Oncological and surgical outcome after treatment of pelvic sarcomas.

• Main Authors: Stephan E Puchner, Philipp T Funovics, Christoph Böhler, Alexandra Kaider, Christoph Stihsen, Gerhard M Hobusch, Joannis Panotopoulos, Reinhard Windhager
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2017-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5310872?pdf=render

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Treatment of pelvic tumors remains challenging due to complex anatomy, poor oncological outcome and high complication rates. We sought to investigate the long-term oncological and surgical outcome of these patients. METHODS:Between 1980 and 2012, 147 patients underwent surgical treatment for pelvic sarcoma. Histological diagnosis was Chondrosarcoma in 54, Ewing's Sarcoma/PNET in 37, Osterosarcoma in 32 and others in 24 patients. Statistical analysis for the evaluation of oncological and surgical outcome was performed by applying Cox proportional hazards regression and Fine-Gray regression models for competing risk (CR) endpoints. RESULTS:The estimated overall survival (OS) to death was 80%, 45% and 37% at 1, 5 and 10 years, respectively. Univariate analyses revealed a statistically significant unadjusted influence of age age (p = 0.038; HR = 1.01), margin (p = 0.043; HR = 0.51) and grade (p = 0.001; HR = 2.27) on OS. Considering the multivariable model, grade (p = 0.005; HR = 3.04) and tumor volume (p = 0.014; HR = 1.18) presented themselves as independent prognostic factors on OS. CR analysis showed a cumulative incidence for major complication of 31% at 5 years. Endoprosthetic reconstruction had a higher risk for experiencing a major complication (p<0.0001) and infection (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Pelvic resections are still associated with a high incidence of complications. Patients with pelvic reconstruction and high volume tumors are especially at risk. Consequently, a cautious decision-making process is necessary when indicating pelvic reconstruction, although a restrictive approach to pelvic reconstruction is not necessarily reasonable when the other option is major amputation.