A conflict of interest statement: Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
Outcome of surgical treatment of pelvic osteosarcoma†
Article first published online: 27 FEB 2012
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume 106, Issue 4, pages 406–410, 15 September 2012
How to Cite
Guo, W., Sun, X., Ji, T. and Tang, X. (2012), Outcome of surgical treatment of pelvic osteosarcoma. J. Surg. Oncol., 106: 406–410. doi: 10.1002/jso.23076
- Issue published online: 14 AUG 2012
- Article first published online: 27 FEB 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 6 FEB 2012
- Manuscript Received: 31 AUG 2011
- surgical treatment;
Background and objectives
Surgical treatment of pelvic osteosarcoma is often challenging. The objective of this study was to assess the oncologic and functional outcome and the operation-related complications of patients with pelvic osteosarcoma who were treated in a single center in the past decade.
Nineteen patients underwent surgical procedures between June 2000 and June 2009. There were 11 males and 8 females with a mean age of 30 years. According to Enneking and Dunham pelvic classification system, there were: Type I-3, Type I + IV-3, Type I + II-2, Type II + III-4, Type I + II + III-1, Type III-1, and type I + II + IV-5. All patients received chemotherapy.
Local recurrence rate was 26.3% (5/19). The 5-year overall survival rate was 44.9%. Seventeen patients received reconstruction after tumor resection. The average MSTS 93 score was 18 (10–23) for the 11 patients with hemipelvic endoprosthetic reconstruction and 23 (20–25) for 6 patients with rod-screw reconstruction. Complication was found in 7 of 19 patients (36.8%).
The oncological results of pelvic osteosarcoma are poor at best. Even with a higher complication rate, we believe restoration of pelvic ring continuity and hip joint mobility is reasonable option to achieve favorable functional outcomes in selected patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2012; 106:406–410. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.