The aim of this study was to construct and validate nomograms for predicting lung metastasis and lung metastasis subgroup overall survival in malignant primary osseous neoplasms. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, logistic and Cox analyses were used to identify risk factors for lung metastasis in malignant primary osseous neoplasms and prognostic factors for overall survival in the lung metastasis subgroup. Further, nomograms were established and validated. A total of 3184 patients were collected. Variables including age, histology type, American Joint Committee on Cancer T and N stage, other site metastasis, tumor extension and surgery were extracted for the nomograms. The authors found that nomograms could provide an effective approach for clinicians to identify patients with a high risk of lung metastasis in malignant primary osseous neoplasms and perform a personalized overall survival evaluation for the lung metastasis subgroup.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Biermann JS, Chow W, Reed DR et al. NCCN guidelines insights: bone cancer, version 2.2017. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw. 15(2), 155–167 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
2. Dorfman HD, Czerniak B. Bone cancers. Cancer 75(Suppl. 1), 203–210 (1995).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Kager L, Zoubek A, Pötschger U et al. Primary metastatic osteosarcoma: presentation and outcome of patients treated on neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group protocols. J. Clin. Oncol. 21(10), 2011–2018 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Pochanugool L, Subhadharaphandou T, Dhanachai M et al. Prognostic factors among 130 patients with osteosarcoma. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. (345), 206–214 (1997).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Jaffe N, Jaffe DM. Tumor size and prognosis in aggressively treated osteosarcoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 14(8), 2399–2400 (1996).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Wu PK, Chen WM, Chen CF, Lee OK, Haung CK, Chen TH. Primary osteogenic sarcoma with pulmonary metastasis: clinical results and prognostic factors in 91 patients. Jpn J. Clin. Oncol. 39(8), 514–522 (2009). • Retrospective study highlighting the poor prognosis of malignant primary osseous neoplasm (MPON) patients with lung metastasis.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Kaste SC, Pratt CB, Cain AM, Jones-Wallace DJ, Rao BN. Metastases detected at the time of diagnosis of primary pediatric extremity osteosarcoma at diagnosis: imaging features. Cancer 86(8), 1602–1608 (1999). •• Retrospective study showing that early diagnosis and therapy of lung metastasis are beneficial to MPON patients.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Bruns J, Elbracht M, Niggemeyer O. Chondrosarcoma of bone: an oncological and functional follow-up study. Ann. Oncol. 12(6), 859–864 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Sternberg CN. Are nomograms better than currently available stage groupings for bladder cancer? J. Clin. Oncol. 24(24), 3819–3820 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
10. Fan Y, Cai M, Xia L. Distinction and potential prediction of lung metastasis in patients with malignant primary osseous spinal neoplasms. Spine 45(13), 921–929 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Moore DD, Luu HH. Osteosarcoma. Cancer Treat. Res. 162, 65–92 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Grünewald TGP, Cidre-Aranaz F, Surdez D et al. Ewing sarcoma. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 4(1), 5 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Leddy LR, Holmes RE. Chondrosarcoma of bone. Cancer Treat. Res. 162, 117–130 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Doll KM, Rademaker A, Sosa JA. Practical guide to surgical data sets: surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database. JAMA Surg. 153(6), 588–589 (2018). •• Study introducing the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database in detail.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Rousson V, Zumbrunn T. Decision curve analysis revisited: overall net benefit, relationships to ROC curve analysis, and application to case-control studies. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 11, 45 (2011). • Study showing the importance of decision curve analysis (DCA).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med. Decis. Making 26(6), 565–574 (2006).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
17. Diederich S, Semik M, Lentschig MG et al. Helical CT of pulmonary nodules in patients with extrathoracic malignancy: CT-surgical correlation. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 172(2), 353–360 (1999).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Rubin GD, Lyo JK, Paik DS et al. Pulmonary nodules on multi-detector row CT scans: performance comparison of radiologists and computer-aided detection. Radiology 234(1), 274–283 (2005). • Retrospective study demonstrating limitations of CT scan in detecting lung metastasis.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Huang X, Zhao J, Bai J et al. Risk and clinicopathological features of osteosarcoma metastasis to the lung: a population-based study. J. Bone Oncol. 16, 100230 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Zhang C, Guo X, Xu Y et al. Lung metastases at the initial diagnosis of high-grade osteosarcoma: prevalence, risk factors and prognostic factors. A large population-based cohort study. Sao Paulo Med. J. 137(5), 423–429 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Xie L, Huang W, Wang H, Zheng C, Jiang J. Risk factors for lung metastasis at presentation with malignant primary osseous neoplasms: a population-based study. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 15(1), 32 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Nomura M, Rainusso N, Lee YC et al. Tegavivint and the β-catenin/ALDH axis in chemotherapy-resistant and metastatic osteosarcoma. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 111(11), 1216–1227 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Tomoda R, Seto M, Hioki Y et al. Low-dose methotrexate inhibits lung metastasis and lengthens survival in rat osteosarcoma. Clin. Exp. Metastasis 22(7), 559–564 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Ahmad O, Chan M, Savage P, Watabe K, Lo HW, Qasem S. Biology and treatment of metastasis of sarcoma to the brain. Front. Biosci. (Elite Ed.) 8, 233–244 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Huang R, Xian S, Shi T et al. Evaluating and predicting the probability of death in patients with non-metastatic osteosarcoma: a population-based study. Med. Sci. Monit. 25, 4675–4690 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
26. Meazza C, Scanagatta P. Metastatic osteosarcoma: a challenging multidisciplinary treatment. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 16(5), 543–556 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Nakamura T, Matsumine A, Yamada S et al. Oncological outcome after lung metastasis in patients presenting with localized chondrosarcoma at extremities: Tokai Musculoskeletal Oncology Consortium study. Onco. Targets Ther. 9, 4747–4751 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Gaspar N, Hawkins DS, Dirksen U et al. Ewing sarcoma: current management and future approaches through collaboration. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(27), 3036–3046 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. van Wulfften Palthe ODR, Tromp I, Ferreira A et al. Sacral chordoma: a clinical review of 101 cases with 30-year experience in a single institution. Spine J. 19(5), 869–879 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Le Charpentier Y, Bellefqih S, Boisnic S, Roy-Camille R. Chordomas. Ann. Pathol. 8(1), 25–32 (1988). • Retrospective study showing that the quality of surgical resection is essential in the prognosis of patients with MPON.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Sheth DS, Yasko AW, Johnson ME, Ayala AG, Murray JA, Romsdahl MM. Chondrosarcoma of the pelvis. Prognostic factors for 67 patients treated with definitive surgery. Cancer 78(4), 745–750 (1996).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. George B, Bresson D, Bouazza S et al. Chordoma. Neurochirurgie 60(3), 63–140 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Ruosi C, Colella G, Di Donato SL, Granata F, Di Salvatore MG, Fazioli F. Surgical treatment of sacral chordoma: survival and prognostic factors. Eur. Spine J. 24(Suppl. 7), 912–917 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Biazzo A, De Paolis M. Multidisciplinary approach to osteosarcoma. Acta Orthop. Bel. 82(4), 690–698 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Ren Y, Zhang Z, Shang L, You X. Surgical resection of primary Ewing's sarcoma of bone improves overall survival in patients presenting with metastasis. Med. Sci. Monit. 25, 1254–1262 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Cox BW, Spratt DE, Lovelock M et al. International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium consensus guidelines for target volume definition in spinal stereotactic radiosurgery. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 83(5), e597–e605 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Gomez-Brouchet A, Mascard E, Siegfried A et al. Assessment of resection margins in bone sarcoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy: literature review and guidelines of the bone group (GROUPOS) of the French sarcoma group and bone tumor study group (GSF-GETO/RESOS). Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 105(4), 773–780 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Sandberg AA, Bridge JA. Updates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors: chondrosarcoma and other cartilaginous neoplasms. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet. 143(1), 1–31 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
39. Vogin G, Helfre S, Glorion C et al. Local control and sequelae in localised Ewing tumours of the spine: a French retrospective study. Eur. J. Cancer 49(6), 1314–1323 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
40. Salunke AA, Shah J, Gupta N, Pandit J. Pathologic fracture in osteosarcoma: association with poorer overall survival. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 42(6), 889–890 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Mariño-Enríquez A, Bovée JV. Molecular pathogenesis and diagnostic, prognostic and predictive molecular markers in sarcoma. Surg. Pathol. Clin. 9(3), 457–473 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 6

Metrics

Downloaded 152 times

History

Received 28 May 2020

Accepted 5 November 2020

Published online 19 January 2021

Published in print February 2021

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

All authors met the criteria for authorship set forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and were involved in the conception, preparation and approval of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database for the use of its data in this study.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents, received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

No personal identifying information was used in this study. Hence, the authors did not require institutional review board approval or patient informed consent.

PDF download