Conflicts of interest: None of the authors have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work.
Clinical outcome of central conventional chondrosarcoma†
Article first published online: 30 MAY 2012
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume 106, Issue 8, pages 929–937, December 2012
How to Cite
Angelini, A., Guerra, G., Mavrogenis, A. F., Pala, E., Picci, P. and Ruggieri, P. (2012), Clinical outcome of central conventional chondrosarcoma. J. Surg. Oncol., 106: 929–937. doi: 10.1002/jso.23173
- Issue published online: 14 NOV 2012
- Article first published online: 30 MAY 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 7 MAY 2012
- Manuscript Received: 11 OCT 2011
- surgical treatment;
- clinical outcome;
- prognostic factors
Aim of this study was to analyze (1) survival, local recurrence (LR), and metastasis rates between the three histological tumor grades; (2) whether type of treatment and tumor site influenced prognosis for each histologic grade.
We retrospectively studied 296 patients with central conventional chondrosarcomas (CS) (87 grade 1, 162 grade 2, and 47 grade 3). The femur was the most common site (91 cases), followed by the pelvis (82) and other less frequent sites. Type of surgery was related with histologic grade. Margins were wide in 222 cases, marginal in 23, and intralesional in 51 cases.
At a mean of 7 years, 201 patients remained continuously NED, 33 were NED after treatment of relapse, 15 were AWD, 35 were died of disease, and 12 of other causes. Survival was 92% at 5 years and 84% at 10 years, significantly influenced by histological grading. In grade 3 CS, two factors influenced survival: type of surgery (resection vs. amputation, P = 0.051) and site (P = 0.039). The two significant factors lost their significance at multivariate analysis.
Central conventional CS with low/intermediate grade has a good prognosis, while high-grade tumors have poor outcome. Tumor relapses are strictly related with histologic grade. J. Surg. Oncol. 2012; 106: 929–937. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.