F Violon1,2, R Burns3,4, F Mihoubi3, V Audard1, D Biau4,5, A Feydy3,4, F Larousserie6,7. 1. Service de Pathologie, Hôpital Cochin, AP‑HP, Paris, France. 2. Faculté de Médecine de Nancy, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France. 3. Service de Radiologie, Hôpital Cochin, AP-HP, Paris, France. 4. Université de Paris, Paris, France. 5. Service de Chirurgie Orthopédique, Hôpital Cochin, AP-HP, Paris, France. 6. Service de Pathologie, Hôpital Cochin, AP‑HP, Paris, France. frederique.larousserie@aphp.fr. 7. Université de Paris, Paris, France. frederique.larousserie@aphp.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proportion of extraskeletal, periosteal, and intramedullary Ewing sarcomas among musculoskeletal Ewing sarcomas. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Our single-center retrospective study included patients with musculoskeletal Ewing sarcoma diagnosed between 2005 and 2019 in our pathology center (cases from our adult bone tumor referral center and adult and pediatric cases referred for review). Recurrences, metastases, and visceral Ewing sarcomas were excluded. Intramedullary Ewing sarcomas were defined by involvement of the medullary cavity. Periosteal cases were defined by involvement of the subperiosteal area without extension to the medullary cavity. Extraskeletal cases were defined by the absence of involvement of the bone tissue and the subperiosteal area. RESULTS: Our series included 126 patients with musculoskeletal Ewing sarcoma, including 118 skeletal Ewing sarcomas (93.7%) and 8 extraskeletal Ewing sarcomas (6.3%). Of the 118 skeletal Ewing sarcomas 112 were intramedullary (88.9%) and 6 were periosteal (4.8%). Extraskeletal Ewing sarcomas were more common in women and in patients older than 40 (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: The 6.3% proportion of extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma is lower than the median of 30% estimated from the literature. This difference could be explained by an overestimation of extraskeletal Ewing sarcomas of the chest wall (Askin tumors), an underestimation of periosteal cases confused with extraskeletal cases, and the presence of "Ewing-like" soft tissue sarcomas in previous series. Because of its prognostic and therapeutic impact, the distinction of morphologic subtypes requires the cooperation of experienced radiologists and pathologists.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proportion of extraskeletal, periosteal, and intramedullary Ewing sarcomas among musculoskeletal Ewing sarcomas. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Our single-center retrospective study included patients with musculoskeletal Ewing sarcoma diagnosed between 2005 and 2019 in our pathology center (cases from our adult bone tumor referral center and adult and pediatric cases referred for review). Recurrences, metastases, and visceral Ewing sarcomas were excluded. Intramedullary Ewing sarcomas were defined by involvement of the medullary cavity. Periosteal cases were defined by involvement of the subperiosteal area without extension to the medullary cavity. Extraskeletal cases were defined by the absence of involvement of the bone tissue and the subperiosteal area. RESULTS: Our series included 126 patients with musculoskeletal Ewing sarcoma, including 118 skeletal Ewing sarcomas (93.7%) and 8 extraskeletal Ewing sarcomas (6.3%). Of the 118 skeletal Ewing sarcomas 112 were intramedullary (88.9%) and 6 were periosteal (4.8%). Extraskeletal Ewing sarcomas were more common in women and in patients older than 40 (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: The 6.3% proportion of extraskeletal Ewing sarcoma is lower than the median of 30% estimated from the literature. This difference could be explained by an overestimation of extraskeletal Ewing sarcomas of the chest wall (Askin tumors), an underestimation of periosteal cases confused with extraskeletal cases, and the presence of "Ewing-like" soft tissue sarcomas in previous series. Because of its prognostic and therapeutic impact, the distinction of morphologic subtypes requires the cooperation of experienced radiologists and pathologists.
Authors: Kristin P Anfinsen; Susan S Devesa; Freddie Bray; Rebecca Troisi; Thora J Jonasdottir; Oyvind S Bruland; Tom Grotmol Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Thomas G P Grünewald; Florencia Cidre-Aranaz; Didier Surdez; Eleni M Tomazou; Enrique de Álava; Heinrich Kovar; Poul H Sorensen; Olivier Delattre; Uta Dirksen Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: L G Shapeero; D Vanel; M Sundaram; L V Ackerman; P Wuisman; T W Bauer; S Neuenschwander; G Contesso; C Janney; D J McDonald Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rachel Eyre; Richard G Feltbower; Peter W James; Karen Blakey; Emmanuel Mubwandarikwa; David Forman; Patricia A McKinney; Mark S Pearce; Richard J Q McNally Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Mark D Murphey; Lien T Senchak; Pramod K Mambalam; Chika I Logie; Mary K Klassen-Fischer; Mark J Kransdorf Journal: Radiographics Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Muhammad U Jawad; Michael C Cheung; Elijah S Min; Michaela M Schneiderbauer; Leonidas G Koniaris; Sean P Scully Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860