Risk Factors for Incidence and Prognosis in Chondrosarcoma Patients with Pulmonary Metastasis at Initial Diagnosis

Risk factors for distant metastasis of Chondrosarcoma in the middle-aged and elderly people

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common primary bone malignancy with the highest incidence in middle-aged and elderly people, where distant metastasis (DM) still leads to poor prognosis. The purpose of this study was to construct a nomogram for studying the diagnosis of DM in middle-aged and elderly patients with chondrosarcoma. Data on chondrosarcoma patients aged ≥ 40 years diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. The data were divided into a training set and an internal validation set according to a 7:3 ratio, and the training set data were screened for independent risk factors for DM in chondrosarcoma patients using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The screened independent risk factors were then used to build a nomogram. In addition, data from 144 patients with chondrosarcoma aged ≥ 40 years diagnosed in a tertiary hospital in China from 2012 to 2021 were collected as the external validation set. The results were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis in the training set, internal validation set, and external validation set. A total of 1462 middle-aged and elderly patients with chondrosarcoma were included, and 92 (6.29%) had DM at the time of diagnosis. Independent risk factors for DM in middle-aged and elderly patients with chondrosarcoma included being married (OR: 2.119, 95% CI: 1.094-4.105), histological type of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (OR: 1.290, 95% CI: 1.110-1.499), high-grade tumor (OR: 1.511, 95% CI: 1.079-2.115), T3 stage (OR: 4.184, 95% CI: 1.977- 8.858), and N1 staging (OR: 5.666, 95% CI: 1.964-16.342). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.857, 0.820, and 0.859 in the training set, internal validation set, and external validation set, respectively. The results of the calibration curve and decision curve analysis also confirmed that the established nomogram could accurately predict DM in middle-aged and elderly patients with chondrosarcoma. Married, histological type of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma, high-grade tumor, T3 stage, and N1 stage are independent risk factors for DM in middle-aged and elderly chondrosarcoma patients, and clinicians should see more attention.

Dedifferentiated Chondrosarcoma from Molecular Pathology to Current Treatment and Clinical Trials

Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (DDCS) is a rare subtype of chondrosarcoma, a primary cartilaginous malignant neoplasm. It accounts for up to 1-2% of all chondrosarcomas and is generally associated with one of the poorest prognoses among all chondrosarcomas with the highest risk of metastasis. The 5-year survival rates range from 7% to 24%. DDCS may develop at any age, but the average presentation age is over 50. The most common locations are the femur, pelvis humerus, scapula, rib, and tibia. The standard treatment for localised disease is surgical resection. Most patients are diagnosed in unresectable and advanced stages, and chemotherapy for localised and metastatic dedifferentiated DDCS follows protocols used for osteosarcoma.

Is the Number of National Database Research Studies in Musculoskeletal Sarcoma Increasing, and Are These Studies Reliable?

BACKGROUND

Large national databases have become a common source of information on patterns of cancer care in the United States, particularly for low-incidence diseases such as sarcoma. Although aggregating information from many hospitals can achieve statistical power, this may come at a cost when complex variables must be abstracted from the medical record. There is a current lack of understanding of the frequency of use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and the National Cancer Database (NCDB) over the last two decades in musculoskeletal sarcoma research and whether their use tends to produce papers with conflicting findings.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is the number of published studies using the SEER and NCDB databases in musculoskeletal sarcoma research increasing over time? (2) What are the author, journal, and content characteristics of these studies? (3) Do studies using the SEER and the NCDB databases for similar diagnoses and study questions report concordant or discordant key findings? (4) Are the administrative data reported by our institution to the SEER and the NCDB databases concordant with the data in our longitudinally maintained, physician-run orthopaedic oncology dataset?

METHODS

To answer our first three questions, PubMed was searched from 2001 through 2020 for all studies using the SEER or the NCDB databases to evaluate sarcoma. Studies were excluded from the review if they did not use these databases or studied anatomic locations other than the extremities, nonretroperitoneal pelvis, trunk, chest wall, or spine. To answer our first question, the number of SEER and NCDB studies were counted by year. The publication rate over the 20-year span was assessed with simple linear regression modeling. The difference in the mean number of studies between 5-year intervals (2001-2005, 2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2016-2020) was also assessed with Student t-tests. To answer our second question, we recorded and summarized descriptive data regarding author, journal, and content for these studies. To answer our third question, we grouped all studies by diagnosis, and then identified studies that shared the same diagnosis and a similar major study question with at least one other study. We then categorized study questions (and their associated studies) as having concordant findings, discordant findings, or mixed findings. Proportions of studies with concordant, discordant, or mixed findings were compared. To answer our fourth question, a coding audit was performed assessing the concordance of nationally reported administrative data from our institution with data from our longitudinally maintained, physician-run orthopaedic oncology dataset in a series of patients during the past 3 years. Our orthopaedic oncology dataset is maintained on a weekly basis by the senior author who manually records data directly from the medical record and sarcoma tumor board consensus notes; this dataset served as the gold standard for data comparison. We compared date of birth, surgery date, margin status, tumor size, clinical stage, and adjuvant treatment.

RESULTS

The number of musculoskeletal sarcoma studies using the SEER and the NCDB databases has steadily increased over time in a linear regression model (β = 2.51; p < 0.001). The mean number of studies per year more than tripled during 2016-2020 compared with 2011-2015 (39 versus 13 studies; mean difference 26 ± 11; p = 0.03). Of the 299 studies in total, 56% (168 of 299) have been published since 2018. Nineteen institutions published more than five studies, and the most studies from one institution was 13. Orthopaedic surgeons authored 35% (104 of 299) of studies, and medical oncology journals published 44% (130 of 299). Of the 94 studies (31% of total [94 of 299]) that shared a major study question with at least one other study, 35% (33 of 94) reported discordant key findings, 29% (27 of 94) reported mixed key findings, and 44% (41 of 94) reported concordant key findings. Both concordant and discordant groups included papers on prognostic factors, demographic factors, and treatment strategies. When we compared nationally reported administrative data from our institution with our orthopaedic oncology dataset, we found clinically important discrepancies in adjuvant treatment (19% [15 of 77]), tumor size (21% [16 of 77]), surgery date (23% [18 of 77]), surgical margins (38% [29 of 77]), and clinical stage (77% [59 of 77]).

CONCLUSION

Appropriate use of databases in musculoskeletal cancer research is essential to promote clear interpretation of findings, as almost two-thirds of studies we evaluated that asked similar study questions produced discordant or mixed key findings. Readers should be mindful of the differences in what each database seeks to convey because asking the same questions of different databases may result in different answers depending on what information each database captures. Likewise, differences in how studies determine which patients to include or exclude, how they handle missing data, and what they choose to emphasize may result in different messages getting drawn from large-database studies. Still, given the rarity and heterogeneity of sarcomas, these databases remain particularly useful in musculoskeletal cancer research for nationwide incidence estimations, risk factor/prognostic factor assessment, patient demographic and hospital-level variable assessment, patterns of care over time, and hypothesis generation for future prospective studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Association Between Insurance Status and Chondrosarcoma Stage at Diagnosis in the United States: Implications for Detection and Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Chondrosarcoma is a common primary bone tumor, and survival is highly influenced by stage at diagnosis. Early detection is paramount to improve outcomes. The aim of this study is to analyze the association between insurance status and stage of chondrosarcoma at the time of diagnosis.

METHODS

A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Patients with a diagnosis of chondrosarcoma between 2007 and 2016 were included. Exposure variable was insurance status and the outcome chondrosarcoma staging at the time of diagnosis. Control variables included tumor grade, age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, place of residence, and primary site. Both unadjusted and adjusted (multiple logistic regression) odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to estimate the association between insurance status and stage.

RESULTS

An effective sample of 2,187 patients was included for analysis. In total, 1824 (83%) patients had health insurance (nonspecified), 277 (13%) had Medicaid, and the remaining 86 (4%) had no insurance. Regarding stage at diagnosis, 1,213 (55%) had localized disease, whereas 974 (45%) had a later stage at presentation. Before adjustment, the odds of being diagnosed at an advanced (regional/distant) stage were 55% higher in patients without insurance (unadjusted OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.003 to 2.39). After adjusting for potential confounders, the odds increased (adjusted OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.12 to 3.32). Variables with a significant association with a later stage at diagnosis included older age ( P < 0.001), male sex ( P < 0.001), pelvic location ( P < 0.001), and high grade ( P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Being uninsured in the United States increased the odds of a late-stage diagnosis of chondrosarcoma by 94% when compared with insured patients. Lack of medical insurance presumably leads to diminished access to necessary diagnostic testing, which results in a more advanced stage at diagnosis and ultimately a worse prognosis. Efforts are required to remediate healthcare access disparities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Chondrosarcoma patient characteristics, management, and outcomes based on over 5,000 cases from the National Cancer Database (NCDB)

INTRODUCTION

Chondrosarcoma, although relatively uncommon, represents a significant percentage of primary osseous tumors. Nonetheless, there are few large-cohort, longitudinal studies of long-term survival and treatment outcomes of chondrosarcoma patients and none using the National Cancer Database (NCDB).

METHODS

Chondrosarcoma patients were identified from the 2004-2015 NCDB datasets and divided on three primary tumor sites: appendicular, axial, and other. Demographic, treatment, and long-term survival data were determined for each group. Multivariate Cox analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to assess long-term survival over time for each.

RESULTS

In total, 5,329 chondrosarcoma patients were identified, of which 2,686 were appendicular and 1,616 were axial. Survival was higher among the appendicular cohort than axial at 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year (89.52%, 75.76%, and 65.24%, respectively). Multivariate Cox analysis identified patients in the appendicular cohort to have significantly greater likelihood of death with increasing age category, distant metastases at presentation, and male sex (p<0.001 for each). Best outcomes for seen for those undergoing surgical treatment (p<0.001). Patients in the axial cohort were with increased likelihood of death with increasing age category and distant metastases (p<0.001), while surgical treatment with or without radiation were associated with a significant decrease (p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed worst survival for the axial cohort (p<0.001) and patients with distant metastases at presentation (p<0.001). Survival was not significantly different between older (2004-2007) and more recent years (2012-2016) (p = 0.742).

CONCLUSIONS

For both appendicular and axial chondrosarcomas, surgical treatment remains the mainstay of treatment due to its continued superiority for the long-term survival of patients, although advancements in survival over the last decade have been insignificant. Presence of distant metastases and axial involvement are significant, poor prognostic factors perhaps because of difficulty in surgical excision or extent of disease.

Risk analysis of pulmonary metastasis of chondrosarcoma by establishing and validating a new clinical prediction model: a clinical study based on SEER database

Background

The prognosis of lung metastasis (LM) in patients with chondrosarcoma was poor. The aim of this study was to construct a prognostic nomogram to predict the risk of LM, which was imperative and helpful for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Methods

Data of all chondrosarcoma patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 was queried from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. In this retrospective study, a total of 944 patients were enrolled and randomly splitting into training sets (n = 644) and validation cohorts(n = 280) at a ratio of 7:3. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the prognostic nomogram. The predictive ability of the nomogram model was assessed by calibration plots and receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) curve, while decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve (CIC) were applied to measure predictive accuracy and clinical practice. Moreover, the nomogram was validated by the internal cohort.

Results

Five independent risk factors including age, sex, marital, tumor size, and lymph node involvement were identified by univariate and multivariable logistic regression. Calibration plots indicated great discrimination power of nomogram, while DCA and CIC presented that the nomogram had great clinical utility. In addition, receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) curve provided a predictive ability in the training sets (AUC = 0.789, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.789–0.808) and the validation cohorts (AUC = 0.796, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.744–0.841).

Conclusion

In our study, the nomogram accurately predicted risk factors of LM in patients with chondrosarcoma, which may guide surgeons and oncologists to optimize individual treatment and make a better clinical decisions.

Trial registration

JOSR-D-20-02045, 29 Dec 2020.