Assessment of extent of surgical resection of primary high-grade osteosarcoma by treating institutions: A report from the Children's Oncology Group

Carol D. Morris, Lisa A. Teot, Mark L. Bernstein, Neyssa Marina, Mark D. Krailo, Doojduen Villaluna, Katherine A. Janeway, Steven G. Dubois, Richard G. Gorlick, Robert Lor Randall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Complete surgical resection of primary tumors is critical for long-term control of high-grade osteosarcoma. Uniform assessment of the extent of surgical resection is important in clinical trials, though the accuracy of this reporting has been poorly studied. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients 5-40 years of age with newly diagnosed high-grade resectable osteosarcoma treated as part of the AOST0331 clinical trial at Children's Oncology Group institutions. The extent of surgical resection of the primary tumor was graded as wide or radical by the treating institution. Central assessment of the extent of resection by two orthopedic oncologists was compared with institutional assessment by reviewing pathology and operative reports. Results: We included 956 patients who had data available for central review. The extent of resection reported by treating institutions was 536/956 (56%) radical and 420/956 (44%) wide. The extent of resection assessed by central review was 162/956 (17%) radical and 794/956 (83%) wide. The overall discordance rate for the cohort was 43%. Conclusions: Institutional reports of radical resection in high-grade osteosarcoma significantly over-estimate the proportion of patients undergoing radical resection. This highlights the need for centralized review and improved accuracy of reporting of the extent of resection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Surgical Oncology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2016

Fingerprint

Osteosarcoma
Clinical Trials
Orthopedics
Neoplasms
Cohort Studies
Retrospective Studies
Pathology

Keywords

  • Cooperative group trial
  • Osteosarcoma
  • Surgical margins

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Oncology

Cite this

Assessment of extent of surgical resection of primary high-grade osteosarcoma by treating institutions : A report from the Children's Oncology Group. / Morris, Carol D.; Teot, Lisa A.; Bernstein, Mark L.; Marina, Neyssa; Krailo, Mark D.; Villaluna, Doojduen; Janeway, Katherine A.; Dubois, Steven G.; Gorlick, Richard G.; Randall, Robert Lor.

In: Journal of Surgical Oncology, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Morris, Carol D. ; Teot, Lisa A. ; Bernstein, Mark L. ; Marina, Neyssa ; Krailo, Mark D. ; Villaluna, Doojduen ; Janeway, Katherine A. ; Dubois, Steven G. ; Gorlick, Richard G. ; Randall, Robert Lor. / Assessment of extent of surgical resection of primary high-grade osteosarcoma by treating institutions : A report from the Children's Oncology Group. In: Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2016.
@article{d2fc0cb5c86641b58596d0d8dad3bc72,
title = "Assessment of extent of surgical resection of primary high-grade osteosarcoma by treating institutions: A report from the Children's Oncology Group",
abstract = "Background: Complete surgical resection of primary tumors is critical for long-term control of high-grade osteosarcoma. Uniform assessment of the extent of surgical resection is important in clinical trials, though the accuracy of this reporting has been poorly studied. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients 5-40 years of age with newly diagnosed high-grade resectable osteosarcoma treated as part of the AOST0331 clinical trial at Children's Oncology Group institutions. The extent of surgical resection of the primary tumor was graded as wide or radical by the treating institution. Central assessment of the extent of resection by two orthopedic oncologists was compared with institutional assessment by reviewing pathology and operative reports. Results: We included 956 patients who had data available for central review. The extent of resection reported by treating institutions was 536/956 (56{\%}) radical and 420/956 (44{\%}) wide. The extent of resection assessed by central review was 162/956 (17{\%}) radical and 794/956 (83{\%}) wide. The overall discordance rate for the cohort was 43{\%}. Conclusions: Institutional reports of radical resection in high-grade osteosarcoma significantly over-estimate the proportion of patients undergoing radical resection. This highlights the need for centralized review and improved accuracy of reporting of the extent of resection.",
keywords = "Cooperative group trial, Osteosarcoma, Surgical margins",
author = "Morris, {Carol D.} and Teot, {Lisa A.} and Bernstein, {Mark L.} and Neyssa Marina and Krailo, {Mark D.} and Doojduen Villaluna and Janeway, {Katherine A.} and Dubois, {Steven G.} and Gorlick, {Richard G.} and Randall, {Robert Lor}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1002/jso.24145",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Surgical Oncology",
issn = "0022-4790",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of extent of surgical resection of primary high-grade osteosarcoma by treating institutions

T2 - A report from the Children's Oncology Group

AU - Morris, Carol D.

AU - Teot, Lisa A.

AU - Bernstein, Mark L.

AU - Marina, Neyssa

AU - Krailo, Mark D.

AU - Villaluna, Doojduen

AU - Janeway, Katherine A.

AU - Dubois, Steven G.

AU - Gorlick, Richard G.

AU - Randall, Robert Lor

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Background: Complete surgical resection of primary tumors is critical for long-term control of high-grade osteosarcoma. Uniform assessment of the extent of surgical resection is important in clinical trials, though the accuracy of this reporting has been poorly studied. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients 5-40 years of age with newly diagnosed high-grade resectable osteosarcoma treated as part of the AOST0331 clinical trial at Children's Oncology Group institutions. The extent of surgical resection of the primary tumor was graded as wide or radical by the treating institution. Central assessment of the extent of resection by two orthopedic oncologists was compared with institutional assessment by reviewing pathology and operative reports. Results: We included 956 patients who had data available for central review. The extent of resection reported by treating institutions was 536/956 (56%) radical and 420/956 (44%) wide. The extent of resection assessed by central review was 162/956 (17%) radical and 794/956 (83%) wide. The overall discordance rate for the cohort was 43%. Conclusions: Institutional reports of radical resection in high-grade osteosarcoma significantly over-estimate the proportion of patients undergoing radical resection. This highlights the need for centralized review and improved accuracy of reporting of the extent of resection.

AB - Background: Complete surgical resection of primary tumors is critical for long-term control of high-grade osteosarcoma. Uniform assessment of the extent of surgical resection is important in clinical trials, though the accuracy of this reporting has been poorly studied. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients 5-40 years of age with newly diagnosed high-grade resectable osteosarcoma treated as part of the AOST0331 clinical trial at Children's Oncology Group institutions. The extent of surgical resection of the primary tumor was graded as wide or radical by the treating institution. Central assessment of the extent of resection by two orthopedic oncologists was compared with institutional assessment by reviewing pathology and operative reports. Results: We included 956 patients who had data available for central review. The extent of resection reported by treating institutions was 536/956 (56%) radical and 420/956 (44%) wide. The extent of resection assessed by central review was 162/956 (17%) radical and 794/956 (83%) wide. The overall discordance rate for the cohort was 43%. Conclusions: Institutional reports of radical resection in high-grade osteosarcoma significantly over-estimate the proportion of patients undergoing radical resection. This highlights the need for centralized review and improved accuracy of reporting of the extent of resection.

KW - Cooperative group trial

KW - Osteosarcoma

KW - Surgical margins

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955250311&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955250311&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jso.24145

DO - 10.1002/jso.24145

M3 - Article

C2 - 26776342

AN - SCOPUS:84955250311

JO - Journal of Surgical Oncology

JF - Journal of Surgical Oncology

SN - 0022-4790

ER -