Clinical evaluation of drug efficiency in primary malignant bone tumors
10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2019.04.119
- VernacularTitle:骨来源恶性肿瘤临床疗效的评估*
- Author:
Lu XIE
1
;
Jie XU
;
Yuan LI
;
Rong LIU
;
Kunkun SUN
;
Danhua SHEN
;
Wei GUO
Author Information
1. 北京大学人民医院骨肿瘤科(北京市100044)
- Keywords:
osteosarcoma;
Ewing's sarcoma;
clinical evaluation;
pathological evaluation;
chemotherapy;
targeted therapy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology
2019;46(4):184-189
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To evaluate whether clinical imaging findings of sarcomas after preoperative chemotherapy correlate with tumor responses by pathological evaluation using the rate of necrosis, so as to develop reliable and quantitative evaluation of clinical re-sponse. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 190 patients with high-grade sarcomas (mainly osteosarcomas and Ewing's sarcomas) that originated from the bone and who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy from June 1, 2014 to March 1, 2017 at Peking University People's Hospital. Finally, 157 lesions were evaluated by clinical imaging, including X-ray, computed tomogra-phy, magnetic resonance imaging, and bone scans or PET/CT. All patients underwent surgery at our center and pathological evaluation by tumor necrosis rates, which were graded by Huvos'classification, where gradeⅠis 0 to 49%, gradeⅡis 50% to 89%, gradeⅢis 90% to 99%, and gradeⅣis 100% necrosis. Statistical diversity analysis was performed by different pathological groups and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. ROC curves were generated to determine the dividing clinical parameters (cut-off values) to dis-tinguish different pathological groups. Results: The cut-off values of the rate change in maximum diameters of tumors located in the extremities were 86%, 50.7%, and 0.02% for Huvos'Ⅳ,Ⅲ,Ⅱ, andⅠgroups, respectively. The differentiation was not obvious using bone scans to distinguish different pathological responses. The cut-off value for SUVmax for Huvos'Ⅲ,Ⅱ, andⅠgroups were 60.7% and 31.4%, respectively. We did not identify any valuable clinical parameters to evaluate the lesion restricted inside the bone. For sar-comas that originated from the axial skeleton, because of the small size of the sample, the differentiation was not so obvious. Conclu-sions: This study clearly defined the measuring methods for sarcomas primarily originating from the bone and attempted to determine meaningful cut-off values for multiple pathological response groups. A prospective multicenter trial is warranted to expand the sample size to make this clinical evaluation more precise and practical.
