Aims. Due to their radiolucency and favourable mechanical properties, carbon fibre nails may be a preferable alternative to titanium nails for oncology patients. We aim to compare the surgical characteristics and short-term results of patients who underwent intramedullary fixation with either a titanium or carbon fibre nail for pathological long-bone fracture. Methods. This single tertiary-institutional, retrospectively matched case-control study included 72 patients who underwent prophylactic or therapeutic fixation for pathological fracture of the humerus, femur, or tibia with either a titanium (control group, n = 36) or carbon fibre (case group, n = 36) intramedullary nail between 2016 to 2020. Patients were excluded if intramedullary fixation was combined with any other surgical procedure/fixation method. Outcomes included operating time, blood loss, fluoroscopic time, and complications. Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results. Patients receiving carbon nails as compared to those receiving titanium nails had higher blood loss (median 150 ml (interquartile range (IQR) 100 to 250) vs 100 ml (IQR 50 to 150); p = 0.042) and longer fluoroscopic time (median 150 seconds (IQR 114 to 182) vs 94 seconds (IQR 58 to 124); p = 0.001). Implant complications occurred in seven patients (19%) in the titanium group versus one patient (3%) in the carbon fibre group (p = 0.055). There were no notable differences between groups with regard to operating time, surgical wound infection, or survival. Conclusion. This pilot study demonstrates a non-inferior surgical and short-term clinical profile supporting further consideration of carbon fibre nails for pathological fracture fixation in orthopaedic oncology patients. Given enhanced accommodation of imaging methods important for oncological surveillance and radiation therapy planning, as well as high tolerances to fatigue stress, carbon fibre implants possess important oncological advantages over titanium implants that merit further prospective investigation. Level of evidence: III, Retrospective study. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):648–655

The April 2013 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: the margin for error; new money for old risks; hindquarter amputation; custom tumour jigs; preserving the tibial epiphysis; how long is long enough?; genomics and radiation-induced bone tumours; and India ink

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):425–429

Aims. Tenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT) is a rare benign tumour of the musculoskeletal system. Surgical management is fraught with challenges due to high recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to describe surgical treatment and evaluate surgical outcomes of TGCT at an Australian tertiary referral centre for musculoskeletal tumours and to identify factors affecting recurrence rates. Methods. A prospective database of all patients with TGCT surgically managed by two orthopaedic oncology surgeons was reviewed. All cases irrespective of previous treatment were included and patients without follow-up were excluded. Pertinent tumour characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected for analysis. Results. There were 111 total cases included in the study; 71 (64%) were female, the mean age was 36 years (SD 13.6), and the knee (n = 64; 57.7%) was the most commonly affected joint. In all, 60 patients (54.1%) had diffuse-type (D-TGCT) disease, and 94 patients (84.7%) presented therapy-naïve as "primary cases" (PC). The overall recurrence rate was 46.8% for TGCT. There was a statistically significant difference in recurrence rates between D-TGCT and localized disease (75.0% vs 13.7%, relative risk (RR) 3.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.17 to 5.34; p < 0.001), and for those who were referred in the ”revision cases” (RC) group compared to the PC group (82.4% vs 48.9%, RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.28; p = 0.011). Age, sex, tumour volume, and mean duration of symptoms were not associated with recurrence (p > 0.05). Conclusion. Recurrence rates remain high even at a tertiary referral hospital. Highest rates are seen in D-TGCT and “revision cases”. Due to the risks of recurrence, the complexity of surgery, and the need for adjuvant therapy, this paper further supports the management of TGCT in a tertiary referral multi-disciplinary orthopaedic oncology service. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):846–852

The June 2014 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: Infection still a problem in endoprosthetic reconstruction; massive allografts not as successful as we perhaps think; curopsy for aneurysmal bone cysts?; lengthening prosthesis: days are numbered; new WHO classification in brief; proximal tumours and fluid levels: bad news; infection is predictable in orthopaedic oncology; psychosocial support key in oncological outcomes

Objectives. As tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration. Methods. All surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation. Results. The 13 surgeons who participated in the discussion represented orthopaedic oncology practices from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Denmark, United States and Canada). Four categories and associated themes emerged from the discussion: the need for collaboration in the field of orthopaedic oncology due to the rarity of the tumours and the need for high level evidence to guide treatment; motivational factors for participating in collaborative research including establishing proof of principle, learning opportunity, answering a relevant research question and being part of a collaborative research community; barriers to participation including funding, personal barriers, institutional barriers, trial barriers, and administrative barriers and facilitators for participation including institutional facilitators, leadership, authorship, trial set-up, and the support of centralised study coordination. Conclusions. Orthopaedic surgeons involved in an ongoing international randomised controlled trial (RCT) were motivated by many factors to participate. There were a number of barriers to and facilitators for their participation. There was a collective sense of fatigue experienced in overcoming these barriers, which was mirrored by a strong collective sense of the importance of, and need for, collaborative research in this field. The experiences were described as essential educational first steps to advance collaborative studies in this area. Knowledge gained from this study will inform the development of future large-scale collaborative research projects in orthopaedic oncology. Cite this article: J. S. Rendon, M. Swinton, N. Bernthal, M. Boffano, T. Damron, N. Evaniew, P. Ferguson, M. Galli Serra, W. Hettwer, P. McKay, B. Miller, L. Nystrom, W. Parizzia, P. Schneider, A. Spiguel, R. Vélez, K. Weiss, J. P. Zumárraga, M. Ghert. Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–314. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.65.BJR-2016-0192.R1

The August 2014 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: Anaesthesic modality does not affect outcomes in tumour surgery; infection predictors in orthopaedic oncology; sarcoma depth unimportant in survival; photon/proton radiotherapy surprisingly effective in chondrosarcoma control; total humerus replacement a success!; LDH simple predictor of survival in sarcoma; Denosumab again! and Oops procedures in triplicate

Rates of prosthetic joint infection in megaprostheses are high. The application of silver ion coating to implants serves as a deterrent to infection and biofilm formation. A retrospective review was performed of all silver-coated MUTARS endoprosthetic reconstructions (SC-EPR) by a single Orthopaedic Oncology Surgeon. We examined the rate of component revision due to infection and the rate of infection successfully treated with antibiotic therapy. We reviewed overall revision rates, sub-categorised into the Henderson groupings for endoprosthesis modes of failure (Type 1 soft tissue failure, Type 2 aseptic loosening, Type 3 Structural failure, Type 4 Infection, Type 5 tumour progression). 283 silver-coated MUTARS endoprosthetic reconstructions were performed for 229 patients from October 2012 to July 2022. The average age at time of surgery was 58.9 years and 53% of our cohort were males. 154 (71.3%) patients underwent SC-EPR for oncological reconstruction and 32 (14.8%) for reconstruction for bone loss following prosthetic joint infection(s). Proximal femur SC-EPR (82) and distal femur (90) were the most common procedures. This cohort had an overall revision rate of 21.2% (60/283 cases). Component revisions were most commonly due to Type 4 infection (19 cases), Type 2 aseptic loosening/culture negative disease (15 cases), and Type 1 dislocation/soft tissue (12 cases). Component revision rate for infection was 6.7% (19 cases). 15 underwent exchange of implants and 4 underwent transfemoral amputation due to recalcitrant infection and failure of soft tissue coverage. This equates to a limb salvage rate of 98.3%. The most common causative organisms remain staphylococcus species (47%) and polymicrobial infections (40%). We expand on the existing literature advocating for the use of silver-coated endoprosthetic reconstructions. We provide insights from the vast experience of a single surgeon when addressing patients with oncological and bone loss-related complex reconstruction problems

Given the low prevalence of sarcoma, international cooperation is necessary to recruit sufficient numbers of patients for surgical trials. The PARITY (Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery) trial is the first international multicentre trial in orthopedic oncology and successfully achieved target enrollment of 600 patients across 12 countries. It is important to reflect upon the challenges encountered and experiences gained to inform future trials. The objective of this study is to describe recruitment patterns and examine the differences in enrollment across different PARITY sites and identify variables associated with varying levels of recruitment. Data from this study was obtained from the PARITY trial Methods Centre and correspondence data. We performed descriptive statistics to demonstrate the recruitment patterns over time. We compared recruitment, time to set up, and time to enroll the first patient between North American and international sites, and sites that had dedicated research personnel. Two-tailed non-paired t-tests were performed to compare average monthly recruitment rates between groups with significance being set at alpha=0.05. A total of 600 patients from 48 clinical sites and 12 countries were recruited from January 2013 through to October 2019. Average monthly enrollment increased every year of the study. There were 36 North American and 12 international sites. North American sites were able to set up significantly faster than international sites (19.3 vs. 28.3 months p=0.037). However, international sites had a significantly higher recruitment rate per month once active (0.2/month vs. 0.62/month, p=0.018). Of active sites, 40 (83%) had research support personnel and 8 (17%) sites did not. Sites with research personnel were able to reach ‘enrolment ready’ status significantly faster than sites without research support (19.6 vs. 30.7 months, p=0.032). However, there was no significant difference in recruitment rate per month once the sites began enrolling (0.28/month vs. 0.2/month, p=0.63). Trial sites that took longer than 1 year to recruit their first patient had 3x lower average recruitment rate compared to sites that were able to recruit their first patient within a year of being enrolment ready. The PARITY trial is the first multicentre RCT in orthopaedic oncology. The PARITY investigators were able to increase the recruitment levels throughout the trial and generally avoid trial fatigue. This was a North American based trial which may explain the longer start up times internationally given the different regulatory bodies associated with drug-related trials. However, international sites should be considered critical as they were able to recruit significantly more patients per month once active. The absence of research support personnel should not preclude a site from inclusion. These sites took longer to setup but had no difference in monthly recruitment once active. This study will create a framework for identifying and targeting high yield sites for future randomized control trials within orthopaedic oncology to maximum recruitment and resource allocation. Data quality is another consideration that will be addressed in future analyses of the PARITY trial

Musculoskeletal tumours are relatively rare and as such, they are not well known by the population and by general practicioners. We observed that an important proportion of our patients has seen major delays at diferent stages of their referral pathway. It is well recognised that such delays can cause avoidable loss of function, local and systemic recurrence and increase in health system costs. The main objective of this study was to prospectively assess the referral paterns of our patients to pinpoint the causes of the delays. This should allow the formation of strategies to minimise delas and their impact. The secondary objective was to assess the performance of our centre in comparaison to other centre with the goal of improving quality of care. Prospective follow up data is available for 457 patient referred to our musculoskeletal oncology team between july 2011 and november 2014. Every patients filled questionnaires on their initial referral patterns. Site specific function and quality of life are evaluated at baseline and at subsequent follow-up (six months, one year, three years and five years). The average delay between the first symptoms and the first medical consultation with a general practitioner was 37 weeks (CI: 27–46). The average delay between the first medical consultation and the referral to orthopaedic oncology was 54 weeks (CI: 43–65). The delay between the first consultation with a general practitioner and the first radiologic test was 31 weeks (CI: 22–39). The delay between the first radiologic test and the referral to orthopaedic oncology was 28 weeks (CI 24–32). The delay between the referral to orthopaedic oncology and the first appointment to our centre was three weeks (CI 2–4). Before the referral to our center, 23% of the patients met two general practitioners and 10% met with 3 or more general practitioner. Fifty-two pervent of the patients had a consultation with a specialist and 19% saw two or more specialists. It is imperative to raise awareness of musculoskeletal tumours and indication for early referral in general practitioners. One of the main problems in our actual referral patern is early access to appropriate imaging. The creation of a referral program with specific guidelines is, in our opinion, the best way to significantly reduce the delays for appropriate management of patients with suspiscion of musculoskeletal tumours

The October 2015 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: Radiotherapy for the radioresistant; Multiple hereditary exostosis; The total femur as a limb salvage option; Survival prediction in osteosarcoma; What happens when chondrosarcoma recurs?; Thumbs up for vascularised fibular graft; Radiotherapy and survival; Musculoskeletal tumours in pregnancy

The April 2015 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: New hope for skull base tumours; Survival but at what cost?; Synovial sarcoma beginning to be cracked?; Wound complications facing soft-tissue sarcoma surgeons; Amputation may offer no survival benefit over reconstruction; Giant cell tumour in the longer term; Intralesional treatment comparable with excision in GCT of the radius?; Imaging prior to oncological referral; And finally…

The June 2015 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: Infection in megaprosthesis; Impressive results for mid femoral reconstruction; Revered teaching or old myth? Femoral neck protection in metastatic disease; Megaprosthesis about the knee; Malignant transformation in multiple hereditary exostoses; Fracture of intercalary bone allograft; Comorbidity and outcomes in sarcoma; A worrying turn? Use of denosumab for giant cell tumour of bone

Aims. Limb salvage surgery (LSS) is the primary treatment option for primary bone malignancy. It involves the removal of bone and tissue, followed by reconstruction with endoprosthetic replacements (EPRs) to prevent amputation. Trabecular metal (TM) collars have been developed to encourage bone ingrowth (osseointegration (OI)) into EPRs. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether OI occurs when TM collars are used in EPRs for tumour. Methods. A total of 124 patients from July 2010 to August 2021 who underwent an EPR for tumour under the West of Scotland orthopaedic oncology team were identified. Overall, 81 patients (65%) met the inclusion criteria, and two consultants independently analyzed radiographs at three and 12 months, as well as the last radiograph, using a modified version of the Stanford Radiological Assessment System. Results. OI of the TM collar occurred in approximately 65% of patients at last radiograph. The percentage of patients with OI at three months (65.4%) reflected the 12-month (65%) and long-term (64.4%) follow-up. The median amount of OI across all radiographs was one at all three timepoints, with only five cases (11.1%) showing OI in all four zones at last radiograph. Radiolucency at the bone:collar junction was present in 23 cases (28.4%) at three months, but only four (6.7%) showed progression of this at 12 months. The interobserver reliability was found to be highly reliable in all parameters (p < 0.001). Conclusion. OI occurs in approximately 65% of TM collars, and is similar at three months, 12 months, and last radiograph. The extent of OI at the bone:collar junction was found to have decreased at longer-term follow-up. Furthermore, radiolucency at the bone-collar impact junction does occur in some patients but only a low number will show radiolucency progression at longer-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1092–1100

The February 2015 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: Achieving global collaboration; A new standard for limb salvage; Inoperable chondrosarcoma and chemotherapy; Soft-tissue sarcoma and adjuvant chemotherapy; Missed diagnoses and malpractice in sarcoma; Radiofrequency and cartilage tumours

Purpose. The consequences of infection in orthopedic oncology patients are well known. Methicillin sensitive- and resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA and MRSA, respectively) are common infecting organisms which may colonize patients pre-operatively. The prevalence of colonization in orthopedic oncology patients is unknown. We sought to prospectively establish the prevalence of MSSA and MRSA colonization in an orthopedic oncology patient population. Method. Beginning in September 2009, all oncology patients of a single surgical service were prospectively screened pre-operatively for MSSA and MRSA colonization using PCR nasal swabs as part of an infection control protocol. Patients identified as carriers underwent decolonization treatment peri-operatively. Results. One hundred thirty-nine oncology patients underwent 143 independent procedures with orthopedics as the primary service from September 1, 2009 August 31, 2010. MSSA/MRSA screening capture rate was 93%. Prevalence of MSSA colonization was 22% and MRSA colonization was 3.8%. MSSA colonization was not associated with malignant diagnosis (p=1.0), or recent chemo- or radiotherapy treatment (p>0.50 for both). All MRSA colonized patients had undergone inpatient oncology treatment or had occupational exposure to MRSA in the last year. Post-operative infection developed in 4/124 patients with type I surgical incisions (3.2%). Infecting organisms were coagulase negative Staphylococcus (n=2), MSSA (n=1), and Streptococcus (n=1). Conclusion. MSSA colonization rates in orthopedic oncology patients are similar to reported population values. MRSA colonization rates are low. Patient diagnosis or adjuvant treatments do not appear to influence colonization rates. MRSA colonization was only seen in patients with inpatient or occupational exposure to MRSA

Functional outcomes are commonly reported in studies of musculoskeletal oncology patients undergoing limb salvage surgery; however, interpretation requires knowledge of the smallest amount of improvement that is important to patients – the minimally important difference (MID). We established the MIDs for the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating Scale (MSTS) and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) in patients with bone tumors undergoing lower limb salvage surgery. This study was a secondary analysis of the recently completed PARITY (Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery) study. This data was used to calculate: (1) the anchor-based MIDs using an overall function scale and a receiver operating curve analysis, and (2) the distribution-based MIDs based on one-half of the standard deviation of the change scores from baseline to 12-month follow-up, for both the MSTS and TESS. There were 591 patients available for analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients for the association between changes in MSTS and TESS scores and changes in the external anchor scores were 0.71 and 0.57, indicating “high” and “moderate” correlation. Anchor-based MIDs were 12 points and 11 points for the MSTS and TESS, respectively. Distribution-based calculations yielded MIDs of 16-17 points for the MSTS and 14 points for the TESS. The current study proposes MID scores for both the MSTS and TESS outcome measures based on 591 patients with bone tumors undergoing lower extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction. These thresholds will optimize interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects, which will enable shared decision-making with patients in trading off desirable and undesirable outcomes of alternative management strategies. We recommend anchor-based MIDs as they are grounded in changes in functional status that are meaningful to patients

The December 2014 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: metaphyseal and diaphyseal osteosarcoma subtly different beasts; sports and endoprosthetic reconstruction of the knee; is curettage without tissue diagnosis sensible in cartilaginous tumours?; autoclaved autograft in bone tumour reconstruction; vascularised graft a step too far in bone defects?; interdigitated neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in high-grade sarcoma; predicting life expectancy in patients with painful metastasis; and osteolytic lesions of the hands and feet

The December 2015 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: Amputation may not be the best option; Growing golf balls bad news!; How close is safe? Radiotherapy and surgery; Lymphocyte: monocyte ratio in osteosarcoma; Are borderline cartilage tumours really borderline?; Boosting algorithms improves survival estimates; CT better than Mirels?

Prediction tools are instruments which are commonly used to estimate the prognosis in oncology and facilitate clinical decision-making in a more personalized manner. Their popularity is shown by the increasing numbers of prediction tools, which have been described in the medical literature. Many of these tools have been shown to be useful in the field of soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremities (eSTS). In this annotation, we aim to provide an overview of the available prediction tools for eSTS, provide an approach for clinicians to evaluate the performance and usefulness of the available tools for their own patients, and discuss their possible applications in the management of patients with an eSTS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1011–1016