Bone Cancer NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus
Category 1: The recommendation is based on high-level evidence (e.g., randomized controlled trials) and there is uniform NCCN consensus.
Category 2A: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is uniform NCCN consensus.
Category 2B: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is nonuniform NCCN consensus (but no major disagreement).
Category 3: The recommendation is based on any level of evidence but reflects major disagreement.
All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.
Overview
Primary bone cancers are extremely rare neoplasms, likely accounting for fewer than 0.2% of all cancers, although its true incidence is difficult to determine secondary to the rarity of these tumors.1,2 In 2009, an estimated 2570 new cases will be diagnosed in the United States and 1470 people will die of the disease.3 Primary bone cancers show wide clinical heterogeneity and are often curable with proper treatment. Osteosarcoma (35%), chondrosarcoma (30%), and Ewing's sarcoma (16%) are the 3 most common forms of bone cancer. Malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) and fibrosarcoma of the bone constitute fewer than 1% of all primary bone tumors. Chondrosarcoma is usually found in middle-aged and older adults; osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma develop mainly in children and young adults. Various bone cancers are named based on their histologic origin: chondrosarcomas arise from cartilage, osteosarcomas arise from bone, and fibrogenic tissue is the origin of fibrosarcoma of bone, whereas vascular tissue gives rise to hemangioendothelioma and hemangiopericytoma. Notochordal tissue gives rise to chordoma. Several primary bone cancers, including Ewing's sarcoma family of tumors (ESFT), are of unknown histologic origin.
The pathogenesis and etiology of most bone cancers remain unclear. Gene rearrangements in the EWS and ETS family of genes have been implicated in the pathogenesis of Ewing's sarcoma.4–7 Specific genetic alterations also play a role in osteosarcoma pathogenesis.8,9 Although trauma is frequently implicated in sarcomas, a cause-and-effect relationship between a traumatic event and the development of bone cancer has not been identified. A quantifiable risk exists for developing bone sarcomas after therapeutic radiation.10,11 Osteosarcoma is the most common radiation-induced sarcoma, and is the most common second primary malignancy in patients with a history of retinoblastoma.12,13 Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a hereditary cancer syndrome in which there is a germ-line mutation of the p53 gene resulting in sarcomas such as osteosarcoma, early onset of bilateral breast cancer, and several other neoplasms.14–17
In the past, a diagnosis of osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma was associated with a poor prognosis. A generation ago, Marcove et al. described the survival pattern of newly diagnosed patients with osteosarcoma
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Version 3.2010, 03-19-10 ©2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. All rights reserved. These guidelines and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged. All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged. All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged. All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.
Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8, 6; 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0051
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Bone Cancer (to view the most recent version of these guidelines, visit the NCCN Web site at www.NCCN.org) focus on chondrosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, and osteosarcoma.
Staging
The 2010 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging classification is shown in the staging table (available online, in these guidelines, at www.NCCN.org [ST-1]). This system is based on the assessment of histologic grade (G), tumor size (T), presence of regional (N) and/or distant metastases (M). The Surgical Staging System (SSS) is another staging system for bone and soft tissue sarcomas developed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (available online, in these guidelines, at www.NCCN.org [ST-1]).21 This system stratifies bone and soft tissue sarcomas according to surgical grade (G), local extent (T), and presence or absence of regional or distant metastases. It may be used in addition to the AJCC staging system.
Principles of Bone Cancer Management
Multidisciplinary Team Involvement
Primary bone tumors and selected metastatic tumors should be evaluated and treated by a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. Appropriate team members are listed on page 696. Long-term surveillance and follow-up are necessary when considering the risk for recurrence and comorbidities associated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy (RT). Extended therapy and surveillance may be necessary for long-term survivors to address the potential side effects of surgery, RT, and chemotherapy. Patients should be given a survivorship prescription to schedule follow-ups with a multidisciplinary team. Fertility issues should be discussed with appropriate patients before they start treatment.22
Diagnostic Workup
Suspicion of a malignant bone tumor often begins when a poorly marginated lesion is seen on a plain radiograph in a patient with a painful lesion. In patients younger than 40 years, an aggressive, painful bone lesion has a significant risk for being a malignant primary bone tumor, and referral to an orthopedic oncologist should be considered before further workup. Patients 40 years and older whose plain films and history do not suggest a specific diagnosis should undergo evaluation for metastatic carcinoma, including chest radiograph; chest, abdominal, and pelvic CT; bone scan; mammogram; and other imaging studies as clinically indicated (see page 690).23
All patients with suspected bone sarcomas should undergo complete staging before biopsy. Standard staging workup for a suspected primary bone sarcoma should include chest imaging (chest radiograph or CT to detect pulmonary metastases), appropriate imaging of the primary site (plain radiographs, MRI for local staging, and/or CT scan), and bone scan.24 Imaging of painless bone lesions should be evaluated by a musculoskeletal radiologist followed by appropriate referral to a multidisciplinary treatment team if necessary. Laboratory studies, such as a CBC, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), or alkaline phosphatase, should be performed before treatment is initiated.
PET is an alternative imaging technique used in the pretreatment staging of soft tissue and bone sarcomas.25 Recent reports have shown the efficacy of PET scans in evaluating chemotherapy response in osteosarcoma and ESFT.26,27
Biopsy
Biopsy should be performed using either core needle or surgical biopsy techniques. At biopsy, careful consideration should be given to appropriate stabilization of the affected bone and/or measures to protect against impending pathologic fracture. Because location of the biopsy is critical to limb-salvage techniques, it should be performed at the facility that will provide definitive management of the suspected primary malignant bone tumor.
Surgery
Surgical margins should be negative, wide enough to minimize potential local recurrence, and narrow enough to maximize function. Wide excision implies histologically negative surgical margins and is necessary to optimize local control. Local tumor control may be achieved either through limb-sparing resection or limb amputation, although in selected cases, amputation may be the most appropriate option. However, limb-sparing resection is preferred if reasonable functional outcomes can be achieved. Response to the preoperative regimen should be evaluated with pathologic mapping. Consultation with a physical therapist is recommended to evaluate for mobility training and to determine an appropriate rehabilitation program.
Chondrosarcoma
Chondrosarcomas characteristically produce cartilage matrix from neoplastic tissue devoid of osteoid and may occur at any age, but are more common in older adults.28–30 Conventional chondrosarcomas of the bone constitute approximately 85% of all chondrosarcomas and are divided as either primary or central lesions arising from previously normal-appearing bone preformed from cartilage; secondary or peripheral tumors that arise or develop from preexisting benign cartilage lesions, such as enchondromas; or from the cartilaginous portion of an osteochondroma.29,31,32
Malignant transformation has been reported in lesions found in patients with Ollier's disease (enchondromatosis). The anatomic location, histologic grade, and size are essential prognostic features of the lesion, despite whether it is primary or secondary, or central or peripheral.33–36 Peripheral or secondary tumors are usually low grade with infrequent metastasis.37 Other rare subtypes that constitute approximately 10% to 15% of all chondrosarcomas29 include clear cell, dedifferentiated, myxoid, and mesenchymal forms.
Symptoms of chondrosarcoma are usually mild and depend on tumor size and location. Patients with pelvic or axial lesions typically present later in the disease course, because the associated pain has a more insidious onset and often occurs when the tumor has reached a significant size.33,38,39 Central chondrosarcomas show cortical destruction and loss of medullary bone trabeculations on radiographs, as well as calcification and destruction.38
MRI will show the intramedullary involvement and extraosseous extension of the tumor. Secondary lesions arise from preexisting lesions. Serial radiographs will show a slow increase in size of the osteochondroma or enchondroma. A cartilage “cap” measuring greater than 2 cm on a preexisting lesion or documented growth after skeletal maturity should suggest sarcomatous transformation.40
Treatment
Histologic grade and tumor locations are the most important variables used to determine primary treatment. Resectable low-grade and intracompartmental lesions are treated with intralesional excision with or without adjuvant therapy.41–44 Wide excision with negative margins is the preferred treatment for some low-grade lesions because of their larger size and intraarticular or pelvic localization. High-grade (grade II, III, or clear cell) or extracompartmental lesions are treated with wide excision, if resectable, obtaining negative surgical margins.34
Unresectable high- and low-grade lesions are treated with RT (see page 691). Proton-beam RT has been associated with excellent local tumor control and long-term survival in patients with low-grade skull base chondrosarcomas.45,46
Chemotherapy is not very effective in chondrosarcomas, especially in conventional and dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas. Although Mitchell et al.47 reported that adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and doxorubicin was associated with improved survival in patients with dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, this finding could not be confirmed in other studies.48–50 Recently, Cesari et al.51 reported that the addition of chemotherapy improved survival rates in patients with mesenchymal chondrosarcoma. Another report from the German study group also confirmed that the outcome was better in younger patients.52 However, no prospective randomized trials have been performed, and therefore the role of chemotherapy in the treatment of chondrosarcomas remains undefined.
No chemotherapy regimens have been established for conventional chondrosarcoma (grades 1–3). The NCCN Bone Cancer Guidelines suggest that dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas could be treated as osteosarcoma, and mesenchymal chondrosarcomas treated as Ewing's sarcoma, best approached as a function of their grade. Both of these options have a category 2B recommendation.
Surveillance
Surveillance for low-grade lesions consists of a physical examination, imaging of the lesion, and a chest radiograph every 6 to 12 months for 2 years, then yearly as appropriate. Surveillance for high-grade lesions consists of a physical examination, imaging of the primary site, and/or cross-sectional imaging as indicated. Chest imaging is also indicated every 3 to 6 months for the first 5 years, and yearly thereafter for a minimum of 10 years, because late metastases and recurrences after 5 years are more common with chondrosarcoma than with other sarcomas.35 Functional assessment should be performed at every visit (see page 691).
Relapse
Local recurrence or relapse should be treated with wide excision, if the lesions are resectable. RT should be considered after wide excision with positive surgical margins (see page 691). Negative surgical margins should be observed. Unresectable recurrences are treated with RT.
Surgical excision is an option for systemic relapse of a high-grade lesion or patients should be encouraged to participate in a clinical trial.
ESFT
ESFT are a group of small, round-cell neoplasms that include Ewing's sarcoma, primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET), Askin's tumor, PNET of bone, and extraosseous Ewing's sarcoma. Ewing's sarcoma is characterized by the fusion of the EWS gene on chromosome 22q12 with various members of the ETS gene family (FLI1, ERG, ETV1, ETV4, and FEV).5,6 The EWS-FLI1 fusion transcript resulting from the chromosomal translocation t(11;22) (q24;q12) is identified in approximately 85% of Ewing's sarcomas, such as Ewing's sarcoma, PNET, and Askin's tumor.
Ewing's sarcoma is poorly differentiated and is also characterized by the strong expression of cell-surface glycoprotein MIC2 (CD99).53,54 The expression of MIC2 may be useful in the differential diagnosis of Ewing's sarcoma and PNET from other small round-cell neoplasms, although it is not exclusively specific to these tumors.55
Ewing's sarcoma typically occurs in adolescents and young adults; the most common primary sites are the femur, pelvic bones, and bones of chest wall, although any bone may be affected. When arising in a long bone, the diaphysis is the most frequently affected site and appears mottled on imaging. Periosteal reaction is classic and is referred to as “onion skin” by radiologists.
Patients with Ewing's sarcoma, similar to those with bone sarcomas, present with localized pain or swelling. Unlike with other bone sarcomas, constitutional symptoms, such as fever, weight loss, and fatigue, are occasionally noted at presentation. Abnormal laboratory studies may include elevated serum LDH and leukocytosis.
Important indicators of favorable prognosis include a distal site of primary disease, normal serum LDH level at presentation, and absence of metastatic disease at presentation.56–58 Nearly one quarter will present with metastatic disease, which is the most significant adverse prognostic factor in Ewing's sarcoma as it is for other bone sarcomas.59,60 Lungs, bones, and bone marrow are the most common sites of metastasis. In a retrospective analysis of 975 patients from the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing's Sarcoma Study (EICESS) Group, 5-year relapse-free survival was 22% for patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis compared with 55% for those without.60 The results of the Intergroup Ewing's Sarcoma Study, analyzing the clinicopathologic features of 303 cases of Ewing's sarcoma, showed that patients with primary tumors in pelvic bones have the lowest survival rates compared with those with lesions in distal bones of the extremities.61
Workup
When ESFT is suspected, patients should undergo complete staging before biopsy. This should include CT of the chest, plain radiographs of the primary site, CT or MRI of the entire bone or area involved, PET scan, and/or bone scan. An MRI of the spine and pelvis should also be considered. An ongoing diagnostic study is comparing whole-body MRI and conventional imaging for detecting distant metastases in pediatric patients with ESFT, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, and neuroblastoma (www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/ACRIN-6660).
Cytogenetic analysis of the biopsy specimen should be obtained to evaluate the t(11;22) translocation. Although preliminary reports suggest that EWS-FLI1 translocation is associated with a better prognosis than other variants,62–64 this must be evaluated in large clinical trials. Bone marrow biopsy should be considered to complete the workup. Because serum LDH has been shown to have prognostic value as a tumor marker, the NCCN Bone Cancer Guidelines have included this test as part of the initial evaluation (see page 692). Fertility consultation should be considered for women of child-bearing age and men.
Primary Treatment
Multiagent chemotherapy regimens, including ifosfamide and/or cyclophosphamide; etoposide; doxorubicin and/or dactinomycin; and vincristine have been shown to be effective in patients with localized Ewing's sarcoma in single- and multi-institutional collaborative trials in the United States and Europe.65,66
The Intergroup Ewing's Sarcoma Studies (IESS-I and IESS-II) showed that the 4-drug regimen VACD (vincristine, dactinomycin, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin) was superior to the 3-drug regimen VAC (vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide) in terms of relapse-free (60% vs. 24%) and overall survival.67,68
In the Pediatric Oncology Group-Children's Cancer Group (POG-CCG) study (INT-0091), patients with Ewing's sarcoma or PNET of the bone were randomized to undergo chemotherapy with VACD alone or alternating with ifosfamide and etoposide (VACD-IE) for 17 cycles.69 In patients with nonmetastatic disease, the 5-year event-free survival rate was 69% in the VACD-IE group compared with 54% in the VACD alone group. Overall survival was also significantly higher among patients in the VACD-IE group (72% vs. 61%). However, the addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to VACD did not improve outcomes of patients with Ewing's sarcoma or PNET of bone with metastases at diagnosis.70 Kolb et al.71 from MSKCC also reported similar findings. The 4-year event-free and overall survival rates were 82% and 89%, respectively, for patients with locoregional disease, and 12% and 17.8%, respectively, for those with distant metastases.
The EICESS-92 study investigated whether cyclophosphamide has a similar efficacy to ifosfamide in standard-risk patients and whether the addition of etoposide improves survival in high-risk patients with Ewing's sarcoma. Standard-risk patients (small tumors) were randomly assigned to VAIA (vincristine, dactinomycin, ifosfamide, and doxorubicin) followed by either VAIA or VACA (vincristine, dactinomycin, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin).72 High-risk patients (large tumors or metastatic disease at diagnosis) were randomly assigned to VAIA or VAIA plus etoposide (EVAIA). For the standard-risk patients, 3-year event-free survival rates for VACA and VAIA were 73% and 74%, respectively. In the high-risk patients, the 3-year event-free survival rates for EVAIA and VAIA were 52% and 47%, respectively. The results of this study suggest that cyclophosphamide has the same efficacy as ifosfamide in standard-risk patients. Furthermore, the event-free survival rates in the high-risk group, though not statistically significant, suggest a benefit with the addition of etoposide to ifosfamide.
The European Ewing Tumour Working Initiative of National Groups 1999 (EURO-EWING 99) study is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination chemotherapy with or without peripheral stem cell transplantation, RT, and/or surgery in patients with Ewing's sarcoma. Six courses of VIDE (vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide) are administered as an intensive induction chemotherapy for patients with ESFT.73
NCCN Recommendations: All patients with Ewing's sarcoma undergo primary treatment followed by local control therapy and adjuvant treatment (see page 693). Primary treatment consists of multiagent chemotherapy along with appropriate growth factor support for 12 to 24 weeks (see the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Myeloid Growth Factors for growth factor support; to view the most recent version of these guidelines, visit the NCCN Web site at www.NCCN.org). For localized Ewing's sarcoma, VAC alternating with ifosfamide and etoposide (VAC/IE) given on an every-2-week schedule was found to be more effective than on an every-3-week schedule, with median 3-year event-free survival rates of 76% and 65%, respectively.74
The NCCN guidelines have included the following regimens for first-line therapy (primary/neoadjuvant/adjuvant) for patients with localized disease or metastatic disease at presentation (page 697):
The guidelines recommend VAC (without the alternating cycle of ifosfamide and etoposide) as the preferred option for the treatment for primary metastatic disease at presentation.70,71 VAC/IE, VIDE, and VIA regimens are included as alternative treatment options.
After primary treatment, patients should be restaged with an MRI of the lesion and chest imaging. PET or bone scan can be used for restaging depending on the imaging technique used during initial workup. Patients responding to primary treatment should be treated with local control therapy. Local control options include wide excision with or without preoperative RT,75,76 definitive RT with chemotherapy, or amputation in selected cases (see page 693). Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without RT is recommended (regardless of surgical margins) after local control treatment (surgery or RT). The panel strongly recommends that the duration of chemotherapy be 28 and 49 weeks, depending on the type of regimen and dosing schedule (category 1).
Progressive disease after primary treatment is best managed with RT with or without surgery, followed by chemotherapy or best supportive care.
Surveillance
Surveillance of patients with Ewing's sarcoma consists of a physical examination, and chest and local imaging every 2 to 3 months.77,78 Surveillance intervals should be increased after 2 years, then annually after 5 years.
Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Disease
Approximately 30% to 40% of patients with Ewing's sarcoma experience recurrence (local and/or distant) and have a very poor prognosis. The timing and type of recurrence are the important prognostic factors; those with longer time to first recurrence have a better chance of survival. Late relapse (≥ 2 years after diagnosis), lung-only metastases, and local recurrence that can be treated with radical surgery and intensive chemotherapy are the most favorable prognostic factors, whereas early relapses (< 2 years after diagnosis) with metastases in the lungs and/or other sites, recurrence at local and distant sites, elevated LDH at initial diagnosis, and initial recurrence are considered adverse prognostic factors.79–81
Ifosfamide in combination with etoposide with or without carboplatin has been evaluated in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory sarcoma.82,83 In a phase II study, the combination of ifosfamide with mesna and etoposide was highly active, with acceptable toxicity in the treatment of recurrent sarcomas in children and young adults.82 In phase I and II studies conducted by the CCG, the overall response rate in patients with recurrent or refractory sarcoma was 51%; the overall survival rates at 1 and 2 years were 49% and 28%, respectively. Overall survival appeared significantly improved in patients who experienced a complete or partial response.83
Docetaxel in combination with gemcitabine was found to be well tolerated and showed antitumor activity in the treatment of children and young adults with refractory bone sarcoma.84 Topoisomerase I inhibitors, topotecan85–88 and irinotecan,89–91 in combination with cyclophosphamide and temozolomide, respectively, have shown promising response rates in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors. Cyclophosphamide and irinotecan produced a 44% response rate (35% of patients had a complete and 9% a partial response) in patients with recurrent or refractory Ewing's sarcoma.86 After a median follow-up of 23.1 months, 25.9% of patients were in continuous remission. In a retrospective analysis of patients with recurrent or progressive Ewing's sarcoma treated with irinotecan and temozolomide at MSKCC, the median time-to-progression (TTP) was 8.3 months.89 In those with recurrent disease, TTP was 16.2 months. Median TTP was better for patients experiencing a 2-year first remission and those with primary localized disease than for patients who experienced relapse within 2 years from diagnosis and for those with metastatic disease at diagnosis.
Inhibition of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) may be an interesting approach in the treatment of some subtypes of sarcomas. Monoclonal antibodies, such as figitumumab and R1507, have shown safety and suggested possible efficacy in early-phase trials for patients with relapsed or refractory sarcomas, including Ewing's sarcoma.
High-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue (HDT/SCR) has been evaluated in patients with relapsed or progressive Ewing's sarcoma in several small studies.92–98 The role of this approach in high-risk patients has yet to be determined in prospective randomized studies.
NCCN Recommendations: Treatment options for patients with relapsed or refractory disease include participation in a clinical trial, or chemotherapy with or without RT (see page 693). If a relapse is delayed, as sometimes occurs with this sarcoma, re-treatment with the previously effective regimen may be useful. The NCCN guidelines have included the following regimens as options for patients with relapsed or refractory disease (see page 697):
Cyclophosphamide and topotecan
Temozolomide and irinotecan
Ifosfamide and etoposide
Ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide
Docetaxel and gemcitabine
All patients with recurrent and metastatic disease should be considered for clinical trials investigating new treatment approaches.
Osteosarcoma
Osteosarcoma is the most common primary malignant bone tumor in children and young adults;1 the median age at diagnosis is 20 years. Osteosarcoma has 11 known variants with variable natural histories. Classic osteosarcoma constitutes nearly 80% of osteosarcoma and is always a high-grade spindle cell tumor that produces osteoid or immature bone. The most frequent sites for this cancer are the metaphyseal areas of the distal femur or proximal tibia, which are the sites of maximum growth.
Although most osteosarcomas are medullary and high-grade, parosteal lesions are juxtacortical and occur most often in the posterior distal femur. This variant tends to metastasize later than the classic form and has low histologic grade. Another juxtacortical variant is periosteal osteosarcomas, which most often involves the femur followed by the tibia and behaves with a severity that is intermediate between the parosteal and classic lesions.99 Other variants include osteosarcoma secondary to Paget's disease or prior irradiation. Patients with retinoblastoma are also at an increased risk for developing a very aggressive variant of osteosarcoma.
Pain and swelling are the most frequent early symptoms. Pain in the beginning is often intermittent and a thorough workup sometimes is delayed because symptoms may be confused with growing pains. Osteosarcoma spreads hematogenously, commonly metastasizing to the lung.
Tumor site and size, presence and location of metastases, histologic response to chemotherapy, and complete resection with negative margins are significant prognostic factors for patients with osteosarcoma of the extremities and trunk.100,101 Patients with one or a few resectable pulmonary metastases have a survival rate that approaches that of patients with no metastatic disease.
In an analysis of 1702 patients with osteosarcoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cooperative study group protocols, axial tumor site, male gender, and a long history of symptoms were associated with poor response to chemotherapy. Patient age and tumor location at diagnosis had a significant influence on outcome.100 All factors except age were significant in multivariate testing, with surgical remission and histologic response to chemotherapy emerging as the key prognostic factors. Elevated serum LDH level is also associated with a worse prognosis. Bacci et al.102 reported on 1421 patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity treated over 30 years. In this cohort, serum level of LDH was significantly higher in patients with metastatic disease at presentation than those with localized disease; 5-year disease-free survival rates were 39.5% and 60%, respectively. The 5-year disease-free survival correlated with serum level of LDH at univariate and multivariate analysis (39.5% for patients with high LDH levels and 60% for those with normal values), although it lost its significance when histologic response to chemotherapy was also considered in the latter.
Workup
Osteosarcomas present both a local problem and a concern for distant metastasis. Imaging of the primary lesions is accomplished with plain radiographs, MRI, and/or CT and bone scan. PET scan can also be considered. Plain radiographs of osteosarcomas show cortical destruction and irregular reactive bone formation. Bone scan, although uniformly abnormal at the lesion, may be useful to identify additional synchronous lesions (see page 694). MRI provides excellent soft tissue contrast and may be essential for operative planning. MRI is the best imaging modality to define the extent of the lesion within the bone and soft tissues, detect “skip” metastases, and evaluate anatomic relationships with the surrounding structures. In addition, ALP and LDH are frequently elevated in patients with osteosarcoma.
Primary Treatment
Although surgery remains an essential part of osteosarcoma management, the addition of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens has improved outcomes in patients with localized osteosarcoma. Early trials used multiagent chemotherapy regimens, including at least 3 or more of the following drugs: doxorubicin; cisplatin; bleomycin; cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide; dactinomycin; and high-dose methotrexate.103–110 The updated results of the randomized Multi-Institutional Osteosarcoma Study (MIOS) showed that 6-year event-free survival was significantly higher in patients randomized to adjuvant chemotherapy than in those who underwent observation only after surgery (61% and 11%, respectively).109
Subsequent clinical trials have shown that short intensive chemotherapy regimens produce excellent long-term results, similar to those achieved with multiagent chemotherapy.111–113 In a randomized trial conducted by the European Osteosarcoma group, combination doxorubicin and cisplatin was better tolerated in patients with operable nonmetastatic osteosarcoma than a multidrug regimen, with no difference in survival between the groups.113 For both groups, the 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 65% and 55%, respectively, and progression-free survival at 5 years was 44%. In a phase II/III trial, high-dose ifosfamide in combination with etoposide was effective as induction therapy in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic osteosarcoma despite significant myelosuppression, infection, and renal toxicity.114 The overall response rate was 59%, and projected 2-year progression-free survival rate for patients with metastases to lung was 39%. The survival rate for patients with bone metastases (with or without pulmonary metastases) was 58%. Combination cisplatin, ifosfamide, and epirubicin was also an active and reasonably well-tolerated regimen in patients with nonmetastatic extremity osteosarcoma,115 with a phase II study with a median follow-up of 64 months showing 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates of 41.9% and 48.2%, respectively.
Although neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with an improved prognosis in patients with high-grade localized osteosarcoma, the results were significantly poorer in those with metastatic disease at presentation.103,116,117 Two-year event-free and overall survival rates were 21% and 55%, respectively, versus 75% and 94% in patients with nonmetastatic disease at presentation, treated with the same chemotherapy protocol.103 Good histopathologic response (> 90% necrosis) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to be predictive of survival regardless of the type of chemotherapy administered after surgery.102,118 In an analysis of 881 patients with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery at the Rizzoli Institute, Bacci et al.119 showed that the 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates correlated significantly with histologic response to chemotherapy and were 67.9% versus 51.3% (P < .0001) in patients with good response and 78.4% versus 63.7% (P < .0001) in those with poor response, respectively. A report from the CCG also confirmed these findings; 8-year postoperative event-free and overall survival rates were 81% and 87%, respectively, in good responders to neoadjuvant therapy,118 and for poor survivors were 46% and 52%, respectively. Attempts to improve the outcome of poor responders through modifying the regimen remain unsuccessful.105
The safety and efficacy of HDT/SCR in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic osteosarcoma or relapsed osteosarcoma has also been evaluated.120,121 In the Italian sarcoma group study, treatment with carboplatin and etoposide followed by SCR, combined with surgery, induced complete response in chemosensitive patients.121 Transplant-related mortality was 3.1%. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 20% and 12%, respectively. The efficacy of this approach in high-risk patients remains to be determined in prospective randomized studies.
NCCN Recommendations: Wide excision is the primary treatment for patients with low-grade (intramedullary and surface) osteosarcomas, whereas preoperative chemotherapy is preferred for those with high-grade osteosarcoma (category 1) and periosteal lesions, before wide excision. Selected elderly patients may benefit from immediate surgery (see page 694).
After wide excision (for resectable lesions), postoperative chemotherapy is recommended for patients with low-grade or periosteal sarcomas with pathologic findings of high-grade disease. For high-grade osteosarcoma after wide excision, patients with a good histologic response should continue to undergo several more cycles of the same chemotherapy, whereas patients with a poor response should be considered for chemotherapy with a different regimen. RT followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended if the sarcoma remains unresectable after preoperative chemotherapy (see page 694).
Chemotherapy can be given intra-arterially or intravenously122,123 and should include appropriate growth factor support (see the NCCN Myeloid Growth Factors Guidelines for growth factor support [to view the most recent version of these guidelines, visit the NCCN Web site at www.nccn.org]). The NCCN Bone Cancer Guidelines have included the following regimens for first-line therapy (primary/neoadjuvant/adjuvant) in patients with localized disease or primary therapy for metastatic disease (see page 697):
Cisplatin and doxorubicin
MAP (high-dose methotrexate, cisplatin, and doxorubicin)
Doxorubicin, cisplatin, ifosfamide, and high-dose methotrexate
Ifosfamide and etoposide
Ifosfamide, cisplatin, and epirubicin
Surveillance
Once treatment is completed, surveillance should occur every 3 months for 2 years, then every 4 months for year 3, and then every 6 months for years 4 and 5, and yearly thereafter. Examination should include a complete physical, chest imaging, and plain film of the extremity. Chest CT should be performed if the plain chest radiograph becomes abnormal. Bone scan (category 2B) may also be considered (see page 695). Functional reassessment should be performed at every visit.
Treatment for Relapsed or Refractory Disease
Approximately 30% of patients with localized disease and 80% presenting with metastatic disease will experience relapse. The presence of solitary metastases and complete resectability of the disease at first recurrence have been reported to be the most important prognostic indicators for improved survival, whereas patients not amenable to surgery and those with a second or third recurrence have a poor prognosis.124,125
The combination of etoposide with cyclophosphamide or ifosfamide has been evaluated in clinical trials.126,127 In a phase II trial of the French Society of Pediatric Oncology, ifosfamide and etoposide resulted in a response rate of 48% in patients with relapsed or refractory osteosarcoma.127 In another phase II trial, cyclophosphamide and etoposide resulted in a 19% response rate and stable disease in 35% of patients with relapsed high-risk osteosarcoma.126 Progression-free survival at 4 months was 42%. Single-agent gemcitabine and combination regimens such as docetaxel and gemcitabine; cyclophosphamide and topotecan; and ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide have been effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory bone sarcomas.83,84,88,128
Samarium-153 ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate (153Sm-EDTMP), a bone-seeking radiopharmaceutical, has been evaluated in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic osteosarcoma or skeletal metastases.129,130 Andersen et al.129 reported that 153Sm-EDTMP with peripheral blood progenitor cell support had low nonhematologic toxicity and provided pain palliation for patients with osteosarcoma local recurrences or osteoblastic bone metastases. Results of a recent dose-finding study also show that 153Sm-EDTMP can be effective in the treatment of patients with high-risk osteosarcoma.130
NCCN Recommendations: The optimal treatment strategy for patients with relapsed or metastatic disease has yet to be defined. If relapse occurs, patients should undergo second-line chemotherapy and/or surgical resection (see page 695). Surveillance is recommended for those who respond to second-line therapy. The NCCN Bone Cancer Guidelines include the following regimens as options for patients with relapsed or refractory disease (see page 697):
Docetaxel and gemcitabine
Cyclophosphamide and etoposide
Cyclophosphamide and topotecan
Gemcitabine
Ifosfamide and etoposide
Ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide
High-dose methotrexate, etoposide, and ifosfamide
Patients who experience progressive disease after second-line therapy should be treated with resection, RT for palliation, or best supportive care (see page 695). Participation in a clinical trial should be strongly encouraged. The guidelines also include 153Sm-EDTMP as a treatment option for relapsed disease after second-line therapy.
Summary
Primary bone cancers are rare neoplasms, with osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and Ewing's sarcoma the 3 most common forms.
Chondrosarcoma is usually found in middle-aged and older adults. Wide excision is the preferred treatment for resectable low- and high-grade chondrosarcomas. Intralesional excision with or without adjuvant therapy is an alternative option for low-grade lesions. In small series of reports, the addition of chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with mesenchymal chondrosarcomas. However, the role of chemotherapy in the treatment of chondrosarcomas is not yet defined.
Ewing's sarcoma is characterized by a chromosomal translocation t(11;22), resulting in the fusion of EWS gene with various members of the ETS family of genes, and develops mainly in children and young adults. Multiagent chemotherapy is the primary treatment for patients with Ewing's sarcoma. Patients who experience response to primary treatment are treated with local control therapy (surgery or radiation) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Progressive disease is best managed with RT with or without surgery followed by chemotherapy or best supportive care.
Osteosarcoma occurs mainly in children and young adults. Wide excision is the primary treatment for patients with low-grade osteosarcomas, whereas preoperative chemotherapy is preferred before wide excision for high-grade osteosarcoma and periosteal lesions. After wide excision (for resectable lesions), postoperative chemotherapy is recommended for patients with low-grade or periosteal sarcomas with pathologic findings of high-grade disease and those with high-grade sarcoma. RT followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended if the sarcoma remains unresectable after preoperative chemotherapy. Patients with relapsed or refractory disease should be treated with second-line therapy. Participation in a clinical trial should be strongly encouraged for patients experiencing progressive disease after second-line therapy.
The development of multiagent chemotherapy regimens for neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment has considerably improved the prognosis for patients with osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma. A small subset of patients diagnosed with metastatic disease at presentation can be cured with the proper treatment. Consistent with the NCCN philosophy, the panel encourages patients to participate in well-designed clinical trials to enable further advances.
Individual Disclosure for the NCCN Bone Cancer Panel
Please Note
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines™) are a statement of consensus of the authors regarding their views of currently accepted approaches to treatment. Any clinician seeking to apply or consult these guidelines is expected to use independent medical judgment in the context of individual clinical circumstances to determine any patient's care or treatment. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) makes no representation or warranties of any kind regarding their content, use, or application and disclaims any responsibility for their applications or use in any way.
© National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2010, All rights reserved. These guidelines and the illustrations herein may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN.
Disclosures for the NCCN Bone Cancer Guidelines Panel
At the beginning of each NCCN Guidelines panel meeting, panel members disclosed any financial support they have received from industry. Through 2008, this information was published in an aggregate statement in JNCCN and online. Furthering NCCN's commitment to public transparency, this disclosure process has now been expanded by listing all potential conflicts of interest respective to each individual expert panel member.
Individual disclosures for the NCCN Bone Cancer Guidelines Panel members can be found on page 712. (The most recent version of these guidelines and accompanying disclosures, including levels of compensation, are available on the NCCN Web site at www.NCCN.org.)
These guidelines are also available on the Internet. For the latest update, please visit www.NCCN.org.
References
- 1↑
Yasko AW, Chow W, Fressica D. Bone sarcomas. In: Pazdur R, Wagman LD, Camphausen C, Hoskins WJ, eds. Cancer Management: A Multidisciplinary Approach, 11th ed. Lawrence, KS: CMPMedica LLC; 2008.
- 2↑
Unni KK. Dahlin’s Bone Tumors: General Aspects and Data on 11,087 Cases, 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
- 4↑
de Alava E, Gerald WL. Molecular biology of the Ewing’s sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor family. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:204–213.
- 5↑
Delattre O, Zucman J, Melot T et al.. The Ewing family of tumors—a subgroup of small-round-cell tumors defined by specific chimeric transcripts. N Engl J Med 1994;331:294–299.
- 7↑
Burchill SA. Molecular abnormalities in Ewing’s sarcoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2008;8:1675–1687.
- 8↑
Kruzelock RP, Murphy EC, Strong LC et al.. Localization of a novel tumor suppressor locus on human chromosome 3q important in osteosarcoma tumorigenesis. Cancer Res 1997;57:106–109.
- 9↑
Yamaguchi T, Toguchida J, Yamamuro T et al.. Allelotype analysis in osteosarcomas: frequent allele loss on 3q, 13q, 17p, and 18q. Cancer Res 1992;52:2419–2423.
- 10↑
Sagerman RH, Cassady JR, Tretter P, Ellsworth RM. Radiation induced neoplasia following external beam therapy for children with retinoblastoma. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1969;105:529–535.
- 11↑
Tucker MA, D’Angio GJ, Boice JD et al.. Bone sarcomas linked to radiotherapy and chemotherapy in children. N Engl J Med 1987;317:588–593.
- 12↑
Araki N, Uchida A, Kimura T et al.. Involvement of the retinoblastoma gene in primary osteosarcomas and other bone and soft-tissue tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991:271–277.
- 13↑
Schimke RN, Lowman JT, Cowan AB. Retinoblastoma and osteogenic sarcoma in siblings. Cancer 1974;34:2077–2079.
- 15
Malkin D, Li FP, Strong LC et al.. Germ line p53 mutations in a familial syndrome of breast cancer, sarcomas, and other neoplasms. Science 1990;250:1233–1238.
- 16
McIntyre JF, Smith-Sorensen B, Friend SH et al.. Germline mutations of the p53 tumor suppressor gene in children with osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:925–930.
- 17↑
Miller CW, Aslo A, Won A et al.. Alterations of the p53, Rb and MDM2 genes in osteosarcoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1996;122:559–565.
- 18↑
Grier HE. The Ewing family of tumors: Ewing’s sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Pediatric Clinics of North America 1997;44:991–1004.
- 19
Marina N, Gebhardt M, Teot L, Gorlick R. Biology and therapeutic advances for pediatric osteosarcoma. Oncologist 2004;9:422–441.
- 20↑
Wittig JC, Bickels J, Priebat D et al.. Osteosarcoma: a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician 2002;65:1123–1132.
- 21↑
Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1980:106–120.
- 22↑
Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH et al.. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2917–2931.
- 23↑
Rougraff BT, Kneisl JS, Simon MA. Skeletal metastases of unknown origin. A prospective study of a diagnostic strategy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75:1276–1281.
- 24↑
Heck RK, Peabody TD, Simon MA. Staging of primary malignancies of bone. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56:366–375.
- 25↑
Schuetze SM. Utility of positron emission tomography in sarcomas. Curr Opin Oncol 2006;18:369–373.
- 26↑
Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad EU et al.. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 2002;94:3277–3284.
- 27↑
Hawkins DS, Schuetze SM, Butrynski JE et al.. [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts outcome for Ewing sarcoma family of tumors. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8828–8834.
- 28↑
Bovee JV, Cleton-Jansen AM, Taminiau AH, Hogendoorn PC. Emerging pathways in the development of chondrosarcoma of bone and implications for targeted treatment. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:599–607.
- 29↑
Gelderblom H, Hogendoorn PC, Dijkstra SD et al.. The clinical approach towards chondrosarcoma. Oncologist 2008;13:320–329.
- 30↑
Terek RM. Recent advances in the basic science of chondrosarcoma. Orthop Clin North Am 2006;37:9–14.
- 31↑
Mankin HJ, Cantley KP, Schiller AL, Lippiello L. The biology of human chondrosarcoma. II. Variation in chemical composition among types and subtypes of benign and malignant cartilage tumors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62:176–188.
- 32↑
Mankin HJ, Cantley KP, Lippiello L et al.. The biology of human chondrosarcoma. I. Description of the cases, grading, and biochemical analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62:160–176.
- 33↑
Bruns J, Elbracht M, Niggemeyer O. Chondrosarcoma of bone: an oncological and functional follow-up study. Ann Oncol 2001;12:859–864.
- 34↑
Fiorenza F, Abudu A, Grimer RJ et al.. Risk factors for survival and local control in chondrosarcoma of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:93–99.
- 35↑
Lee FY, Mankin HJ, Fondren G et al.. Chondrosarcoma of bone: an assessment of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:326–338.
- 36↑
Sanerkin NG. The diagnosis and grading of chondrosarcoma of bone: a combined cytologic and histologic approach. Cancer 1980;45:582–594.
- 37↑
Ahmed AR, Tan TS, Unni KK et al.. Secondary chondrosarcoma in osteochondroma: report of 107 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003:193–206.
- 38↑
Bergh P, Gunterberg B, Meis-Kindblom JM, Kindblom LG. Prognostic factors and outcome of pelvic, sacral, and spinal chondrosarcomas: a center-based study of 69 cases. Cancer 2001;91:1201–1212.
- 39↑
Enneking WF, Dunham WK. Resection and reconstruction for primary neoplasms involving the innominate bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978;60:731–746.
- 40↑
Norman A, Sissons HA. Radiographic hallmarks of peripheral chondrosarcoma. Radiology 1984;151:589–596.
- 41↑
Leerapun T, Hugate RR, Inwards CY et al.. Surgical management of conventional grade I chondrosarcoma of long bones. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007;463:166–172.
- 42
Marcove RC. A 17-year review of cryosurgery in the treatment of bone tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982;163:231–234.
- 43
Marcove RC, Stovell PB, Huvos AG, Bullough PG. The use of cryosurgery in the treatment of low and medium grade chondrosarcoma. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977:147–156.
- 44↑
Veth R, Schreuder B, van Beem H et al.. Cryosurgery in aggressive, benign, and low-grade malignant bone tumours. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:25–34.
- 45↑
Hug EB, Slater JD. Proton radiation therapy for chordomas and chondrosarcomas of the skull base. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2000;11:627–638.
- 46↑
Noel G, Feuvret L, Ferrand R et al.. Radiotherapeutic factors in the management of cervical-basal chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Neurosurgery 2004;55:1252–1260.
- 47↑
Mitchell AD, Ayoub K, Mangham DC et al.. Experience in the treatment of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000;82:55–61.
- 48↑
Dickey ID, Rose PS, Fuchs B et al.. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma: the role of chemotherapy with updated outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86–A:2412–2418.
- 49
Grimer RJ, Gosheger G, Taminiau A et al.. Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma: prognostic factors and outcome from a European group. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:2060–2065.
- 50↑
Staals EL, Bacchini P, Bertoni F. Dedifferentiated central chondrosarcoma. Cancer 2006;106:2682–2691.
- 51↑
Cesari M, Bertoni F, Bacchini P et al.. Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma. An analysis of patients treated at a single institution. Tumori 2007;93:423–427.
- 52↑
Dantonello TM, Int-Veen C, Leuschner I et al.. Mesenchymal chondrosarcoma of soft tissues and bone in children, adolescents, and young adults: experiences of the CWS and COSS study groups. Cancer 2008;112:2424–2431.
- 53↑
Ambros IM, Ambros PF, Strehl S et al.. MIC2 is a specific marker for Ewing’s sarcoma and peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumors. Evidence for a common histogenesis of Ewing’s sarcoma and peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumors from MIC2 expression and specific chromosome aberration. Cancer 1991;67:1886–1893.
- 54↑
Perlman EJ, Dickman PS, Askin FB et al.. Ewing’s sarcoma—routine diagnostic utilization of MIC2 analysis: a Pediatric Oncology Group/Children’s Cancer Group Intergroup study. Hum Pathol 1994;25:304–307.
- 55↑
Olsen SH, Thomas DG, Lucas DR. Cluster analysis of immunohistochemical profiles in synovial sarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, and Ewing sarcoma. Mod Pathol 2006;19:659–668.
- 56↑
Glaubiger DL, Makuch R, Schwarz J et al.. Determination of prognostic factors and their influence on therapeutic results in patients with Ewing’s sarcoma. Cancer 1980;45:2213–2219.
- 57
Gobel V, Jurgens H, Etspuler G et al.. Prognostic significance of tumor volume in localized Ewing’s sarcoma of bone in children and adolescents. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1987;113:187–191.
- 58↑
Mendenhall CM, Marcus RB, Enneking WF et al.. The prognostic significance of soft tissue extension in Ewing’s sarcoma. Cancer 1983;51:913–917.
- 59↑
Cangir A, Vietti TJ, Gehan EA et al.. Ewing’s sarcoma metastatic at diagnosis. Results and comparisons of two intergroup Ewing’s sarcoma studies. Cancer 1990;66:887–893.
- 60↑
Cotterill SJ, Ahrens S, Paulussen M et al.. Prognostic factors in Ewing’s tumor of bone: analysis of 975 patients from the European Intergroup Cooperative Ewing’s Sarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3108–3114.
- 61↑
Kissane JM, Askin FB, Foulkes M et al.. Ewing’s sarcoma of bone: clinicopathologic aspects of 303 cases from the Intergroup Ewing’s Sarcoma Study. Hum Pathol 1983;14:773–779.
- 62↑
Avigad S, Cohen IJ, Zilberstein J et al.. The predictive potential of molecular detection in the nonmetastatic Ewing family of tumors. Cancer 2004;100:1053–1058.
- 63
de Alava E, Kawai A, Healey JH et al.. EWS-FLI1 fusion transcript structure is an independent determinant of prognosis in Ewing’s sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1248–1255.
- 64↑
Zoubek A, Dockhorn-Dworniczak B, Delattre O et al.. Does expression of different EWS chimeric transcripts define clinically distinct risk groups of Ewing tumor patients? J Clin Oncol 1996;14:1245–1251.
- 65↑
Bernstein M, Kovar H, Paulussen M et al.. Ewing’s sarcoma family of tumors: current management. Oncologist 2006;11:503–519.
- 66↑
Subbiah V, Anderson P, Lazar AJ et al.. Ewing’s sarcoma: standard and experimental treatment options. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2009;10:126–140.
- 67↑
Burgert EO, Nesbit ME, Garnsey LA et al.. Multimodal therapy for the management of nonpelvic, localized Ewing’s sarcoma of bone: intergroup study IESS-II. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1514–1524.
- 68↑
Nesbit ME, Gehan EA, Burgert EO et al.. Multimodal therapy for the management of primary, nonmetastatic Ewing’s sarcoma of bone: a long-term follow-up of the First Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1664–1674.
- 69↑
Grier HE, Krailo MD, Tarbell NJ et al.. Addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to standard chemotherapy for Ewing’s sarcoma and primitive neuroectodermal tumor of bone. N Engl J Med 2003;348:694–701.
- 70↑
Miser JS, Krailo MD, Tarbell NJ et al.. Treatment of metastatic Ewing’s sarcoma or primitive neuroectodermal tumor of bone: evaluation of combination ifosfamide and etoposide—a Children’s Cancer Group and Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2873–2876.
- 71↑
Kolb EA, Kushner BH, Gorlick R et al.. Long-term event-free survival after intensive chemotherapy for Ewing’s family of tumors in children and young adults. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3423–3430.
- 72↑
Paulussen M, Craft AW, Lewis I et al.. Results of the EICESS-92 study: two randomized trials of Ewing’s sarcoma treatment—cyclophosphamide compared with ifosfamide in standard-risk patients and assessment of benefit of etoposide added to standard treatment in high-risk patients. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4385–4393.
- 73↑
Juergens C, Weston C, Lewis I et al.. Safety assessment of intensive induction with vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (VIDE) in the treatment of Ewing tumors in the EURO-E.W.I.N.G. 99 clinical trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2006;47:22–29.
- 74↑
Womer RB, West DC, Krailo MD et al.. Randomized comparison of every-two-week v. every-three-week chemotherapy in Ewing sarcoma family tumors (ESFT) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(Suppl 1):Abstract 10504.
- 75↑
Brown AP, Fixsen JA, Plowman PN. Local control of Ewing’s sarcoma: an analysis of 67 patients. Br J Radiol 1987;60:261–268.
- 76↑
Scully SP, Temple HT, O’Keefe RJ et al.. Role of surgical resection in pelvic Ewing’s sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:2336–2341.
- 77↑
Bacci G, Forni C, Longhi A et al.. Long-term outcome for patients with non-metastatic Ewing’s sarcoma treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapies. 402 patients treated at Rizzoli between 1972 and 1992. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:73–83.
- 78↑
Pritchard DJ, Dahlin DC, Dauphine RT et al.. Ewing’s sarcoma. A clinicopathological and statistical analysis of patients surviving five years or longer. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57:10–16.
- 79↑
Bacci G, Ferrari S, Longhi A et al.. Therapy and survival after recurrence of Ewing’s tumors: the Rizzoli experience in 195 patients treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 1979 to 1997. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1654–1659.
- 80
Leavey PJ, Mascarenhas L, Marina N et al.. Prognostic factors for patients with Ewing sarcoma (EWS) at first recurrence following multi-modality therapy: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008;51:334–338.
- 81↑
Rodriguez-Galindo C, Billups CA, Kun LE et al.. Survival after recurrence of Ewing tumors: the St Jude Children’s Research Hospital experience, 1979–1999. Cancer 2002;94:561–569.
- 82↑
Miser JS, Kinsella TJ, Triche TJ et al.. Ifosfamide with mesna uroprotection and etoposide: an effective regimen in the treatment of recurrent sarcomas and other tumors of children and young adults. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:1191–1198.
- 83↑
Van Winkle P, Angiolillo A, Krailo M et al.. Ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE) reinduction chemotherapy in a large cohort of children and adolescents with recurrent/refractory sarcoma: the Children’s Cancer Group (CCG) experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2005;44:338–347.
- 84↑
Navid F, Willert JR, McCarville MB et al.. Combination of gemcitabine and docetaxel in the treatment of children and young adults with refractory bone sarcoma. Cancer 2008;113:419–425.
- 85↑
Bernstein ML, Devidas M, Lafreniere D et al.. Intensive therapy with growth factor support for patients with Ewing tumor metastatic at diagnosis: Pediatric Oncology Group/Children’s Cancer Group Phase II Study 9457—a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:152–159.
- 86↑
Hunold A, Weddeling N, Paulussen M et al.. Topotecan and cyclophosphamide in patients with refractory or relapsed Ewing tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2006;47:795–800.
- 87
Kushner BH, Kramer K, Meyers PA et al.. Pilot study of topotecan and high-dose cyclophosphamide for resistant pediatric solid tumors. Med Pediatr Oncol 2000;35:468–474.
- 88↑
Saylors RL III, Stine KC, Sullivan J et al.. Cyclophosphamide plus topotecan in children with recurrent or refractory solid tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group phase II study. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3463–3469.
- 89↑
Casey DA, Wexler LH, Merchant MS et al.. Irinotecan and temozolomide for Ewing sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2009;53:1029–1034.
- 90
Wagner LM, Crews KR, Iacono LC et al.. Phase I trial of temozolomide and protracted irinotecan in pediatric patients with refractory solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:840–848.
- 91↑
Wagner LM, McAllister N, Goldsby RE et al.. Temozolomide and intravenous irinotecan for treatment of advanced Ewing sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;48:132–139.
- 92↑
Barker LM, Pendergrass TW, Sanders JE, Hawkins DS. Survival after recurrence of Ewing’s sarcoma family of tumors. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4354–4362.
- 93
Burdach S, Jurgens H, Peters C et al.. Myeloablative radiochemotherapy and hematopoietic stem-cell rescue in poor-prognosis Ewing’s sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1482–1488.
- 94
Engelhardt M, Zeiser R, Ihorst G et al.. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in adult patients with high-risk or advanced Ewing and soft tissue sarcoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2007;133:1–11.
- 95
Horowitz ME, Kinsella TJ, Wexler LH et al.. Total-body irradiation and autologous bone marrow transplant in the treatment of high-risk Ewing’s sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1911–1918.
- 96
Kushner BH, Meyers PA. How effective is dose-intensive/myeloablative therapy against Ewing’s sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor metastatic to bone or bone marrow? The Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience and a literature review. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:870–880.
- 97
McTiernan A, Driver D, Michelagnoli MP et al.. High dose chemotherapy with bone marrow or peripheral stem cell rescue is an effective treatment option for patients with relapsed or progressive Ewing’s sarcoma family of tumours. Ann Oncol 2006;17:1301–1305.
- 98↑
Oberlin O, Rey A, Desfachelles AS et al.. Impact of high-dose busulfan plus melphalan as consolidation in metastatic Ewing tumors: a study by the Societe Francaise des Cancers de l’Enfant. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3997–4002.
- 99↑
Grimer RJ, Bielack S, Flege S et al.. Periosteal osteosarcoma—a European review of outcome. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2806–2811.
- 100↑
Bielack SS, Kempf-Bielack B, Delling G et al.. Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:776–790.
- 101↑
Davis AM, Bell RS, Goodwin PJ. Prognostic factors in osteosarcoma: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:423–431.
- 102↑
Bacci G, Longhi A, Ferrari S et al.. 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;90:478–484.
- 103↑
Bacci G, Briccoli A, Rocca M et al.. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma of the extremities with metastases at presentation: recent experience at the Rizzoli Institute in 57 patients treated with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and a high dose of methotrexate and ifosfamide. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1126–1134.
- 104
Bacci G, Ferrari S, Bertoni F et al.. Long-term outcome for patients with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity treated at the istituto ortopedico rizzoli according to the istituto ortopedico rizzoli/osteosarcoma-2 protocol: an updated report. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:4016–4027.
- 105↑
Winkler K, Beron G, Delling G et al.. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcoma: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1988;6:329–337.
- 106
Ferrari S, Smeland S, Mercuri M et al.. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with high-dose Ifosfamide, high-dose methotrexate, cisplatin, and doxorubicin for patients with localized osteosarcoma of the extremity: a joint study by the Italian and Scandinavian Sarcoma Groups. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8845–8852.
- 107
Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J et al.. Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:21–26.
- 108
Link MP, Goorin AM, Miser AW et al.. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1600–1606.
- 109↑
Link MP, Goorin AM, Horowitz M et al.. Adjuvant chemotherapy of high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremity. Updated results of the Multi-Institutional Osteosarcoma Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991:8–14.
- 110↑
Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey J et al.. Chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteogenic sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:5–15.
- 111↑
Bramwell V, Burgers M, Sneath R et al.. A comparison of two short intensive adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in operable osteosarcoma of limbs in children and young adults: the first study of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1579–1591.
- 112
Lewis IJ, Nooij MA, Whelan J et al.. Improvement in histologic response but not survival in osteosarcoma patients treated with intensified chemotherapy: a randomized phase III trial of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:112–128.
- 113↑
Souhami RL, Craft AW, Van der Eijken JW et al.. Randomised trial of two regimens of chemotherapy in operable osteosarcoma: a study of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. Lancet 1997;350:911–917.
- 114↑
Goorin AM, Harris MB, Bernstein M et al.. Phase II/III trial of etoposide and high-dose ifosfamide in newly diagnosed metastatic osteosarcoma: a pediatric oncology group trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:426–433.
- 115↑
Basaran M, Bavbek ES, Saglam S et al.. A phase II study of cisplatin, ifosfamide and epirubicin combination chemotherapy in adults with nonmetastatic and extremity osteosarcomas. Oncology 2007;72:255–260.
- 116↑
Bacci G, Briccoli A, Mercuri M et al.. Osteosarcoma of the extremities with synchronous lung metastases: long-term results in 44 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Chemother 1998;10:69–76.
- 117↑
Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey JH et al.. Osteogenic sarcoma with clinically detectable metastasis at initial presentation. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:449–453.
- 118↑
Provisor AJ, Ettinger LJ, Nachman JB et al.. Treatment of nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity with preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy: a report from the Children’s Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:76–84.
- 119↑
Bacci G, Mercuri M, Longhi A et al.. Grade of chemotherapy-induced necrosis as a predictor of local and systemic control in 881 patients with non-metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a single institution. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2079–2085.
- 120↑
Lashkari A, Chow WA, Valdes F et al.. Tandem high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous transplantation in patients with locally advanced or metastatic sarcoma. Anticancer Res 2009;29:3281–3288.
- 121↑
Fagioli F, Aglietta M, Tienghi A et al.. High-dose chemotherapy in the treatment of relapsed osteosarcoma: an Italian sarcoma group study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2150–2156.
- 122↑
Bacci G, Ferrari S, Tienghi A et al.. A comparison of methods of loco-regional chemotherapy combined with systemic chemotherapy as neo-adjuvant treatment of osteosarcoma of the extremity. Eur J Surg Oncol 2001;27:98–9104.
- 123↑
Winkler K, Bielack S, Delling G et al.. Effect of intraarterial versus intravenous cisplatin in addition to systemic doxorubicin, high-dose methotrexate, and ifosfamide on histologic tumor response in osteosarcoma (study COSS-86). Cancer 1990;66:1703–1710.
- 124↑
Saeter G, Hoie J, Stenwig AE et al.. Systemic relapse of patients with osteogenic sarcoma. Prognostic factors for long term survival. Cancer 1995;75:1084–1093.
- 125↑
Tabone MD, Kalifa C, Rodary C et al.. Osteosarcoma recurrences in pediatric patients previously treated with intensive chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:2614–2620.
- 126↑
Berger M, Grignani G, Ferrari S et al.. Phase 2 trial of two courses of cyclophosphamide and etoposide for relapsed high-risk osteosarcoma patients. Cancer 2009;115:2980–2987.
- 127↑
Gentet JC, Brunat-Mentigny M, Demaille MC et al.. Ifosfamide and etoposide in childhood osteosarcoma. A phase II study of the French Society of Paediatric Oncology. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:232–237.
- 128↑
Merimsky O, Meller I, Flusser G et al.. Gemcitabine in soft tissue or bone sarcoma resistant to standard chemotherapy: a phase II study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2000;45:177–181.
- 129↑
Anderson PM, Wiseman GA, Dispenzieri A et al.. High-dose samarium-153 ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate: low toxicity of skeletal irradiation in patients with osteosarcoma and bone metastases. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:189–196.
- 130↑
Loeb DM, Garrett-Mayer E, Hobbs RF et al.. Dose-finding study of 153Sm-EDTMP in patients with poor-prognosis osteosarcoma. Cancer 2009;115:2514–2522.
