Is limb salvage surgery a contra indication in pathological fractures secondary to osteosarcoma? Do we know the answer?

Volume 2 | Issue 2 | May-Aug 2016 | Page 10-12 | Zeeshan Khan1, Shakir Hussain1, Simon Carter1


Authors: Zeeshan Khan[1], Shakir Hussain[1], Simon Carter[1]

[1] The Bone and soft tissue tumour unit,
The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, UK. B31 2AP.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Zeeshan Khan
Bone tumour unit, The royal orthopaedic hospital, Birmingham, UK. B31 2AP.
Email: zeek1978@yahoo.co.uk


Abstract

Introduction: Osteosarcoma is the commonest primary bone tumour with a bimodal age distribution. The survivorship of patients with osteosarcoma has improved with advances in chemotherapy making limb salvage surgery the commonest surgical procedure. Pathological fractures associated with osteosarcoma, however are rare and suggests the aggressiveness of the tumour. These patients are considered as a special group due to the variable outcomes reported in the literature due to some special characteristics, prompting the discussion between limb salvage surgery versus ablative surgery.
This article reviews the reasons why this group of patients are considered challenging and also the various outcomes reported in the literature.
Keywords: Pathological fracture, osteosarcoma, outcomes


Introduction
Primary bone and soft tissue sarcomas are rare tumours. Osteosarcoma is the commonest primary bone tumour with a bimodal age distribution and with a reported incidence of 2-3 per million population per year [1, 2]. With advances in chemotherapy, the survivorship of patients with osteosarcoma has improved significantly with various studies revealing similar results with limb salvage surgery when compared with amputation [5]. Contra indications to limb salvage surgery may include involvement of the neurovascular bundle, joint involvement, progression of disease whilst on treatment, patient choice, infection and a pathological fracture (Figure 1).
A pathological fractureassociated with osteosarcoma at presentation or during treatment is even rarer with a reported incidence of 5-10% [3, 4].A pathological fracture can be the mode of presentation for osteosarcomas in certain cases whereas it can occur during treatment in others. This is generally considered to be an aggressive biological behaviour of the disease which in turn, historically, has been considered as a poor prognostic factor in the outcome of this special group of patients [6].

Figure 1: Plain radiograph of a skeletally mature patent with a pathological fracture secondary to osteosarcoma with involvement of the joint both clinically and radiologically.

Figure 1: Plain radiograph of a skeletally mature patent with a pathological fracture secondary to osteosarcoma with involvement of the joint both clinically and radiologically.

Why is this group of patients special?
This select group of patients poses a challenge to the treating orthopaedic surgeon about the modality of surgical procedure. There has been a debate over the years whether these patients should have ablative or limb salvage surgery and if there is a difference in the outcome of both with varying results reported by different authors [8].
What makes these patients special is the associated hematoma with the pathological fracture which is considered to have tumour cells which spreads locally in the tissues [7]. The extent of spread also depends on the anatomic location of fracture and whether it is intra or extra capsular. The disruption of local microvasculature is also considered to be a risk factor for development of metastasis [7]. Understandably, extra articular resection for intra articular extension of tumours is a more challenging procedure particularly when limb salvage surgery is attempted with the reported outcomes of extra articular resections in limb salvage surgery considered to be compromised as well [9]. The local contamination of soft tissues with the tumour cells is also considered to be a risk factor for local recurrence. This prompted the thought that early and aggressive surgery in the form of ablative surgery will halt the progression and spread of disease any further. The presence of a pathological fracture in osteosarcoma, therefore, has been considered as a poor prognostic factor by some authors but not by all [8, 10, 11].

Initial treatment& work up:
Perhaps the most important step in the management of this select group of patients is the early recognition of the aggressiveness of the lesion and prompt referral to a specialist unit. Failure of recognition of these fractures as being pathological can lead to inappropriate treatment and potentially worse outcomes (Figure 2) [14]. The rest of the management in a multidisciplinary team setting involves a detailed history, examination of the involved limb and joints for any effusion, local and systemic staging, biopsy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy after confirmation of diagnosis of osteosarcoma.
It is also important to note that one of the most challenging issues with this group of patients is pain management and immobilisation during the pre-operative period whilst they wait for surgery and have neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Figure 2: Plain radiograph of an inappropriately managed pathological fracture secondary to osteosarcoma making limb salvage very challenging.

Figure 2: Plain radiograph of an inappropriately managed pathological fracture secondary to osteosarcoma making limb salvage very challenging.

Immobilisation
Immobilisation for pain relief can be challenging as this depends on the location of the fracture and may involve a plaster cast, simple sling, skin traction or in some cases external fixators [15]. Significant attention should be paid to the placement of the schanz pins if an external fixator is used due to the risk of tumour spread into non-involved compartments and risk of infection which would compromise limb sparing surgery.

Prognostic factors
A pathological fracture is independently considered a poor prognostic factor in osteosarcoma but was not considered one in cases of chondrosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma [8, 10]. A poor response to chemotherapy and local recurrence are also considered to be poor prognostic factors for survivorship [8, 10-13]. It is however, important to note that the efficacy of chemotherapy and healing of fracturesin these special cases are considered as supportive factors for limb salvage surgery [20].
Fracture consolidation
It has been noted that these fractures heal whilst patients are on chemotherapy and in most of the cases these patients have had significant post chemotherapy necrosis(Figure 3) [8]. On the contrary some fractures might happen whilst patients are on chemo which depicts the aggressive nature of the disease.

Figure 3A: Radiograph showing a pathological fracture secondary to osteosarcoma.

Figure 3A: Radiograph showing a pathological fracture secondary to osteosarcoma.

Figure 3B: Radiograph showing post chemotherapy consolidation in the pathological fracture.

Figure 3B: Radiograph showing post chemotherapy consolidation in the pathological fracture.

 

What is the verdict?
Limb salvage surgery should be attempted, if possible, in these patients after neoadjuvant treatment but if clear surgical margins cannot be obtained during surgery or limb salvage will result in a poor functioning limb, then ablative surgery should be considered, particularly in the paediatric population where they can adapt to prosthetics earlier than adults [16]. It is however, also important to note that after wide resection of tumour, limb salvage is still a viable option with reconstruction performed with either arthrodesis or rotationplasty where appropriate.
Scully et al, suggested that a pathological was a poor prognostic factor but it is important to note that this study was performed over a 30 year period where some patients in their series had not received any chemortherapy and there have been advances in this field over the study time period [8]. Similarly Finn et al, suggested early amputation due to the risk of local and distant tumour spread [14]. In another study, the 5 year survival in patients with pathological fractures secondary to osteosarcoma was lower than those without a fracture [18]. On the contrary Bacci et al, and Abudu et al, showed that there was no difference in the survivorship of these patients when they were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy [7, 11]. In a recent meta-analysis comparing limb salvage with ablative surgery for pathological fractures in high grade osteosarcomas, no significant difference between local recurrence and 5 year survival was noted [19]. Adjuvant radiotherapy in these patients has not been shown to reduce the risk of local recurrence and in fact might increase the risk of these patients undergoing further surgical procedures compromising there outcomes [7].

Future direction
All the studies performed on this select group of patients are retrospective and contain a small number of patients over a prolonged period of time. The results are further effected by variables including the heterogeneity of the patient and fracture characteristics and also the advances in chemotherapy over a period of time. Improvements in surgical techniques have also resulted in improved outcomes. Most of these variables are un avoidable due to the rarity of these cases but in order to come to a definite conclusion, a multi central randomised trial will eradicate all these bias and should guide treatment.


References

1. 1.Bielack S, Carrle D, Jost L. ESMO guidelines working group osteosarcoma: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow up. Annals of Oncology.2008; 19, supplement 2: 94-96.
2.Widhe B, Widhe T. Initial symptoms and clinical features in osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82:667-74.
3. Jaffe N, Spears R, Eftekhari F, Robertson R, Cangir A, Takaue Y, Carrasco H, Wallace S,
Ayala A,Raymond K, et al. Pathologic fracture in osteosarcoma. Impact of chemotherapy on primarytumorand survival. Cancer. 1987; 59:701-09.
4. Mulder JO, Schutte HE, Kroon HM, Taconis WK. Radiologic atlas of bone tumors. Amsterdam:Elsevier Science. 1993. Intraosseous osteosarcoma: conventional type: 51-5.
5. Simon MA. Current concepts review. Limb salvage in osteosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1988; 70:307-10.
6. Coley BL, Pool JL. Factors influencing the prognosis in osteogenic sarcoma. Ann Surg. 1940; 112:1114-28.
7. Abudu A, Sferopoulos NK, Tillman RM, Carter SR, Grimer RJ. The surgical treatment and outcome of pathological fractures in localised osteosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996; 78:694-8.
8. Scully SP1, Ghert MA, Zurakowski D, Thompson RC, Gebhardt MC. Pathologic fracture in osteosarcoma: prognostic importance and treatment implications. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Jan;84-A (1):49-57.
9. Hardes J1, Henrichs MP, Gosheger G, Gebert C, Höll S, Dieckmann R, Hauschild G, Streitbürger A. Endoprosthetic replacement after extra-articular resection of bone and soft-tissue tumours around the knee. Bone Joint J. 2013 Oct; 95-B (10):1425-31.
10. Bramer JAM, Abudu AA, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM. Do pathological fractures influence survival and local recurrence rate in bony sarcomas?. Eur J Cancer. 2007 Sep; 43(13):1944-51.
11. Bacci G1, Ferrari S, Longhi A, Donati D, Manfrini M, Giacomini S, Briccoli A, Forni C, Galletti S.Nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity with pathologic fracture at presentation: local andsystemic control by amputation or limb salvage after preoperative chemotherapy. ActaOrthop Scand. 2003 Aug; 74(4):449-54.
12. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey J, Huvos A, Lane J, Marcove R, ApplewhiteA, Vlamis V, Rosen G. Chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteogenic sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. J ClinOncol. 1992; 10:5-15.
13. Glasser DB, Lane JM, Huvos AG, Marcove RC, Rosen G. Survival, prognosis, and therapeutic response in osteogenic sarcoma. The Memorial Hospital experience. Cancer.
1992; 69:698-708.
14. Mankin HJ, Mankin CJ, Simon MA. The hazards of the biopsy, revisited: Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1996; 78-A: 656–663.
15. Chandrasekar CR, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, et al. Pathological fracture of the proximal femur in osteosarcoma: need for early radical surgery? ISRN Oncol 2012; 2012:512389.
16. Hosalkar HS, Dormans JP. Limb sparing surgery for pediatric musculoskeletal tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2004; 42:295–310.
17. Finn HA, Simon MA. Limb-salvage surgery in the treatment of osteosarcoma in skeletally immature individuals. ClinOrthopRelat Res 1991; 262:108–118.
18. Ferguson PC, McLaughlin CE, Griffin AM, et al. Clinical and functional outcomesof patients with a pathologic fracture in high-grade osteosarcoma. J SurgOncol2010; 102:120–124.
19. Yin K, Liao Q, Zhong D, Ding J, Niu B, Long Q, Ding D. Meta-analysis of limb salvage versusamputation for treating high-grade and localized osteosarcoma in patients with
pathological fracture. ExpTher Med. 2012 Nov; 4(5):889-894.
20. Scully SP, Temple HT, O’Keefe RJ, et al. The surgical treatment of patients with osteosarcoma who sustain a pathological fracture. ClinOrthop. 1996; 324:227-232.


How to Cite this article:Khan Z, Hussain S, Carter S. Is limb salvage surgery a contra indication in pathological fractures secondary to osteosarcoma? Do we know the answer? Journal of  Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors May- Aug 2016;2(2):10-12 .

Dr. Zeeshan Khan

Dr. Zeeshan Khan


(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)


Biological Methods of Reconstruction After Excision of Extremity Osteosarcoma

Volume 2 | Issue 2 | May-Aug 2016 | Page 5-9 | Suman Byregowda1, Ajay Puri1, Ashish Gulia1


Authors: Suman Byregowda[1], Ajay Puri[1], Ashish Gulia[1]

[1] Orthopedic Oncology Services, Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ashish Gulia
Associate Professor, Orthopedic oncology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.
Email: aashishgulia@gmail.com


Abstract

Introduction: The overall survival rates for non-metastatic osteosarcomas have dramatically improved from a mere 15-20 percent to 60-65 percent today. This was possible due a multifactorial improvement in all the disciplines and specifically the advent of multiagent chemotherapy. With an exponential increase in the survival as well as limb salvage procedures, it would be customary to invent cost effective, stable, durable reconstruction options. Various biological and non biological methods are available for reconstruction. In the era of metal and with the advent of growing artificial bones, non biological options appear to be an attractive and easily available option with excellent immediate results but their long term results and complications are debatable. On the other hand the less attractive biological methods are known to provide stable, durable, cost effective reconstruction options. In the present article we discuss various biological reconstruction methods available for extremity osteosarcoma patients, their advantages and disadvantages.
Keywords: Biological reconstruction , Osteogenic sarcoma


Introduction

The era when osteosarcomas of the extremity were treated with only amputations is long past and the advent of multimodality management has completely changed the outcomes of these tumors. With newer chemotherapic agents, modern surgical techniques, better imaging techniques and affordable reconstructive options limb salvage has become the norm resulting in better functional and psychological outcomes The prerequisites for limb salvage include the ability to achieve an oncologically safe margin and ability to reconstruct the limb such that it provide better function compared to an amputation. Today this is possible in more than 95 percent of the patients [1].
Adequate oncologic clearance is paramount and the chosen method of reconstruction should never compromise the amount of resection required. The barriers to limb salvage are encasement of a major motor nerve, major vascular involvement, poorly placed biopsy incisions, uncontrolled infection, displaced pathological fractures and inadequate motors after resection of tumors.
Besides fulfilling the basic pre requisites of limb salvage mentioned above the reconstructive modality chosen should permit an early return to daily activities and be aesthetically acceptable. . The reconstruction must be durable, economically feasible and should have minimum short term and long term complications. A number of reconstructions methods, both biological and non biological are available for the reconstruction of these skeletal defects after resection. The chosen method of reconstruction should be tailored for the individual based on the growth potential, site and amount of resection and functional requirements. This article discusses the biological techniques available for reconstruction of bone defects after resection of an extremity osteosarcoma.

Biological methods available for reconstructions are
A) Allografts
B) Autografts – vascularised and non vascularised
C) Patient’s own sterilized tumor bone
D) Combination of allografts/ sterilized tumor bone and vascularised autografts
E) Distraction osteogenesis with Ilizarov technique
F) Rotationplasty
G) Masquelet technique
Depending on the extent of the resection, the surgical resections can be categorised as Osteo-articular resections and Intercalary resections. Reconstruction after osteoarticular resections is mainly done by megaprosthesis (non biological). If you want to retain joint mobility the biological options available are limited to osteoarticular allografts. Though these maintain bone stock and provide a better attachment for surrounding soft tissue resulting in increased stability of the construct the long term results with osteoarticular allografts are disappointing .Fracture, arthritis, non unions, infections and repeated surgery are not uncommon. Studies have reported 60-70 percent adverse events, overall 5 year survival of 69 % and 79 % for allograft and articulate surface respectively[2,3]. A composite of allograft and prosthesis has been widely used, where allograft helps to maintain the stock and prosthesis provides the articular surface [figure 1]. The functional outcomes with composite reconstruction are comparable with prosthetic reconstruction alone but associated with higher complication like nonunion and fracture. This method can have limited use in selected young patients with expected long term survival and require good bone stock for revision surgeries [4,5,6].
Allografts require sophisticated bone banks for procurement and storage and these are not available in most of the developing countries. Bone donations are not as frequent as other organ donations making procuring of size matched allografts even more challenging. Allografts may also be associated with risk of transmission of disease.

Figure 1: Allograft-prosthesis combination (a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing osteosarcoma of distal femur with solitary metastasis to ipsilateral proximal tibia. (c,d) Distal femur and proximal tibia resected with oncological principles, saving the extensor mechanism. Distal femur reconstructed with prosthesis and proximal tibia reconstructed with size matched tibial allograft (arrow). (e) Plain radiograph showing allograft- prosthesis composite

Figure 1: Allograft-prosthesis combination (a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing osteosarcoma of distal femur with solitary metastasis to ipsilateral proximal tibia. (c,d) Distal femur and proximal tibia resected with oncological principles, saving the extensor mechanism. Distal femur reconstructed with prosthesis and proximal tibia reconstructed with size matched tibial allograft (arrow). (e) Plain radiograph showing allograft- prosthesis composite

Allograft-prosthesis combination (a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing osteosarcoma of distal femur with solitary metastasis to ipsilateral proximal tibia. (c,d) Distal femur and proximal tibia resected with oncological principles, saving the extensor mechanism. Distal femur reconstructed with prosthesis and proximal tibia reconstructed with size matched tibial allograft (arrow). (e) Plain radiograph showing allograft- prosthesis composite

Figure 2: Vasularised fibula + allograft combination (a) Showing vascularised fibula with pedicle and prepared tibial allograft. (b) Allograft and vasularised fibula construct used for the intercalary resection of femur. Arrow showing the microvascular anastomosis between donor and recipient vessels.

Figure 2: Vasularised fibula + allograft combination (a) Showing vascularised fibula with pedicle and prepared tibial allograft. (b) Allograft and vasularised fibula construct used for the intercalary resection of femur. Arrow showing the microvascular anastomosis between donor and recipient vessels.

Though strut allografts alone can be used for the reconstruction of intercalary defects and knee arthrodesis but studies have shown higher rate of complication like fracture, non union and resorption of grafts. Study by Bus MP et al has demonstrated a complication rate of 76 % and 70 % chance for reoperation due to graft failure. Thus strut allografts alone have limited use and are generally preferred for the upper limb or small defects (< 15cms). To overcome the above complication strut allograft may be combined with vascular fibular grafts [7,8].
Fibula is the most widely used autograft for reconstruction. It can be used as a vascularised or non vascularised graft. Proximal fibular head (with articular surface) has been used to reconstruct the articular surface of proximal humerus and distal radius. While isolated vascularized fibula may be adequate for reconstruction of upper limb defects where weight bearing is not an issue, lower limb reconstructions involving femur or the knee generally require a combination of vascularised fibula with strut allografts [figure 2]. Isolated use of fibula autograft or strut allografts have higher failure rates in large lower limb bone defects [9,10,11]. Small osteoarticular defects (up to 5 cm) like after the resection of distal radius lesions can also be reconstructed with iliac crest autograft. Certain anatomical sites have an inherent advantage and ease for reconstruction. Use of the neighbouring bone in forearm and leg provides a vascularised graft after resection of the radius and tibia. This serves as an easy and effective method of reconstruction. Shifting the distal ulna after an osteotomy at an appropriate level into the defect along with its soft tissue attachment and stabilizing it to the radius proximally and carpal bone distally (wrist arthordesis) provides an excellent method of reconstructing the bone defects after resection of distal radius tumors[figure 3]. This method provides a stable wrist while maintaining forearm rotations (pronation- supination)[12]. Similarly in tibial lesions the fibula is mobilized medially into tibial defect and stabilized. This can be done both, for intercalary resections of the tibia where fibula is shifted after a double osteotomy and distal intrarticular resections where the transposed fibula is stabilized to talus to create an ankle arthrodesis This procedures avoids the requirement of a complex micro vascular procedure, reduces the operative time and also facilitates ease of soft tissue closure as transportation of fellow bone in to the defect will result in volume reduction of the tissues [13].

Figure 3: Ulnar translocation (a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing the osteosarcoma of distal radius.(c) Immediate post operative radiograph shows the ulna in the distal radius defect and wrist arthrodesis. (d) Union at both radio-ulna and carpal-ulna junction after 3 months of surgery.

Figure 3: Ulnar translocation (a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing the osteosarcoma of distal radius.(c) Immediate post operative radiograph shows the ulna in the distal radius defect and wrist arthrodesis. (d) Union at both radio-ulna and carpal-ulna junction after 3 months of surgery.

Reimplanting sterilized tumor host bone is widely used after intercalary resections. Patients own resected bone is sterilized and used to fill the defect. The resected tumor grafts can be sterilized by various methods like radiotherapy (extra-corporeal radiotherapy), pasteurization, autoclaving, liquid nitrogen and microwave.
This technique has various advantages over the use of allograft. It does not require a bone bank, provides size matched graft (as it has been taken from the same defect) and has no risk of transmitted disease. After resection of the tumor the tumor bearing bone is taken on a separate table and soft tissues are removed under aseptic precautions. Certain soft tissues like ligaments may be retained on the bone graft in order to facilitate reconstruction. Sterilized bones are implanted back in the defect and stabilized with intramedullary nails or plates [figure 4]. Reimplanted bone acts a scaffold for creeping substitution and incorporation. To enhance incorporation and the union at osteotomy sites they can be combined with a vasclarised fibula ( Capanna technique). Puri et all documented a mean union time of 7 months for osteotomy sites and an excellent MSTS score of 29 with extracorporeal radiotherapy [14,15]. To overcome the adverse events like nonunion, fracture and collapse with the use of liquid nitrogen to sterlise tumor bone (fresh frozen autograft), pedical autograft technique was developed. In this technique an osteotomy is done at one end or joint disarticulation done and the whole specimen is treated with liquid nitrogen with other end in continuity with the main bone. It is then stabilized back with internal fixation or athroplasty. As bony continuity is maintained at one end, it is presumed to have early blood flow recovery and faster union and less complication compared with frozen autograft [16,17]. The main drawback of sterilized bones are inadequate mechanical strength resulting in graft fracture and implant failure. To enhance incorporation and to overcome inadequate mechanical strength they can be combined with a vasclarised fibula ( Capanna technique).

Figure 4: Intercalary resection and extra-corporeal radiotherapy ( a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing the periosteal osteosarcoma of tibia. (c) Plain radiograph showing Intercalary resection of the tibia. Resected bone was irradiated and stabilised in the defect with Locking plate. Arrows showing osteotomy sites (d) Union at both metaphysical and diaphyseal osteotomy ( arrows) site after 9 months of follow up.

Figure 4: Intercalary resection and extra-corporeal radiotherapy ( a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing the periosteal osteosarcoma of tibia. (c) Plain radiograph showing Intercalary resection of the tibia. Resected bone was irradiated and stabilised in the defect with Locking plate. Arrows showing osteotomy sites (d) Union at both metaphysical and diaphyseal osteotomy ( arrows) site after 9 months of follow up.

For surface lesions like periosteal, parosteal and high grade surface osteosarcomas where medullary canal is not involved, bone preserving hemicortical excision may be considered. Meticulous planning with MRI and CT scans are required to obtain adequate margins and preserve good native bone. Computer assisted navigation surgery is advantageous while performing such technically demanding bone preserving surgeries. Various options are available to fill the bone defect after hemicortical excision (sterlised resected bone, strut allografts or small defects can be filled with autografts) [18,19].
Rotationplasty involves converting ankle joint to knee joint by segmental resection and rotating the foot externally to 180 degrees. This is an alternative method for reconstruction especially in children with growth potential where cost constraints may preclude the use of expensive growing prosthesis. This worthies also useful in converting hind quarter or above knee amputations to a functional below knee like amputation in adult patients where conventional resection and reconstructions are not possible due to large or previously inappropriately treated lesions In distal femur and proximal tibia lesions, a segment of involved bone along with knee joint and involved soft tissues is removed only sparing the neurovascular bundle. Here the two segments are connected only with neurovascular bundle. The distal fragment is externally rotated 180 degrees and distal part of femur is stabilized to proximal tibia with appropriate implants, in such a way that the ankle comes to the level of opposite knee joint. In the cases with involvement of whole femur, proximal tibia is articulated with the hip joint with or without use of prosthesis after external 180 dgree rotation. Adequate soft tissue reconstructions and an intense rehabilitation protocol ensures an excellent functional outcome in these cases where the ankle will act like knee joint, dorsiflexion of ankle acts as flexion and plantar flexion acts as extension of knee joint [figure 5]. This procedure can also be used as salvage surgery following infected and failed limb salvage reconstruction. Studies have shown excellent oncological and functional outcome with this procedure. Rotationplasty offers a durable reconstruction option. It is not associated with phantom limb pain or sensations which are common following amputations. The main drawback of the procedure is the cosmetic deformity due to posterior rotated foot [20,21].
Distraction osteogensis using ilizarov method has been used for bone defects in tumor resection. It can be combined with live fibula grafts. The disadvantages are prolonged duration of treatment, high incidence of pin tract infections due to immune compromised state of patient receiving chemotherapeutic agents [22,23]. Due to these complications it is not a popular method and is used rarely.

Figure 5: : Rotationplasty (a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing the osteosarcoma of the distal femur in a skeletally immature patient. (c) Plain radiography showing the union between femur and tibia after 3 months of surgery. (d) Clinical picture showing rotationplasty patient with externally rotated foot and prosthesis used for the same

Figure 5: : Rotationplasty (a,b) Plain radiograph and MRI showing the osteosarcoma of the distal femur in a skeletally immature patient. (c) Plain radiography showing the union between femur and tibia after 3 months of surgery. (d) Clinical picture showing rotationplasty patient with externally rotated foot and prosthesis used for the same

Masquelet technique is a two stage procedure for reconstruction of bone defects. In the first stage the defect is filled with bone cement and stabilized. This leads to the formation of a biological membrane over the cement spacer. In second stage procedure the biological membrane is opened, cement spacer removed, filled with cortico-cancellous bone graft and biological membrane sutured to create close content. The procedure was described in children. The ideal time for stage two is between 6 to 8 weeks, though in oncology we wait for completion of adjuvant treatment. Advantage is it makes primary surgery short and rapid uptake of graft due to biological membrane after the second procedure. The disadvantage with procedure is requirement of two surgical interventions [24].


conclusion  

Reconstruction following tumor resection is a challenging task. Different biological and non biological methods are available. Selection of a reconstruction procedure should be tailored to the individual patient based on the bone affected, amount of resection, requirement of patient and expertise and infrastructure available at treating centre. Biological methods are more cost effective and provide durable reconstruction options in properly selected extremity osteosarcoma patients.


References

1. Ghert M, Deheshi B, Holt G, Randall RL, Ferguson P, Wunder J et al.Prophylactic antibiotic regimensin tumour surgery (PARITY): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlledstudy. BMJ Open. 2012 Nov 28;2(6).
2. Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Farfalli G, Aponte-Tinao LA. Proximal tibia osteoarticular allografts in tumor limb salvage surgery. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2010 May;468(5):1396-404.
3. Toy PC, White JR, Scarborough MT, Enneking WF, Gibbs CP. Distal femoral osteoarticular allografts: long-term survival, but frequent complications. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2010 Nov;468(11):2914-23.
4. Donati D, Colangeli M, Colangeli S, Di Bella C, Mercuri M. Allograft-prosthetic composite in the proximal tibia after bone tumor resection. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2008;466:459–65.
5. Van de Sande MA, Dijkstra PD, Taminiau AH. Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection:Biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction. IntOrthop. 2011;35:1375–80.
6. Campanacci L, Manfrini M, Colangeli M, Alí N, Mercuri M. Long-term results in children with massive bone osteoarticular allografts of the knee for high-grade osteosarcoma. J PediatrOrthop. 2010 Dec;30(8):919-27.
7. Bus MP, Dijkstra PD, van de Sande MA, Taminiau AH, Schreuder HW, Jutte PC, van der Geest IC et al. Intercalary allograft reconstructions following resection of primary bone tumors: a nationwide multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Feb 19;96(4):e26.
8. Aponte-Tinao LA, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Farfalli GL. Allograft reconstruction for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors of the upper extremity. Sarcoma.2013;2013:925413.
9. Scaglioni MF, Chang EI, Gur E, Barnea Y, Meller I, Kollander Y, Bickels J, Dadia S, Zaretski A. The role of the fibula head flap for joint reconstruction after osteoarticular resections. J PlastReconstrAesthet Surg. 2014 May;67(5):617-23.
10. Campanacci DA, Puccini S, Caff G, Beltrami G, Piccioli A, Innocenti M, Capanna R. Vascularised fibular grafts as a salvage procedure in failed intercalary reconstructions after bone tumour resection of the femur. Injury. 2014 Feb;45(2):399-404.
11. Hilven PH, Bayliss L, Cosker T, Dijkstra PD, Jutte PC, Lahoda LU, Schaap GR, Bramer JA, van Drunen GK, Strackee SD, van Vooren J, Gibbons M, Giele H, van de Sande MA. The vascularised fibular graft for limb salvage after bone tumour surgery: a multicentre study. Bone Joint J. 2015 Jun;97-B(6):853-61.
12. Puri A, Gulia A, Agarwal MG, Reddy K. Ulnar translocation after excision of a Campanacci grade-3 giant-cell tumour of the distal radius: an effective method of reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Jun;92(6):875-9.
13. Puri A, Subin BS, Agarwal MG. Fibular centralisation for the reconstruction of defects of the tibial diaphysis and distal metaphysis after excision of bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Feb;91(2):234-9.
14. Mottard S, Grimer RJ, Abudu A, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Jeys L, Spooner D. Biological reconstruction after excision, irradiation and reimplantation of diaphyseal tibial tumours using an ipsilateralvascularised fibular graft. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Sep;94(9):1282-7.
15. Puri A, Gulia A, Jambhekar N, Laskar S. The outcome of the treatment of diaphyseal primary bone sarcoma by resection, irradiation and re-implantation of the host bone: extracorporeal irradiation as an option for reconstruction in diaphyseal bone sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Jul;94(7):982-8.
16. Igarashi K, Yamamoto N, Shirai T, Hayashi K, Nishida H, Kimura H, Takeuchi A, Tsuchiya H. The long-term outcome following the use of frozen autograft treated with liquid nitrogen in the management of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. Bone Joint J. 2014 Apr;96-B(4):555-61.
17. Shimozaki S, Yamamoto N, Shirai T, Nishida H, Hayashi K, Tanzawa Y, Kimura H, Takeuchi A, Igarashi K, Inatani H, Kato T, Tsuchiya H. Pedicle versus free frozen autograft for reconstruction in malignant bone and soft tissue tumors of the lower extremities. J Orthop Sci. 2014 Jan;19(1):156-63.
18. Deijkers RL, Bloem RM, Hogendoorn PC, Verlaan JJ, Kroon HM, TaminiauAH.Hemicortical allograft reconstruction after resection of low-grade malignant bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Sep;84(7):1009-14.
19. Agarwal M, Puri A, Anchan C, Shah M, Jambhekar N. Hemicortical excision for low-grade selected surface sarcomas of bone. Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2007 Jun;459:161-6.
20. Agarwal M, Puri A, Anchan C, Shah M, Jambhekar N. Rotationplasty for bone tumors: is there still a role? Clin OrthopRelat Res. 2007 Jun;459:76-81.
21. Gradl G, Postl LK, Lenze U, Stolberg-Stolberg J, Pohlig F, Rechl H, Schmitt-Sody M, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Kirchhoff C. Long-term functional outcome and quality of life following rotationplasty for treatment of malignant tumors. BMC MusculoskeletDisord. 2015 Sep 24;16:262.
22. Demiralp B, Ege T, Kose O, Yurttas Y, Basbozkurt M. Reconstruction of intercalary bone defects following bone tumor resection with segmental bone transport using an Ilizarov circular external fixator. J Orthop Sci. 2014 Nov;19(6):1004-11.
23. Khira YM, Badawy HA. Pedicled vascularized fibular graft with Ilizarov external fixator for reconstructing a large bone defect of the tibia after tumor resection. J OrthopTraumatol. 2013 Jun;14(2):91-100.
24. Chotel F, Nguiabanda L, Braillon P, Kohler R, Bérard J, Abelin-Genevois K. Induced membrane technique for reconstruction after bone tumor resection in children: a preliminary study. OrthopTraumatolSurg Res. 2012 May;98(3):301-8.


How to Cite this article: Byregowda S, Puri A, Gulia A. Biological Methods of Reconstruction After Excision of Extremity Osteosarco. Journal of  Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors May- Aug 2016;2(2):5-9 .

Dr. Suman Byregowda

Dr. Suman Byregowda

Dr. Ashish Gulia

Dr. Ashish Gulia

Dr. Ajay Puri

Dr. Ajay Puri


(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)


Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors – Unique Status

Volume 2 | Issue 2 | May-Aug 2016 | Page 1-2|Dr Yogesh Panchwagh1& Dr Ashok Shyam1,2


Authors: Dr Yogesh Panchwagh[1]& Dr Ashok Shyam[1],[2 ]

[1] Orthopaedic Oncology Clinic, Pune, India.
[2] Indian Orthopaedic Research Group, Thane, India
[3] Sancheti Institute for Orthopaedics &Rehabilitation, Pune, India

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Yogesh Panchwagh.
Orthopaedic Oncology Clinic, 101, Vasant plot 29, Bharat Kunj Society -2, Erandwana, Pune – 38, India.
Email: drpanchwagh@gmail.com


                                                                            Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors – Unique Status
Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor (JBJST) enjoys a special status in being one of the unique journals exclusively dedicated to bone and soft tissue tumors. The clinical expertise and technological development has been very rapid in this field and JBST already had a demand among the clinicians involved in taking care of Orthopaedic Oncology. JBST has successfully filled this vacuum that existed and has received great support from musculoskeletal tumor surgeons and clinicians. The platform provided by JBST has been used worldwide to access articles and also to submit original research.
There are other factors that further add to its uniqueness. One of the most unique point is that this is a journal that is initiated by clinicians. JBST was conceived and initiated by people who were directly involved in care of musculoskeletal tumor patients. They perceived the need of such a journal and were instrumental in moulding it in its current shape. Another unique point of JBST is that it is not a pure research journal but also a tool to educate the young trainees and to practitioners. JBST has a dedicated symposium in each issue which provides a comprehensive overview of the subject along with recent updates. This is very helpful for students, trainees and practitioners of the subject. These symposium articles are written by carefully solicited authors that have years of practical experience which add to the flavour of the article. The authors are requested to add the practical tips and cases to these symposium reviews to make it much more clinically relevant rather than simply publish a theoretical review of literature. Special attention is given to students in JBST and a students corner is published in every issue which is a brief overview article on a single bone tumor. This is specially created with keeping students in mind and is co-created with help of a trainee or a student. This has received excellent response as far as student readership is concerned. Oncomedia is another unique part of JBST where recent conferences, upcoming conferences and new updates regarding bone and soft tissue tumors are listed. Videos and other academic materials are also included in this section. It’s a very unique source of information to our readers and is presented in a very reader friendly manner.
In this issue we are having a unique overview of the most prestigious orthopaedic oncology unit in India from Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai. The guest editorial is been contributed by the TMH team and it traces the journey of the hospital from its inception till today. This is another unique feature where such units, who have contributed significantly to growth of musculoskeletal oncology will be featured. We intend to include this a regular feature in JBST. Another feature that we really wish to include is academic interview, featuring individual personalities in the field of musculoskeletal oncology. Other journals from orthopaedic research group like trauma international and International Journal of Paediatric Orthopaedics have been regularly publishing such academic interviews. Hopefully JBJST will start this feature by next year.
The jbst team is always looking for making the journal better with the aim to provide the best content to its reader which is presented in the most accessible and easy format. Being focussed on the subject of bone and soft tissue tumours and created and run by focussed and expert team has helped the journal achieve a unique status already and with help of the entire fraternity it is sure to grow further. If you have any suggestions for the editorial team, please feel free to write to us.

Dr Yogesh Pachwagh
Dr Ashok Shyam


 

How to Cite this article: Panchwagh Y, Shyam AK. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors – Unique Status.  Journal of  Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors May-Aug 2016; 2(2):1-2.

jbst-login

Dr Yogesh Pancgwagh

Dr Yogesh Pancgwagh

Dr.Ashok Shyam

Dr.Ashok Shyam


(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)


Evaluation of Osteogenic Sarcoma

Volume 2 | Issue 1 | Jan-Apr 2016 | Page 8-12 | Mandip Shah, Chetan Anchan.


Authors: Mandip Shah[1], Chetan Anchan[2]

[1] SPARSH orthopedic Oncology Clinic, 9th floor, Medicare building, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. India
[2]Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Mandip C Shah (M.S Ortho)
SPARSH orthopedic Oncology Clinic
9th floor, Medicare building, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, 380006
Email: drmandip@gmail.com


Abstract

Primary malignant bone tumors are very rare diseases and the initial symptoms and signs can be vague and nonspecific resulting in such patients receiving, at best, some symptomatic care, with the expectation that the problem would resolve naturally. Often the patient may wait out a period of weeks or months hoping that the problem would settle on its own with some home remedy. The foundation of optimal outcome in the treatment of any malignant disease is early detection and correct diagnosis. Osteosarcoma (also called as osteogenic sarcoma) is a high grade malignant disease which is fatal unless treated in time. Early detection and correct diagnosis can make a big difference in the outcome of treatment of these diseases. Awareness of these conditions and the knowledge of vulnerable age groups is the perfect start for achieving this goal. A detailed history of the presenting complaints and a thorough clinical evaluation of the patient will provide vital clues that should alert the clinician to a possible bone tumor. Radiographs and MRI form the mainstay of radiological investigation of bone tumors. Besides aiding in detection of the bone tumor, radiographs are of vital diagnostic value; whereas MRI provides very detailed anatomical information of the extent of the disease. No diagnosis of a malignant bone tumor is complete without histological confirmation of the disease and therefore biopsy is the final step in the diagnostic evaluation of a suspected malignant bone tumor. As for all malignant tumors, staging investigations must be done before starting treatment for osteosarcoma.
Keywords: Osteogenic Sarcoma, diagnosis, evaluation.


Introduction

Osteosarcoma is a malignant tumor of mesodermal origin where the tumor cells produce bone or osteoid [1]. It is the most common primary malignant bone tumor, excluding hematopoietic bone tumors [1, 2]. Despite the simple and clear definition of this disease, the term osteosarcoma represents a family of tumors with significant diversity in its histological features, grade and clinical behavior [1]. However, it is a very rare disease and represents less than 1% of all cancers diagnosed in the United States [4]. It is seen most frequently in children and adolescents peaking in the second decade, which coincides with the growth spurt [3]. In these young patients, it chiefly affects the metaphysis of long bones. The most commonly involved region is the knee with the distal femur being the most affected, followed by the proximal tibia [3]. Besides the appendicular skeleton, osteosarcoma can affect other bones too; including the skull, axial, and very rarely, the acral bones. Although the majority of osteosarcomas occur in children and adolescents, there is a second spike in its incidence which is seen in the elderly – above the age of 60 years [5]. Unlike in the younger patients where most of the osteosarcomas arise de novo, a large number of osteosarcomas in the elderly arise in preexisting bone pathologies like Paget’s disease, fibrous dysplasia and in areas previously treated with radiation for some other cause [6, 7]. Males are more frequently affected than females. The overall world male to female ratio of osteosarcoma, in the age group of 0-24 years is 1.43:1 [8]. This difference steadily decreases with increasing age [8]. Osteosarcoma is a high grade malignant tumor which is fatal unless detected and diagnosed in time, and treated appropriately. Due to the rarity of this disease and lack of very obvious early clinical diagnostic features, there is often a delay in its detection and diagnosis; adversely affecting the outcome of treatment. Early detection and correct diagnosis gives the patient the best start to a long and difficult fight. In this article we describe a simple, logical and practical approach to evaluating a patient for a suspected bone tumor.

Evaluation of Osteosarcoma
A systematic approach is involved in the evaluation of any suspected bone neoplasm so as to reach a correct diagnosis, following which optimal treatment can be planned. As for most bone tumors, in cases of suspected osteosarcoma, this involves detailed clinical, radiological and histological evaluation.

Clinical evaluation
The three chief presenting symptoms of any bone tumor are pain, swelling and disability (Fig 1). Of these, pain is the most common presenting complaint in osteosarcoma, which, to begin with, may be experienced during activity that loads the affected bone. The pain may be in the form of a dull ache or such non-specific nature which could be attributed to more common causes like bone/muscle/ligament injury, articular pathologies etc. The duration of this pain may range from days to months. Special attention must be paid to patients in the vulnerable age group, especially when the complaint is unilateral, localized, persistent or progressive. Some individuals may associate the onset of the disease with some past injury. However, there is no evidence to substantiate that injury can lead to genesis of osteosarcoma.
Unexplained musculoskeletal pain should be taken very seriously, especially in children and adolescents, and should not be dismissed without proper investigation. In general, one must rule out a neoplastic cause for the musculoskeletal pain if one or more of the points mentioned below are noted.
1) Unilateral and localized extremity pain without a known cause
2) Pain intensity/duration/evolution in conflict with assumed routine cause
3) Pain with swelling
4) Pain since weeks/months
5) Persistent or progressively increasing pain
6) Pain, only temporarily / not relieved – with conservative care (rest and analgesics)
7) Pain causing disability, or affecting activity which is considered normal for the patient
8) Pain aggravated/triggered with activity
9) Rest/night pain

Figure 1

The next common presenting complaint is swelling in the affected region. This swelling may be visible or/and palpable – depending on the size and location of the tumor. It is unusual for a patient of osteosarcoma to present with a painless swelling, with the possible exception of parosteal osteosarcoma. Unlike pain, which is far more likely to be due to some injury or many such routine causes, a swelling is clearly an indication of a pathology, the significance of which should be investigated without further delay. Again, one must be aware that there are many causes of bony swelling ranging from infection to various types of benign and malignant tumors, and tumor like conditions. It is useful to get answers to the following questions when a patient presents with a bony swelling.
1) Location and size of swelling?
2) Is the swelling painful or painless?
3) Did the pain lead to discovery of the swelling or an existing swelling became painful?
4) Duration – Days/weeks/months/years?
5) Rate of growth?
6) Solitary or multiple?
Pain or/and swelling may result in some form of disability. Pain in the lower limb may affect ambulation or cause limitation of range or function across the adjacent joint. Rarely, patients with osteosarcoma may present with a pathological fracture. Pathological fracture is uncommon in osteosarcoma as majority of these patients would have sought medical attention before such an event occurred [9]. The risk of pathological fracture is higher in telangiectatic variant of osteosarcoma as it is a lytic expansile disease. Pathological fracture in children and adolescents is far more likely to be due to benign conditions like simple bone cyst, fibrous dysplasia, aneurysmal bone cyst, etc. Nevertheless, an occasional telangiectatic osteosarcoma can present in a similar way. Therefore, it becomes essential that a clear diagnosis of the cause of the fracture is established before deciding on the treatment. To identify a pathological fracture, one must rely a lot on the circumstances of the fracture rather than the X-ray alone. One must seek answers to the following questions:
1) How did the fracture occur? Was the cause significant or trivial?
2) Did the patient have complaints of pain/swelling/disability in the affected region prior to the fracture?
3) Has the patient suffered similar fractures in the past in the same location or in other bones?

There are generally no systemic or constitutional symptoms due to osteosarcoma, unless the disease is very advanced with extensive metastases. Lungs are the most common site for metastasis and these patients mainly present with breathlessness [10]. Some patients may present with bone metastases, which is the most common site for extra-pulmonary metastasis [10]. Regional nodal metastases and systemic metastasis to other organs/tissue is rare [10].

Clinical Evaluation
A detailed clinical examination is the next step in the evaluation of a patient with suspected bone tumor. A detailed local examination assessing the exact location, size and extent of the lesion should be done. The findings could range from subtle signs like raised local temperature/deep tenderness/vague swelling, to a very obvious painful, tender and large bony swelling with stretched hypervascular overlying skin and restriction of associated joint function. One must also make a note of the function of the adjacent joint and any distal neuro-vascular deficit. Although nodal metastasis is very rare in osteosarcoma, as a routine practice, regional draining nodes should be examined.

Blood investigations
There are no specific serum markers for osteosarcoma. Patients with high pre-treatment Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) levels have been reported to have 20% lower disease free survival as compared to those with normal LDH levels [12]. Similarly, a high pretreatment level of serum Alkaline Phosphatase has been reported to be an independent adverse prognostic marker in the outcome of treatment of non-metastatic osteosarcoma of extremities [13].

Radiological Evaluation
The next logical step in the work-up of a suspected bone tumor is imaging. MRI and CT scan have revolutionized medical imaging of human body and have contributed hugely to the success in the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors. However, when it comes to diagnosing bone tumors, the imaging modality that matters the most is the plain radiograph. With few exceptions, all other imaging modalities help mainly in understanding the anatomical extent of the disease and are of limited/selective diagnostic value.

Radiograph
A good quality plain radiograph in two perpendicular planes screening the entire bone should be taken. Conventional osteosarcoma can have varying appearance on the plain X-ray. It appears like an ill-defined cloudy/fluffy radiodensity in the bone which may show a mixture of lytic and sclerotic areas. The borders of this lesion are ill-defined and it appears to permeate through the normal bone around. It does not have a precisely identifiable border on the X-ray and there is a wide zone where the disease merges with the normal bone. This is described as a “wide zone of transition” and is a sign of an aggressive disease. Once the disease breaches the cortex, it lifts up the periosteum which elicits a periosteal reaction which may have varying appearances described as a sunburst /spiculated/lamellated reaction or as a Codman triangle. All such patterns of periosteal reaction, which is described as an interrupted periosteal reaction, are a very important sign of a potentially malignant disease. Large osteosarcomas can have soft tissue extension of the disease which appears as a soft tissue shadow on the X-ray and which may show cloudy/fluffy radiodensities within it. Besides these classic X-ray findings of a conventional osteosarcoma, many of the rare variants of osteosarcoma have X-ray characteristics which are unique to that particular sub-type and could help in suspecting/identifying them [11] (Fig 2).

Figure 2

MRI
MRI is the investigation of choice in suspected case of osteosarcoma for local staging [14, 15]. One must insist on a contrast study screening of whole involved bone to rule out any skip lesion [16]. MRI must ideally be done before the biopsy as it helps in planning the biopsy approach and also in targeting representative areas within the lesion, avoiding areas of tumor necrosis. Also, doing an invasive procedure before the MRI may alter the MRI findings by causing procedure related artifacts and edema. MRI gives useful information on intra medullary and extramedullary extent of disease, presence of any skip lesion, proximity of the tumor to the neurovascular structures and involvement of joint / physeal plate etc (Fig. 3,4,5). An additional MRI study is usually advised after the completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, just prior to the surgery for local management of the osteosarcoma, Post chemotherapy response prediction can be assisted with MRI as well. Reduction in the size of the soft tissue mass/vascularity/reactive zone and intramedullary edema, thickening of the peritumoral capsule and presence of necrosis are some of the signs of good response to chemotherapy. Assessment of chemotherapy response is best done by contrast enhanced, diffusion weighted study [17,18].

Figure 3, 4, 5, 6

Histopathological Evaluation
Although, the diagnosis of osteosarcoma can be assumed with a fair degree of certainty based on the clinical and radiological findings, under no circumstances the treatment can be started without histological confirmation. Osteomyelitis, osteoblastoma, bone metastasis, lymphoma, GCT, ABC, are the radiological differentials to osteosarcoma. On the other hand, one cannot rely only on biopsy alone for diagnosis of osteosarcoma – the classic example is of callus which can be indistinguishable from osteosarcoma on histology. Hence it is very important to correlate clinical, radiological and histological information to reach a diagnosis of any bone tumor. Biopsy is a procedure where a representative sample of the disease tissue is procured for histological studies. There are many ways this sample can be obtained. The routine procedures are open biopsy, needle biopsy and fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC). Before doing a biopsy, it is advisable to complete all the radiological imaging studies. The most important step in planning a biopsy of any bone tumor is to decide on the approach. This is very important because, during the definitive surgery of a malignant bone tumor, the entire biopsy tract including the skin scar is excised en masse with the tumor. Therefore, it is very essential that the biopsy incision is placed in the line of the incision of the future surgery [19]. Open biopsy is a surgical procedure where tissue samples are obtained through a minor surgical procedure. The incision should be just adequate to obtain the deeper tissue and should be parallel to the long axis of the limb, in a location that would allow its easy excision along with the tumor at the time of definitive surgery. Needle biopsy is a procedure where tissue samples are obtained using a bone biopsy needle through a small stab incision. There are several advantages of needle biopsy over open biopsy. It causes limited contamination of the biopsy tract as it has a small footprint, which makes excision of the biopsy tract much easier during definitive surgery and also results in much less loss of skin as a result of the same. Besides this, it has several advantages like faster recovery, less hospital stay, lower cost etc. Also, the longer reach of the needle makes it easier to sample different regions of the tumor. As with open biopsy, the placement of the biopsy incision is important. Also, sampling of different regions of the lesion should be done through the same incision by just changing the angle of the needle and not through another skin incision. The only relative disadvantage of this procedure as compared to open biopsy is perhaps the smaller quantity of tissue sample that may be obtained, which could prove challenging to the pathologist to work on. However, in experienced hands this is generally not a problem. Frozen section may be used to confirm that the tissue sample obtained is representative. However, it should not be relied on to make a definitive diagnosis of bone tumors. FNAC as a procedure has many advantages, being minimally invasive and practically without morbidity, and with the least risk of tumor seeding along the biopsy tract. There are many reports of bone tumor diagnosis using FNAC. However, it has some limitations especially related to adequate representative tissue sampling and hence is not ideal for a definitive diagnosis of bone tumors like osteosarcoma [20].

Staging in Osteosarcoma
Cancer staging is a process to know the magnitude of the primary tumor and possible spread of the disease in a particular patient. It helps to understand the severity of the disease and hence the prognosis and thus aids in optimal treatment planning. Staging any cancer is therefore mandatory before starting its treatment. The most common site for metastasis in osteosarcoma is lung, followed by the skeletal system. At presentation, the reported incidence of lung metastasis is 15-20% whereas for skeletal metastasis it is 4%. Staging investigations includes High Resolution CT scan of thorax (plain) + Tc-99m methylene diphosphonate (Tc-99m MDP) Bone scan. Nowadays, 18 Fluoro Deoxy Glucose PET-CT scan is showing great promise as an alternative staging investigation. Plain chest radiograph can only detect large lung metastasis. For detection of early smaller lung lesions, a high resolution CT scan of thorax without contrast is recommended [21]. Typically metastases appear of soft tissue attenuation, dull, well circumscribed rounded lesions, more often in the periphery of the lung. Patients who present with metastatic pulmonary disease have a poorer prognosis. However, cure can be achieved in a small number of patients who respond well to chemotherapy and undergo pulmonary metastatectomy [22, 23]. (Tc-99m MDP) Triple-phase, whole-body bone scintigraphy still remains standard of care for determining the sites of metastatic disease in the skeletal system [24]. It may also detect skip lesions, although MRI is more accurate for this purpose. Whole-body turbo STIR MRI is also a reliable method for screening patients with suspected skeletal metastases. It is more specific than bone scan. This technique is also advantageous in that it reveals extraskeletal organ and soft tissue metastases [25]. Longer study time and cost are the limiting factors. Functional or metabolic imaging in form of 18 Fluoro Deoxy Glucose PET-CT scan is much more sensitive and specific than Tc-99m MDP bone scan in picking up the skeletal metastasis in osteosarcoma [26]. Moreover it gives valuable information on viable disease representation in proposed site for biopsy and some idea of the grade of the sarcoma. As it remains unaffected by presence of metallic prosthesis and radiation beam hardening artifacts, it is extremely valuable in detecting and defining a suspected recurrence [27]. However its scarce availability and prohibitive cost at present, makes it a difficult investigation to recommend in every case. Most popular staging system for bone and soft tissue sarcomas has been the Enneking’s staging system (Table 1). It is based on histological grade of sarcoma, local extent of disease i.e. intra or extra- compartmental involvement and presence or absence of metastasis [28]. American Joint committee on Cancer (AJCC) has also developed a staging system for sarcomas. (Table 2) It takes into the consideration the size of sarcoma, tumor grade, presence, and location of metastases [29].

Table 1


Conclusion

Osteosarcoma is a high grade malignant disease which is fatal unless treated appropriately, in time. Effective treatment is available for this disease with a high cure rate. However, despite the availability of such treatment in developing countries, the cure rates for osteosarcoma are much lower as compared to the western population. One of the most significant points of failure is timely detection and diagnosis of this condition. Awareness of this disease and the knowledge of the vulnerable age group can go a long way in improving the prospects for osteosarcoma patients in developing countries. Time tested clinical skills along with readily available radiological imaging modalities and histopathology will help us reach accurate diagnosis and staging in most cases of osteosarcoma.


References

1. Klein MJ, Siegal GP. Osteosarcoma: anatomic and histologic variants. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006 Apr; 125(4):555-81.
2. Dorfman HA, Czerniak B. Bone Cancers. Cancer supplement. 1995;75(1):203–10.
3. Ottaviani G, Jaffe N. The epidemiology of osteosarcoma. Cancer Treat Res. 2009;152:3-13.
4. Lisa Mirabello, Rebecca J. Troisi, and Sharon A. Savage. Osteosarcoma incidence and survival rates from 1973 to 2004: Data from the Survei llance, Epidemiology, and En d R esults Program. Cancer. 2009 Apr 1; 115(7): 1531–1543.
5. Unni KK. Dahlin’s bone tumors: general aspects and data on 11,087 cases. 5. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. pp. 143–83.
6. Huvos AG. Osteogenic sarcoma of bones and soft tissues in older persons. A clinicopathologic analysis of 117 patients older tha n 60 years. Cancer . 1986 Apr 1;57(7):14 -42 9
7. Jhala DN, Eltoum I, Carroll AJ, et al. Osteosarcoma in a patient with McCune-Albright syndrome and Mazabraud’s syndro me: a case rep ort emp hasizin g the cytological and cy togenetic findings. Hum Pathol. 2003;34:1354-1357
8. Lisa Mirabello, Rebecca J. Troisi, and Sharon A. Savage. International osteosarcoma incidence patterns in children an d adolesce nts, middle ages, and elderly persons. Int J Cancer. 2009 Jul 1; 125(1): 229–234.
9. Lee RK1, Chu WC, Leung JH, Cheng FW, Li CK. Pathological fracture as the presenting feature in pediatric osteosarcoma . Pediatr Bloo d Cance r. 2013 Jul;60(7):1118-21.
10. Jeffree GM, Price CH, Sissons HA. The metastatic patterns of osteosarcoma. Br J Cancer. 1975 Jul; 32(1): 87–107
11. Yarmish G1, Klein MJ, Landa J, Lefkowitz RA, Hwang S. Imaging characteristics of primary osteosarcoma: nonconventional subtypes. Radiographics. 2010 Oct;30(6):1653-72.
12. Bacci G, Longhi A, Ferrari S, Briccoli A, Donati D, De Paolis M, Versari M. Prognostic significance of serum lactate dehydrogenase in osteosarcoma of the extremity: experience at Rizzoli on 1421 patients treated over the last 30 years. Tumori. 2004 Sep-Oct;90(5):4 78-8 4
13. Bacci G, Longhi A, Versari M, Mercuri M, Briccoli A, Picci P. Prognostic factors for osteosarcoma of the extremity treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: 15-year experience in 789 patients treated at a single institution. Cancer. 2006 Mar 1;106(5): 1154-61.
14. Rubin DA. Magnetic resonance imaging: Practical considerations. In: Resnick D, Kransdorf MJ, editors. Bone and joint imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia Pennsylvania: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. pp. 118–32.
15. Bohndorf K, Reiser M, Lochner B, Feaux DL, Steinbrich W. Magnetic resonance imaging of primary tumors and tumor-like lesions of bone. Skeletal Radiol. 1986;15:511–7.
16. Skip Metastases in Osteosarcoma: Experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group JCO April 1, 2006 vol. 24 no. 10 1535-1541 Leo Kager, Andreas Zoubek, Ulrike Kastner et al.
17. Holscher HC, Bloem JL, Vanel D, Hermans J, Nooy MA, Taminiau AH, et al. Osteosarcoma: Chemotherapy induced changes at MR imaging. Radiology. 1992;182:839–44.
18. Uhl M, Saueressig U, van Buiren M, Kontny U, Niemeyer C, Köhler G, et al. Osteosarcoma: Preliminary results of in vivo assessment of tumor necrosis after chemotherapy with diffusion- and perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:618–23.
19. Liu PT, Valadez SD, Chivers FS, Roberts CC, Beauchamp CP. Anatomically Based Guidelines for Core Needle Biopsy of Bone Tumors: Implications for Limb-sparing Surgery Radiographics. 2007 Jan-Feb;27(1):189-205; discussion 206.
20. Jorda M1, Rey L, Hanly A, Ganjei-Azar P. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of bone: accuracy and pitfalls of cytodiagnosis. Cancer. 2000 Feb 25;90(1):47-54.
21. Picci P, Vanel D, Briccoli A et al. Computed tomography of pulmonary metastases from osteosarcoma: the less poor technique. A study of 51 patients with histological correlation. Ann Oncol 2001; 12: 1601–1604.
22. Rasalkar DD1, Chu WC, Lee V, Paunipagar BK, Cheng FW, Li CK. Pulmonary metastases in children with osteosarcoma: characteristics and impact on patient survival. Pediatr Radiol. 2011 Feb;41(2):227-36.
23. Bacci G, Picci P, Briccoli A, Avella M, Ferrari S, Femino FP, et al. Osteosarcoma of the extremity metastatic at presentation: results achieved in 26 patients treated with combined therapy (primary chemotherapy followed by simultaneous resection of the primary and met astatic lesions). Tumori. 1992;78:200–6.
24. Schneider R. Radionuclide technique. In: Resnick D, Kransdorf MJ, editors. Bone and joint imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia Pennsylvania: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. pp. 86–117.
25. Frat, Ali, Ağldere, Muhtesem , Gençoğlu, Arzu et al. Value of Whole-Body Turbo Short Tau Inversion Recovery Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Panoramic Table For Detecting Bone Metastases: Comparison With 99MTc-Methylene Diphosphonate Scintigraphy; Journal of Comp uter Assisted Tomography: January/February 2006 – Volume 30 – Issue 1 – pp 151-156
26. Byun BH, Kong CB, Lim SM et al. Comparison of (18) F-FDG PET/CT and (99 m)Tc-MDP bone scintigraphy for detection of bone metastasis in osteosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol. 2013 Dec; 42(12):1673-81.
27. Benz MR, Tchekmedyian N, Eilber FC et al. Utilization of positron emission tomography in the management of patients with sarcoma. Curr Opin Oncol 2009; 21: 345 –351.
28. Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop. 1980;153:106–20.
29. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual (7th ed). New York, NY: Springer; 2010.


How to Cite this article: Shah M, Anchan C. Evaluation of Osteogenic Sarcoma. Journal of  Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr 2016;2(1):8-12.

Photo 1


(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)


Osteosarcoma – A Clandestine Enigma

Vol 2 | Issue 1 | Jan – Apr 2016 | page:6-7 | Ashish Gulia.


Author: Ashish Gulia[1]

[1] Orthopaedic Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ashish Gulia MS (Ortho), Mch – Surgical Oncology
Fellowship – Musculoskeletal Oncology (TMH – HBNI)
Asst. Professor – Orthopaedic Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India


 Osteosarcoma – A Clandestine Enigma

Bone tumors form a small part of all human cancers. As per the SEER data about 2570 new cases of bone sarcomas were diagnosed in the United States in the year 2005. Osteosarcoma, earlier called as “Osteogenic Sarcoma” is the most common primary bone tumor in humans, which has a predilection for metaphysis of long bones in children, adolescents, and young adults and most commonly involves the bones around the knee joint in about 65% of cases. The earliest published literature takes us to 1879, where in his publication, Gross advocated early amputation as the only treatment modality for extremity osteosarcoma with dismal survival outcomes. Since then the overall outcome of osteosarcoma has seen a sea change. This journey of evolution of treatment of osteosarcoma has been a roller coaster ride with its ups and downs. The world has seen remarkable survival improvements with some rapid strides in 1970s and 1980s. Introduction of multi-agent chemotherapy improved the 5 year survival from a dismal 20% to almost 70%. This fast paced growth reached a stagnant phase with no further improvements in the survival in almost last three decades. Though multiple agents have been tested in both phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials, none has been significant enough to be incorporated in clinical practice. Similar to the oncological outcomes, functional outcomes have also seen a dramatic improvement over last half a century. Limb salvage has become a norm in today’s orthopedic oncology practice, which wasn’t so in 1970s. Advent of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, refinements in surgical skills, availability of durable metallic endo-prosthesis have led to a “limb salvage revolution” where about 85% to 90% of extremity osteosarcoma patients use their own extremity at the end of the treatment. The exponential growth in function preservation still continues with more technology driven innovations and solutions making the commonly encountered implant related complications like aseptic loosening and frequent breakage, a thing of the past. The current standards of care warrant a multi-disciplinary approach in the management of osteosarcoma. The approach is not only required in treatment phase involving a multi-agent neo adjuvant chemotherapy followed by optimal surgical resection & reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy, but also in evaluation, diagnosis and staging process. A seamless integration between musculoskeletal surgeon, musculoskeletal radiologist and sarcoma pathologist can achieve higher levels of accuracy in diagnosis in order to initiate the optimum line of treatment within an ideal time frame. The presence of metastatic disease at presentation is one of the most significant negative prognostic factors. Western data have shown that about 15% to 20% of patients will have clinically detectable metastases at presentation with lung being the most common site of metastasis in about 85% of cases followed by bone as the second most common site. These figures may be higher in developing countries as patients typically present with large volume disease. Lack of awareness, belief in alternative medicine and poor socio economic status are some of the factors contributing to higher percentages in these countries. Delay in diagnosis due to lack of suspicion and inappropriate initial evaluation as well as management has also led to dismal outcomes. The present symposium on Osteosarcoma tries to address the above issues and provide evidence based robust data, which will help the clinicians to understand the principles for evaluation and management of extremity osteosarcoma. The importance of understanding the presenting symptomatology and clinical evaluation is well scripted in the first article [1]. This article also stresses the importance of multi disciplinary strategy to diagnose a suspected bone lesion correctly. It discusses in depth the role of sequential radiological and histopathological evaluation of a suspected case of osteosarcoma. Staging of osteosarcoma is also discussed, which eventually helps clinicians to plan the treatment and estimate the prognosis. Radiological evaluation, whether it is with radiographs or with high end cross sectional imaging, has been the cornerstone for diagnosis and the local staging of the disease. Osteosarcoma exhibits various radiological and histological forms, which have deep implications on their treatment. These varied radiological presentations are discussed in the second article, which gives a tabulated comparison of various characteristics and their differentials [2]. The modern era is dominated by technology driven tools and this surge is quite evident in evaluation of bone tumors too. Emergence of PET scan as a “one stop shop” for the evaluation of bone tumors has created some whirlpools, leading to unending debates in recent era. Though more data is being collected to prove its worth in osteosarcoma, it is now being used to replace invasive investigations in other tumors like Ewing sarcoma and chondrosarcoma. The third article discusses the use of PET scan as a single modality to stage as well as to assess the chemo response evaluation in osteosarcoma [3]. The recent advances of this bio-imaging tools and the probable futuristic avenues are addressed in the third article. Complete surgical resection has been the single most important criteria to achieve adequate local control. Local relapses are associated with very poor overall survivals. The surgeons need to work to achieve a fine balance between complete tumor resection and retaining function. Over the years this has been addressed by “concept of margins” which was first popularized by the godfather of musculoskeletal oncology, Dr. W.F. Enneking. The concept was further revisited and modified by Kawaguchi, who gave the concept of “barrier effects” and challenged the traditionally propagated concept of “quantitative margins” and replaced it with a new concept of “qualitative margins”. The fourth article in the symposium address the similar issues regarding the adequacy of margins in the resection of osteosarcoma [4]. The article also explains the relationship of local failures with respect to resection margins and tumor necrosis. As discussed earlier multi-agent chemotherapy forms an integral part of management of osteosarcoma. The next article details the evolution of various chemotherapy protocols and current standards of chemotherapy for osteosarcoma [5]. Osteosarcoma is considered as a radio-resistant tumor, thus radiotherapy had a limited role in the management of osteosarcoma. Similar to the other specialties of medicine, radiation oncology has seen major changes in understanding the mechanism of radio tumor kill and also in the development of the delivery system. The advent of high-end technique like carbon ion and proton beam radiotherapy with their high accuracy, ability to give very high focused dosage and reduced side effects have made radiotherapy a new tool in the armamentarium for local control in osteosarcoma. Though these techniques are more useful in non-resectable lesions of axial skeleton, these are becoming increasingly popular in margin positive cases to avoid amputations. The latest updates regarding the use of this modality are explained in the last article of the symposium [6]. This symposium on osteosarcoma has been divided in to two sets, this first set encompasses articles related to evaluation and overall management of extremity osteosarcoma. Next issue will contain the second half of the symposium which will have articles on surgical management and advances in the management of osteosarcoma.


References

1. Shah M, Anchan C. Evaluation of Osteogenic Sarcoma. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr 2016;2(1):8-12.
2. .Janu A, Jain N, Juvekar S, Gulia A. Radiological Review of Extremity Osteosarcoma. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr
2016;2(1):13-18.
3. Purandare NC, Rangarajan V. Emerging role of PET/CT in osteosarcoma. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr 2016;2(1):19-21.
4. Cloake T, Jeys L.How important are surgical margins in Osteosarcoma? . Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr 2016;2(1):22-26
5. Jain S, Kapoor G. Chemotherapy in Osteosarcoma: Current Strategies. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr 2016;2(1):27-32.
6. Kakoti S, Khanna N, Laskar S. The Current Role of Radiation Therapy for Osteogenic Sarcoma. Journal of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr
2016;2(1):33-35.


How to Cite this article: Gulia A. Osteosarcoma – A Clandestine Enigma. Journal of  Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr 2016;2(1): 6-7.

Photo


(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)


Extraskeletal Myxoid Chondrosarcoma- Rare ‘Non-chondroid’ soft tissue Sarcoma!!!

Volume 2 | Issue 1 | Jan-Apr 2016 | Page 36-38 |Shital Biradar, Sujit Joshi, Yogesh Panchwagh, Vikram Ghanekar, Pradeep Kothadiya.


Authers: Shital Biradar[1], Sujit Joshi[1], Yogesh Panchwagh[2], Vikram Ghanekar[3], Pradeep Kothadiya[4].

[1]Dept. of Pathology, Deenanath Mangeshkar hospital, Pune.
[2]Histopathologist, Deenanath Mangeshkar hospital, Pune.
[3]Orthopedic Onco-surgeon, Deenanath Mangeshkar hospital, Pune.
[4]Surgical oncologist, S.G.M. Hospital; Chiplun.
[5]Orthopedic Surgeon, Kothadiya Hospital; Solapur.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Sujit Joshi
Flat No: 2, Lunawat Reality, Opp. Vanaz Company, Paud road, Kothrud, Pune-411038.
Email ID: sujitjoshi30@gmail.com


Abstract

Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (ESMC) is an uncommon but distinct entity with clearly different clinicopathological, immunohistochemical and cytogenetic features from those of conventional skeletal chondrosarcoma. Because of its better prognosis as compared to conventional skeletal chondrosarcoma, an accurate diagnosis is essential. We present 2 cases of this tumor with different clinical presentations.
1. 40 year old house wife presenting with a 9x8cm size mass around lower end of femur. On imaging, it was a soft tissue mass abutting the femoral surface with minimal bone invasion.
2. 50 year old lady presenting with a huge fungating soft tissue mass over left lower leg and foot associated with similar cutaneous nodules over right arm and left thigh. The left leg mass had caused destruction of entire lower end of fibula.
Histopatholgical evaluation of both cases showed features of Extraskeletal Myxoid Chondrosarcoma (ESMC). Characteristic histopathological features include a malignant soft tissue neoplasm with lobulated growth pattern, abundant myxoid matrix and fairly bland looking tumor cells. There is no convincing evidence of cartilagenous differentiation or chondroid matrix production. Immunohistochemistry has a limited role.
ESMC is a tumor with long survival but a prolonged follow up is necessary in view of high local recurrence, high metastatic rates and high disease related mortality. The diagnosis of this tumor largely depends upon knowledge of this entity and its characteristic histopathological features.
Key words: Extra-skeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma; ESMC.


Introduction

Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosaroma (ESMC) is a rare malignant soft tissue sarcoma described as a distinct clinico-pathologic entity by Enzinger and Shiraki in 1972 [1]. WHO categorized this tumor as a tumor of uncertain differentiation since there is paucity of convincing evidence of cartilagenous differentiation. It is a rare tumor, accounting for less than 3% of soft tissue sarcomas [2,3]. The tumor usually develops in deep parts of the proximal extremities and in middle-aged adults [4]. More than two-thirds of the tumors occur in the proximal extremities and limb girdles, especially the thigh and popliteal fossa. Here, we are presenting the detailed clinico-pathological findings of two such cases, which were diagnosed in our institute.

Case Report

Case 1: 40 year old housewife presented with lower limb swelling and pain just above the knee joint which started since 5 months (Fig 1). Plain radiographs reveal a soft tissue mass abutting the femoral surface with minimum bony involvement in supracondylar region of femur suggestive of a soft tissue neoplasm (Fig. 2). MRI revealed a large extra-osseous soft tissue lesion with minimal intra-osseous extension suggestive of a juxtacortical neoplasm or soft tissue sarcoma (Fig. 3). Open biopsy was done elsewhere and reports were reviewed at authors institute. It showed microscopic features of ESMC. Considering the interosseous involvement and safe oncological margins, a wide resection was planned. The patient underwent limb salvage surgery in form of wide local excision of distal femur along with the mass and reconstruction with a megaprosthesis. Pathological Findings: On gross examination of the wide local excision specimen of distal femur, there was an extra-osseous mass at the lower end of femur on the postero-lateral aspect measuring 9×8 cm in size. It was a soft to firm, ovoid, lobulated mass which on cut section, was gelatinous, mucoid and gray-white. There was no evidence of necrosis or haemorrhage noted (Fig 4). Microscopically, it showed a characteristic multi-nodular pattern. Tumor cells were small round with hyperchromatic nuclei and a narrow rim of cytoplasm (Fig 5a). Cells were arranged in cords and strands separated by abundant myxoid material (Fig 5b,c). No cartilaginous matrix production was seen in the stroma. On Immuno-histochemestry (IHC) the cells showed strong positivity for Vimentin and focal positivity for S-100 protein. These cells were negative for Cytokeratin, EMA, Synaptophysin and Chromogranin. Based on morphological and IHC findings, a diagnosis of Extra-skeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (ESMC) was reached.

Figure 1, 2, 3

Figure 4, 5

Case 2: 50 year old lady presented with a huge fungating soft tissue mass over left foot associated with similar cutaneous nodules over right arm and left thigh. The foot lesion was progressively increasing over a year but not associated with pain. (Figure 6a, 6b)
X-ray of left foot and lower limb revealed a large soft tissue mass destroying the metatarsals , devoid of any matrix and periosteal reaction (Fig. 7a). Similar lesion was seen destroying the ipsilateral distal fibula (Fig. 7b). Biopsies from the foot mass and the arm nodule revealed histopathological and IHC findings consistent with Extraskeletal Myxoid Chondrosarcoma (ESMC). This patient defaulted for further treatment and follow up.

Figure 6, 7

Discussion:
Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (ESMC) is a rare, morphologically distinct soft tissue sarcoma with characteristic nodular architecture & abundant myxoid matrix. In 1972, Enzinger and Shiraki were the first ones who coined ESMC as a distinct entity [1]. In spite of it’s name, Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (ESMC) is considered as a “Tumor of uncertain differentiation” because there is no definite evidence of cartilage matrix production in the tumor. Histogenesis of ESMC is still subject of controversy. Incidence of this tumor is only 2.3% of all soft tissue sarcomas as reported by Tsuneyosi et al [2]. Mainly the adult age group (35 years and above) is affected by this tumor, with equal sex predilection [3]. Most common sites are deep soft tissues of the proximal extremities and limb girdles, especially the musculature [4]. However, few uncommon sites are also been described like mediastinum, retroperitoneum, abdomen and the digits [5-7]. In both of our cases, imaging showed that it was a lobulated soft tissue mass without bony periosteal reaction or any radiologically evident matrix production. Histopathologically, both cases showed presence of uniform eosinophilic cells arranged in cords & deposited in an abundant myxoid stroma. There was no evidence of cartilage/osteoid matrix deposition.
The most important clue to the diagnosis of this rare entity is the typical arrangement of cells in cords and columns with a very prominent myxoid background [8]. ESMC appears to exhibit a high tendency of local recurrence & distant metastases, predominantly to the lungs, sometimes years after the initial diagnosis [9]. ESMC should be considered an intermediate grade tumor rather than a low-grade malignant neoplasm as the estimated 5, 10 and 15-year survival rates described by Meis-Kindblom et al were 90%, 70% & 60% respectively [4]. Wide local excision of the tumor is the treatment of choice. If a wide margin can not be obtained, a high rate of local recurrence is observed with poor response to chemotherapy & radiotherapy. Therefore, surgery with appropriate adequate margins continues to be the treatment of choice, for primary as well as recurrent or metastatic tumors.
On follow up part, our first patient is disease free at 6 years from date of surgery with excellent function in the operated limb (MSTS score 97%). The second patient defaulted for further treatment and was lost to follow up. Some adverse pathological prognostic factors reported in literature include Tumor size ≥ 10 cm, high cellularity, anaplasia or rhabdoid features, mitotic activity more than two per 10 high-power fields, and Ki-67 proliferative index of ≥ 10%. These indicate more aggressive behavior, requiring a closer follow-up of the patient [10]. In summary, ESMC is an uncommon but distinct soft tissue sarcoma, clearly different from conventional skeletal chondrosarcoma. Knowledge of this entity and accurate diagnosis is essential because of the difference in its behaviour and prognosis.


References

1. Enzinger FM, Shiraki M. Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma. An analysis of 34 cases.Hum Pathol 3: 421-35,1972.
2. Tsuneyoshi M, Enjoji M, Iwasaki H and Shirahama N: Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: a clinicopathologic and electron microscopic study. Acta Pathol Jpn 31: 201-208, 1981.
3. Antonescu CR, Argani P, Erlandson RA, et al: Skeketal and extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: a comparative clinicopathologic, ultrastructural, and molecular study. Cancer 83:1504-1521, 1998.
4. Meis-Kindblom JM, Bergh P, Gunterberg B, et al: Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: a reappraisal of its morphologic spectrum and prognostic factors based on 117 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 23: 636-650, 1999.
5. Oliveira AM, Sebo TJ, McGrory JE, et al: Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma; A clinocopathologic, immunohistochemical, and ploidy analysis of 23 cases. Mod Pathol 13: 900-908, 2000.
6. Patel SR, Burgess MA, Papadopculos NE, Linke KA and Benjamin RS: Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: long-term experience with chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 18: 161-163,
1995.
7. Okamoto S, Hara K, Sumita S, et al: Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma arising in the finger. Skeletal Radiol 31: 296-300, 2002.
8. Jakowski JD, Wakely PE Jr. Cytopathology of extra-skeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: Report of 8 cases. Cancer 2001; 111:298-305
9. Weiss SW and Goldblum JR: Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma. In: Soft Tissue Tumors 4th Edition. Mosby, St. Louis,pp1368-1379, 2001.
10. Oliveria Am, Sebo TJ, McGrory JE, Gaffey TA, Rock MG, Nascimento AG. Extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma: A clinicaqopthologic, immunohistochemical & ploidy analysis of 23 cases. Mod Pathol 2000; 13:900-8.


How to Cite this article:Biradar S, Joshi S, Panchwagh Y, Ghanekar V, Kothadiya P. Extraskeletal Myxoid Chondrosarcoma- Rare ‘Non-chondroid’ soft tissue Sarcoma!!!. Journal of  Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Jan-Apr 2016;2(1):36-38 .

Photo


(Abstract    Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)