Luis Rodrigo Merino-Rueda1,2, Irene Barrientos-Ruiz3, Daniel Bernabeu-Taboada4, José J Pozo-Kreilinger5, Manuel Peleteiro-Pensado3, José M Cordero-García6, Eduardo J Ortiz-Cruz3. 1. Orthopaedic Oncology Unit, "Doce de Octubre" University Hospital, Avda. De Córdoba s/n, 28041, Madrid, Spain. rodrigomerinorueda@gmail.com. 2. Orthopaedic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Paseo de La Castellana, 26, 28046, Madrid, Spain. rodrigomerinorueda@gmail.com. 3. Orthopaedic Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Paseo de La Castellana, 26, 28046, Madrid, Spain. 4. Radiology Department, La Paz University Hospital, Paseo de La Castellana, 26, 28046, Madrid, Spain. 5. Pathology Department, La Paz University Hospital, Paseo de La Castellana, 26, 28046, Madrid, Spain. 6. Nuclear Medicine Department, La Paz University Hospital, Paseo de La Castellana, 26, 28046, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep soft tissue sarcomas are frequently in contact with bone. The therapeutic decision of a composite resection strategy may be challenging, which is usually based on clinical and radiological criteria. The aims of the study were to evaluate the overall frequency of bone and periosteal infiltration in these patients in whom composite resection was indicated, and evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy in this scenario. METHODS: Forty-nine patients with a composite surgical resection (soft tissue sarcoma and bone), treated at a single institution between 2006 and 2018, were retrospectively included. Presurgical planning of the resection limits was based on clinical and imaging findings (magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy). Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in all patients (100%) and bone scintigraphy in 41 (83.7% of the cases). According to magnetic resonance imaging results, patients were divided into two groups: Group A, in which the tumor is adjacent to the bone without evidence of infiltration (n = 24, 48,9%), and Group B, patients with evidence of bone involvement by magnetic resonance imaging (n = 25, 51,1%). BS showed a pathological deposit in 28 patients (68.3%). Histological analysis of the resection specimen was preceded to identify bone and periosteal infiltration. For the analysis of the diagnostic validity of imaging tests, histological diagnosis was considered as the gold standard in the evaluation of STS bone infiltration. RESULTS: Histological bone infiltration was identified in 49% of patients and isolated periosteal infiltration in 14.3%. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy sensitivity values were 92% and 90%, and their specificity values were 91.7% and 52.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of bone and periosteal infiltration of soft tissue sarcomas in contact with bone is high. Presurgical bone assessment by MRI has proven to be a sensitive and specific tool in the diagnosis of bone infiltration. Due to its high negative predictive value, BS is a useful test to rule out it. In those cases, in which there is suspicion of bone infiltration not confirmed by MRI, new diagnostic protocols should be established in order to avoid inappropriate resections.
BACKGROUND: Deep soft tissue sarcomas are frequently in contact with bone. The therapeutic decision of a composite resection strategy may be challenging, which is usually based on clinical and radiological criteria. The aims of the study were to evaluate the overall frequency of bone and periosteal infiltration in these patients in whom composite resection was indicated, and evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy in this scenario. METHODS: Forty-nine patients with a composite surgical resection (soft tissue sarcoma and bone), treated at a single institution between 2006 and 2018, were retrospectively included. Presurgical planning of the resection limits was based on clinical and imaging findings (magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy). Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in all patients (100%) and bone scintigraphy in 41 (83.7% of the cases). According to magnetic resonance imaging results, patients were divided into two groups: Group A, in which the tumor is adjacent to the bone without evidence of infiltration (n = 24, 48,9%), and Group B, patients with evidence of bone involvement by magnetic resonance imaging (n = 25, 51,1%). BS showed a pathological deposit in 28 patients (68.3%). Histological analysis of the resection specimen was preceded to identify bone and periosteal infiltration. For the analysis of the diagnostic validity of imaging tests, histological diagnosis was considered as the gold standard in the evaluation of STS bone infiltration. RESULTS: Histological bone infiltration was identified in 49% of patients and isolated periosteal infiltration in 14.3%. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, magnetic resonance imaging and bone scintigraphy sensitivity values were 92% and 90%, and their specificity values were 91.7% and 52.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of bone and periosteal infiltration of soft tissue sarcomas in contact with bone is high. Presurgical bone assessment by MRI has proven to be a sensitive and specific tool in the diagnosis of bone infiltration. Due to its high negative predictive value, BS is a useful test to rule out it. In those cases, in which there is suspicion of bone infiltration not confirmed by MRI, new diagnostic protocols should be established in order to avoid inappropriate resections.
Authors: Lawrence M White; Jay S Wunder; Robert S Bell; Brian O'Sullivan; Charles Catton; Peter Ferguson; Martin Blackstein; Rita A Kandel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Alexander Stojadinovic; Denis H Y Leung; Axel Hoos; David P Jaques; Jonathan J Lewis; Murray F Brennan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P D Stefanovski; E Bidoli; A De Paoli; A Buonadonna; G Boz; M Libra; S Morassut; C Rossi; A Carbone; S Frustaci Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Patrick P Lin; Eduardo Diaz Pino; Anne N Normand; Michael T Deavers; Christopher P Cannon; Matthew T Ballo; Peter W T Pisters; Raphael E Pollock; Valerae O Lewis; Gunar K Zagars; Alan W Yasko Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Peter C Ferguson; Anthony M Griffin; Brian O'Sullivan; Charles N Catton; Aileen M Davis; Ally Murji; Robert S Bell; Jay S Wunder Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alessandro Gronchi; Salvatore Lo Vullo; Chiara Colombo; Paola Collini; Silvia Stacchiotti; Luigi Mariani; Marco Fiore; Paolo Giovanni Casali Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Rima Ahmad; Alex Jacobson; Francis Hornicek; Alex B Haynes; Edwin Choy; Gregory Cote; G Petur Nielsen; Yen-Lin Chen; Thomas F DeLaney; John T Mullen Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-20