 58 | conventional ( | 1( | 13 (mean) | 19% | Wide 73%, marginal 17%, intralesional 10% | 55% (5-yr) | Tumor grade, age, local recurrence |
| Donati et al. [ | 1971 to 1999 | 124 | Conventional | 1 (n = 1),2( | NA | 18% | Wide 65%, marginal+intralesional 35% | 92% (5-yr) | Tumor grade, tumor location (central/peripheral),type of operation (limb-sparing resection/hemipelvectomy),local recurrence |
| Mavrogenis et al. [ | 1975 to 2008 | 215 | Conventional ( | 1( | 8.6 (mean) | 30% | Wide 70%;marginal 13%;intralesional 17% | 83%(5-yr) | Tumor grade |
| Ozaki et al. [ | 1970 to 1993 | 31 | Primary ( | NA | 5 (median) | 45% | Wide 26%;marginal 23%;intralesional 51% | 67.7%(5-yr) | Tumor type |
| Deloin et al. [ | 1968 to 2003 | 59 | Primary ( | 1(n = 11),2( | 7.8 (mean) | 31% | Wide 78%;marginal 3%;intralesional 19% | 66%(5-yr) | Resection margin, tumor grade, acetabular involvement |
| Wirbel et al. [ | 1978 to 1998 | 51 | NA | NA | 6.2 (mean) | 20.40% | Wide 53%;marginal 31%;intralesional 16% | 58% | Tumor stage, resection margin |
| Sheth et al. [ | 1970 to 1992 | 67 | Conventional ( | 1( | 9.6(median) | 28% | Negative 57%, positive 43% | 52% | Tumor grade |
| Guo et al. [ | 1998 to 2007 | 45 | Conventional ( | NA | 3.1 (median) | 22.20% | Wide 77%;marginal 7%;intralesional 16% | 62.6% (5-yr) | NA |
| Pring et al. [ | 1975 to 1996 | 64 | Conventional ( | 1( | 11.7 (median) | 19% | Wide 63%;marginal 20%;intralesional 17% | 82% (5-yr) | Tumor grade |
| Current study | 2006 to 2018 | 80 | Conventional/ primary (n = 54), secondary ( | I (n = 11),II(n = 57),III(n = 12) | 3.3 (median) | 37.2% | Wide 63%;marginal 20%;intralesional 17% | 67.7%(5-yr) | Tumor grade |