This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Marina, N. Articles by Gorlick, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Marina, N. Articles by Gorlick, R.

Biology and Therapeutic Advances for Pediatric Osteosarcoma

^a Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California, USA; ^b Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; ^c Department of Pathology, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; ^d Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA

Correspondence: Neyssa Marina, M.D., Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, Room G313, Stanford, California 94305-5208, USA. Telephone: 650-723-5535; Fax: 650-723-5231; e-mail: Neyssa.marina{at}stanford.edu

	LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:

1. Discuss etiologic and biologic factors in osteosarcoma.
   
2. Select the appropriate diagnostic work-up for patients with newly diagnosed osteosarcoma.
   
3. Select appropriate multidisciplinary treatment for patients with newly diagnosed osteosarcoma.
   
4. Discuss various surgical approaches to the management of newly diagnosed osteosarcoma.
   

	ABSTRACT

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
Osteosarcoma is the most common malignant bone tumor in children and adolescents. Survival for these patients was poor with the use of surgery and/or radiotherapy. The introduction of multi-agent chemotherapy dramatically improved the outcome for these patients and the majority of modern series report 3-year disease-free survival of 60%–70%. This paper describes current strategies for treating patients with osteosarcoma as well as review of the clinical features, radiologic and diagnostic work-up, and pathology. The authors review the state of the art management for patients with osteosarcoma in North America and Europe including the use of limb-salvage procedures and reconstruction as well as discuss the etiologic and biologic factors associated with tumor development. Therapy-related sequelae and future directions in the biology and therapy for these patients are also discussed.

Key Words. Pediatric osteosarcoma • Therapy • Biology • Multidisciplinary treatment • Therapeutic advances

	INTRODUCTION

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
Osteosarcoma is the most common primary malignant bone tumor in children and adolescents [1]. It is a highly aggressive neoplasm typically composed of spindle cells producing osteoid. The outcome for patients with osteosarcoma was poor before the use of effective chemotherapy, with 2-year overall survival rates of 15%–20% following surgical resection and/or radiotherapy [2–4]. Although osteosarcoma is primarily a disease of adolescents and young adults, a different type of osteosarcoma linked to Paget’s disease occurs in older adults. This manuscript, however, focuses exclusively on osteosarcoma in the younger age group.

	CLINICAL FEATURES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
Most patients with osteosarcoma present with pain and swelling in the involved region and usually seek medical attention following trauma or vigorous physical exercise, both of which are common in this population [1, 5, 6]. Patients generally have symptoms for several months (average, 3–4 months, but frequently exceeding 6 months) before a diagnosis is made. Although osteosarcoma can occur in any bone, it is most common in the metaphysis of long bones. The most common primary sites are the distal femur, proximal tibia, and proximal humerus [1, 4, 7, 8], with approximately 50% of cases originating around the knee area [1, 4, 7]. However, osteosarcoma can also occur in the axial skeleton (<10% of cases in the pediatric age group), most commonly the pelvis [9, 10].

Approximately 15%–20% of patients present with radiographically detectable metastases [1, 6, 11]. However, since about 80% of patients with localized osteosarcoma develop metastatic disease following surgical resection [2–4, 7], virtually all patients are presumed to have subclinical, microscopic metastases [12]. The most frequent site for metastatic presentation is the lung [13], but respiratory symptoms only develop with extensive involvement. However, metastases can also occur in other bones and soft tissues [11, 14]. Arguably, presentations with multiple bone metastases may actually represent multifocal primary tumors [13]. When osteosarcoma is widely metastatic, more frequently at recurrence than at the time of initial diagnosis, it can spread to the central nervous system [15] or other sites [14]. Death from osteosarcoma is usually the result of progressive pulmonary metastasis with respiratory failure due to widespread disease [1, 5, 6].

The evaluation of a patient with suspected osteosarcoma begins with a full history, physical examination, and plain radiographs. The history is usually remarkable for the presence of pain and swelling at the primary tumor site. The presence of pain at other sites may suggest the presence of metastatic involvement. Physical examination usually reveals a soft tissue mass at the primary tumor site, and laboratory work-up is seldom remarkable except for elevations of alkaline phosphatase and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), which have been reported to have prognostic significance [12, 16].

	RADIOGRAPHIC WORK-UP AND STAGING

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
The radiographic appearance of the tumor usually suggests the diagnosis of osteosarcoma, as it can present as a lytic, sclerotic, or mixed lytic-sclerotic lesion. As with other malignant bone tumors, plain films reveal permeative destruction, with poorly defined zones of transition along with surrounding normal bone, and lack of endosteal response. Ossification in the soft tissue in a radial or "sunburst" pattern is classic for osteosarcoma but is neither a sensitive nor specific feature. Periosteal new bone formation with lifting of the cortex leads to the appearance of a Codman triangle [1, 5, 6]. Radiological work-up usually includes computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the primary to assess the extent of bone and soft tissue involvement. Defining the local tumor extent with CT or MRI has been shown to be an accurate predictor of tumor extent determined at the time of surgical resection [17, 18] and is, therefore, an essential part of the work-up. MRI is also accurate at assessing the intraosseous extent of tumor and its relationship to muscle groups, subcutaneous fat, joints, and major neurovascular structures [19]. This modality has become standard in the work-up of osteosarcoma patients and, in most institutions, has replaced CT to define local tumor extent. The differential diagnosis for most bone lesions includes infection as well as other tumors, such as aneurysmal bone cyst, Ewing’s sarcoma, and chondrosarcoma. The location of the tumor within the bone (i.e., metaphysical) and the skeletal location help to distinguish osteosarcoma from Ewing’s sarcoma, the second most frequent type of bone tumor in this age group. Metastatic bone disease from other primary tumors, such as lymphoma, neuroblastoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, although not frequent in this age group, is also part of the differential diagnosis.

In addition to imaging the primary tumor, various other radiological studies help determine the extent of disease at presentation. These include a radionuclide bone scan with methylene diphosphonate labeled with technetium-99m, which helps define the extent of the primary tumor [20]. Radionuclide bone scanning is also useful for the detection of "skip" lesions within the same bone and distant bone metastases [21]. Postero-anterior and lateral radiographs of the chest allow detection of lung metastases in the majority of cases. However, chest CT is more sensitive in detecting pulmonary metastases and has become the imaging procedure of choice [22], especially since up to 30% of patients with metastases are cured with chemotherapy and multiple surgical resections [23–25]. However, there are false-positive results, particularly with smaller lesions, and biopsy confirmation of lung disease is usually required.

The diagnosis of osteosarcoma can be predicted by radiographic appearance and location in about two-thirds of cases. However, a diagnosis should never be made from radiographs [1, 5, 6], and a biopsy for pathologic confirmation is mandatory. Details regarding biopsies are discussed in a separate surgical section. Pathologically, osteosarcoma is a pleomorphic tumor producing extracellular osteoid. Details regarding histology are also discussed in a subsequent section. Rarely, the diagnosis of osteosarcoma is difficult because the sample is not representative of the entire tumor. Repeat biopsy may be necessary in those cases.

The most widely used staging system is the one developed by Enneking and associates based on a retrospective review of cases of primary malignant bone tumors treated by primary resection [26–28]. This system categorizes localized malignant bone tumors by grade (low grade: stage I; high grade: stage II) and by the local anatomic extent (A: intracompartmental; B: extracompartmental). The compartmental status is determined by whether or not the tumor extends through the cortex. Patients with distant metastases are stage III. There are very few high-grade intramedullary lesions (i.e., stage IIA), because most high-grade osteosarcomas break through the cortex early in their natural history. In the younger age groups, the vast majority of osteosarcomas are high-grade lesions; hence, virtually all patients are stage IIB or III distinguished by the presence or absence of detectable metastatic disease.

	EPIDEMIOLOGY

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
In general, bone tumors in children are rare, with an estimated 8.7 per million in children younger than 20 years of age [29], representing 650–700 new bone cancer patients a year. The two most common tumors are osteosarcoma (400 cases per year) and Ewing’s sarcoma (200 cases per year). Osteosarcoma has a bimodal age distribution, with a first peak during the second decade of life (during the adolescent growth spurt; modal age: 16 years in girls and 18 years in boys) and a second peak in older adults. Boys are reported to be affected more frequently in most series [7, 8, 29], and the incidence of osteosarcoma in African-American children is slightly higher than it is in Caucasians. It is extremely rare before 5 years of age.

	PATHOGENESIS

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
We have a limited understanding of the etiology of osteosarcoma. The peak incidence coincides with a period of rapid bone growth, suggesting a correlation between rapid bone growth and the evolution of osteosarcoma. Other evidence supporting this relationship includes the higher incidence of osteosarcoma in large dog breeds as compared with small breeds [30], and the earlier peak age in girls as compared with boys, corresponding to the earlier age of their growth spurt [31]. However, although initial evidence suggested a higher incidence in tall people than in short people, this has not been confirmed. Additionally, osteosarcoma arises in many patients before and after the adolescent growth spurt. Radiation exposure is a well-documented risk factor for osteosarcoma [32–36], but since the interval between radiation exposure and tumor appearance is long, this is not relevant to most de novo osteosarcoma patients.

Genetic alterations in sarcomas generally fall into two categories: A) reciprocal translocations with balanced karyotypes and alterations of tumor suppressor gene pathways, and B) complex unbalanced karyotypes with alterations of the p53 and retinoblastoma (Rb) pathways [37]. Despite the complexity of the karyotype and the absence of characteristic reciprocal translocations, numerous, nonrandom chromosomal abnormalities are observed in osteosarcoma.

Numerous recent studies describe cytogenetic abnormalities in osteosarcoma, and the majority of samples are clonally abnormal [38, 39], with heterogeneity within the same patient. The majority of osteosarcoma samples (58%) have marker chromosomes (structurally abnormal chromosomes in which no part is identified). Ring chromosomes (7%) accompanied by multiple numerical (65%) and structural (72%) abnormalities are also frequently observed [38–40]. Additionally, there is evidence of genomic amplification (homogeneously staining regions or double minutes) in over one-third of cases. The observed cytogenetic abnormalities are both numerical and structural. Common numerical abnormalities include: gains of chromosome 1, losses of chromosomes 9, 10, 13, and/or 17, and partial or complete losses of the long arm of chromosome 6 [38, 39, 41–44]. Frequent structural abnormalities include rearrangements of chromosomes 11, 19, and 20 [38, 39, 41–45].

The p53 and Rb tumor suppressor pathways are clearly involved in the pathogenesis of osteosarcoma. Most tumor samples have some type of combined inactivation of the Rb and p53 tumor suppressor pathways [46], and about 3% of patients with sporadic osteosarcoma harbor germline mutations in p53 [47]. In studies of osteosarcoma, a number of loci were demonstrated to have loss of heterozygosity (3q, 13q, 17p, 18q), including the locations of the Rb and p53 tumor suppressor genes [48–50].

Retinoblastoma survivors have an increased incidence of second malignancies, the majority of which are osteosarcomas [51–54]. In the hereditary form of retinoblastoma, germline mutations of the Rb gene are common, likely forming the basis for the greater frequency of secondary cancers, since the rate of second malignancies in survivors of unilateral sporadic retinoblastoma is much less. Germline mutations in the p53 gene can also lead to a high risk of malignant tumor formation, including osteosarcoma (Li-Fraumeni syndrome) [55]. The p53 gene product in normal cells increases in response to DNA damage and directs the cell to either stop progression through the cell cycle or undergo apoptosis [56, 57]. The Rb gene product likewise regulates cell cycle progression [58–60]. Although germline mutations of either the p53 or the Rb gene are rare, these genes are altered in the majority of osteosarcoma tumor samples [61, 62]. Because these tumors almost universally have genetic alterations that inactivate the Rb and p53 tumor suppressor pathways, gene inactivation by itself may not be a strong prognostic factor. Indeed, new data show low prognostic significance of p53 mutations in sporadic osteosarcoma. In a recent study [63], 22% of osteosarcoma samples showed p53 mutations, but there was no relationship to distant recurrence.

There are other altered oncogenes in osteosarcoma tumor cells. These include amplifications of the product of the murine double minute 2 (MDM2) gene, amplification of cyclin dependent kinase 4 (CDK4), and overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [1, 5, 6, 64–66]. Amplification of the 12q13 region (containing MDM2 and CDK4) or INK4A deletion can affect both the p53 and Rb pathways, and indeed, these alterations seldom coexist with Rb or p53 alterations [67]. Although it is clear that alterations in tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes are necessary to produce osteosarcomas, it is not clear which of these events occurs first.

The complex unbalanced karyotypes that characterize osteosarcoma may reflect its pathogenesis. Karyotypic complexity may reflect chromosomal fusion-bridge-breakage cycles resulting from advanced telomere erosion. A potential etiology of this chromosomal instability is telomere dysfunction (implicated in epithelial cancers) [68]. Telomeres are nucleoprotein structures that cap chromosome ends and serve at least three protective functions: preventing recognition of chromosomes as damaged DNA, preventing chromosomal end-to-end fusions and recombinations, and accommodating the loss of DNA that occurs with each round of replication. Normal human somatic cells have a finite proliferative capacity, and telomere length is one of the checkpoints that determines when a cell stops dividing [69, 70]. As cells divide, the telomere length gradually decreases to a critical size, at which point senescence is triggered by a p53-dependent process. Human cells may bypass this checkpoint by inactivating the p53 pathways (divide until telomeres become very short, chromosomal instability ensues, and apoptosis is triggered). Rare cells bypass this second checkpoint by activating mechanisms that lengthen telomeres. About 85% of cancers activate an enzyme called telomerase, which lengthens telomeres, and the other 15% of cancers use a recombination-based method called alternative telomere lengthening [71, 72]. At least 50% of osteosarcomas are dependent upon the alternative telomere-lengthening mechanism to maintain telomeres [73–75]. Alternative telomere-lengthening cell lines have greater genetic instability and more translocations than telomerase-positive cell lines [73]. In mouse models, they were unable to generate macroscopic lung metastases, despite robust subcutaneous tumor growth [76]. Upon telomerase reconstitution, they formed massive pulmonary nodules after tail-vein injection. It is hypothesized that alternative telomere lengthening-dependent human osteosarcomas have different clinical behaviors from telomerase-dependent osteosarcomas.

Other authors have suggested that osteosarcomas have a viral etiology, based on the fact that bone sarcomas can be induced in selected animals by viruses [77, 78]. For example, hamsters injected with cell-free extracts of human osteosarcoma develop osteosarcomas [79], and some human osteosarcomas contain simian virus 40 (SV40)-like sequences. SV40, a DNA polyomavirus, consists of three major nonstructural proteins: the small T antigen (enhances the ability of large T antigen to transform cells), the smaller T antigen (function unknown), and the large T antigen (assists in viral replication, interacts with p53 and Rb, and promotes cell proliferation by inhibiting p53 function) [80]. A 1996 study showed that 11 of 18 osteosarcoma samples had evidence of incorporated SV40 DNA [80]; a 1998 study showed no correlation between the presence of SV40 and p53 or Rb mutation status [81]; and a 1997 study showed that 50% of osteosarcoma samples had incorporated SV40 DNA from each of the four regions of the viral genome [82]. However, there is no convincing data that viruses are a major etiologic factor in osteosarcoma.

	HISTOMORPHOLOGY

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
Osteosarcoma has a broad spectrum of histologic appearances, which have in common the proliferation of malignant mesenchymal cells and the production of osteoid and/or bone by tumor cells. The amount of osteoid and/or bone production varies greatly both among tumors and within an individual tumor and, thus, identification of diagnostic osteoid may require extensive sampling. Chondroid and fibrous matrix may also be present, reflecting the mesenchymal origin of the malignant cells and their consequent ability to differentiate into various cell types. Conventional osteosarcoma is a primary intramedullary high-grade sarcoma and comprises the vast majority of osteosarcoma in children and adolescents.

The current World Health Organization (WHO) classification of osteosarcoma recognizes three major subtypes of conventional osteosarcoma: osteoblastic, chondroblastic, and fibroblastic, reflecting the predominant type of matrix in the tumor [44]. Osteoblastic osteosarcoma, which has osteoid or bone as the predominant type of matrix (Fig. 1A and 1B), is composed of malignant plasmacytoid to epithelioid osteoblasts, with variable numbers of smaller round to ovoid cells, spindle cells, and anaplastic mono- or multinucleated giant cells. The appearance of the matrix may vary from dense sheets of osteoid and/or woven bone to interlacing trabeculae to delicate, arborizing wisps of osteoid. Chondroblastic osteosarcoma has a predominance of chondroid matrix, which usually resembles hyaline cartilage, with obviously malignant cells within the lacunae, whereas fibroblastic osteosarcoma is composed of malignant spindle cells with only scant osteoid. The presence of osteoid, even if minimal, distinguishes the chondroblastic and fibroblastic subtypes of osteosarcoma from chondrosarcoma and fibrosarcoma/malignant fibrous histiocytoma, respectively, with which they may be confused histologically. The value of these subtypes is unclear, as their recognition is very dependent on sampling, with mixed histologies frequently present in a given tumor. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence of a difference in clinical behavior or outcome based on histologic subtype.

View larger version (150K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. A) 20x magnification of osteosarcoma producing osteoid. B) 40x magnification of osteosarcoma.

	TREATMENT

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
Successful treatment of osteosarcoma requires the use of systemic chemotherapy. Early results following treatment with either surgery and/or radiation therapy provided 2-year overall survival rates of 15%–20% [2–4, 7]. Almost all patients have microscopic metastases at the time of diagnosis, as evidenced by the fact that 80%–90% develop metastatic recurrence if treated with surgical resection and/or radiotherapy [3, 4, 7, 89]. Two different studies definitively proved the need for adjuvant chemotherapy to improve outcome for patients with localized extremity osteosarcoma [12, 90]. The most active agents include cisplatin (Platinol^®; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Princeton, NJ) [91–93], doxorubicin (Adriamycin^®; Pharmacia & Upjohn; Kalamazoo, MI) [94, 95], and high-dose methotrexate [96–98], and the management of these patients involves the use of these three agents along with surgical resection with adequate margins [12, 99, 100]. The best method of local control involves surgery with adequate margins, since this tumor is relatively radioresistant. However, a recent study suggests that patients with microscopically positive margins following resection or those unable to undergo surgical resection may benefit from the use of high-dose radiotherapy, as evidenced by a superior outcome in that series for patients given radiotherapy compared with patients who did not receive radiotherapy (p = 0.0033) [101].

Early, nonrandomized trials suggested that systemic chemotherapy produced better outcomes in osteosarcoma patients compared with historical controls [102–106]. However, not all investigators were convinced that the better outcome resulted from the use of chemotherapy. At that time, most trials were limited to patients without clinically detectable metastases, and the superior outcome could have been the result of the selection of a cohort of patients with better outcomes. Additionally, it could also be explained by earlier diagnosis resulting from the routine use of CT to assess for pulmonary metastasis or improvements in surgical techniques [107–109]. In the early 1980s, investigators at the Mayo Clinic carried out the first randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma [90, 110]. In that study, following surgical resection, patients were randomly assigned to either observation or chemotherapy. There was no difference in outcome between the two groups, and the disease-free survival rate was 40%, suggesting that the natural history of the disease had changed and that this accounted for the difference in outcomes observed in the adjuvant chemotherapy trials [90, 107–110]. That particular study raised substantial controversy, as it suggested that historical controls were not valid and that randomized trials were essential [108, 109]. However, other investigators vehemently resisted this idea and argued that historical controls were appropriate and that it was unethical to conduct a randomized trial that included observation following surgery [109, 111, 112].

Two subsequent randomized studies clarified this controversy [12, 90]. Link and coinvestigators developed a randomized study of observation and adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients treated with surgery alone had a 2-year relapse-free survival (RFS) probability of 17%, versus 66% for those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. With longer follow-up, the 6-year RFS rate for the observation group was 11%, while for those receiving adjuvant therapy it remained at 66% [113]. An overall survival advantage with adjuvant chemotherapy also became apparent in accordance with the RFS rate [114]. Eilber et al. reported similar results, definitively proving that adjuvant chemotherapy produced higher disease-free survival rates for patients with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma [90].

Rosen et al. introduced the concept of chemotherapy administration prior to definitive surgery [115, 116]. This approach offered the opportunity to develop a custom endoprosthesis for limb-salvage procedures and offered the theoretical advantage of early treatment of micrometastases while facilitating the surgical procedure. It also provided the opportunity to examine the histologic response of the tumor to preoperative therapy and assess its effectiveness. A strong correlation between the degree of necrosis (Huvos grade) and subsequent disease-free survival (DFS) was observed [115], which has been confirmed in a number of subsequent clinical trials [117–119]. A theoretical concern with this approach is that the delay in removal of the bulk tumor could lead to the emergence of chemotherapy resistance. However, a prospective Pediatric Oncology Group trial demonstrated no difference between treatment using immediate definitive surgery and treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by definitive surgery [120]. Given the advantages in facilitating limb-salvage procedures and assessing chemotherapy response, the use of preoperative chemotherapy has become the standard approach to treatment.

The identification of the prognostic value of the degree of necrosis following chemotherapy led to the suggestion that chemotherapy be modified for patients with less necrosis (currently referred to as either standard or poor responders, and variably defined as <90% through <98% tumor necrosis or the persistence of more than rare viable tumor cells or clumps) in an attempt to increase the probability of DFS. Investigators at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, using the T-10 protocol, reported an improved outcome for patients with poor histologic responses following a change in postoperative therapy [115]. Longer follow-up of that patient population, however, showed no benefit to therapy intensification [121, 122]. Numerous other investigators have undertaken studies using a similar strategy, delivering a variety of intensified regimens to patients with standard responses in an attempt to improve their outcomes. However, the majority of these studies have not been able to reproduce the initial results reported by Rosen et al. [117, 119, 121]. Intensification of therapy during preoperative treatment to increase the number of patients with good responses (favorable responders) likewise did not change the long-term outcomes of these patients [123] and, when preoperative therapy is lengthened, histologic response loses its prognostic value [123].

The specific roles of various chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of osteosarcoma have been the subject of many studies. For example, the role of high-dose methotrexate remains controversial [124], with a few randomized studies reporting it not to be an important component of therapy [125, 126], while others reported that it was [127]. Unfortunately, the European study [126] was compromised by the study design, and the overall outcome was markedly inferior to that of other contemporary studies. However, in spite of these pitfalls, the standard chemotherapy for the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EOI) has continued to be the two-drug combination of cisplatin and doxorubicin [128, 129], since there was no survival advantage to the use of more complex regimens observed in their studies. Additionally, although the use of bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, and actinomycin D was common in osteosarcoma, subsequent studies have demonstrated the combination to be ineffective [130], and these drugs are no longer included in the treatment of osteosarcoma.

Intra-arterial administration of chemotherapy offers the theoretical advantage of maximizing drug delivery to the tumor vasculature [118, 131, 132], and pharmacokinetic studies demonstrate high local drug concentrations with dramatic clinical responses [133]. Although theoretically appealing, and effective in inducing responses [132], the use of this approach in the context of multiagent chemotherapy does not appear to offer a significant advantage over systemic chemotherapy [134].

Ifosfamide (Ifex^®; Bristol-Myers Squibb) has, relatively recently, been shown to have activity in osteosarcoma [135–137] and, when incorporated either alone or in combination with etoposide into the treatment of patients with metastatic disease, the results appear promising [138–140]. The last national North American randomized study (INT-0133) was designed to address whether the addition of ifosfamide and/or muramyl tripeptide-phosphatidyl ethanolamine (MTP-PE) to the three other agents used in the standard treatment of osteosarcoma (doxorubicin, cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate) could improve DFS [99]. MTP, a component of the bacillus Calmette-Guerin cell wall, is conjugated to PE and encapsulated in liposomes to improve delivery to the reticuloendothelial system [141, 142]. The rationale supporting the use of this immune adjuvant was the encouraging results obtained in a prospective randomized trial of this compound in canines [143], as well as its apparent efficacy in relapsed patients [141, 144, 145]. Preliminary results of the INT-0133 trial did not demonstrate a survival advantage for patients treated with either ifosfamide or MTP-PE alone [99]. However, there appeared to be an interaction between ifosfamide and MTP-PE, and further investigations, which attempt to exploit this interaction, are ongoing.

Parallel to the North American developments in osteosarcoma, the EOI conducted a series of studies based on six cycles of the two-drug regimen of cisplatin and doxorubicin [126, 128]. The German-Austrian-Swiss Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS) also performed a series of studies incorporating multiagent chemotherapy and surgical resection. The best results for this group resulted from the use of methotrexate, cisplatin, doxorubicin and ifosfamide, with a 10-year survival rate of 71% [146]. The Scandinavian Sarcoma Group (SSG) has also performed various nonrandomized neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials for high-grade osteosarcoma. Their second osteosarcoma trial, using a three-drug combination of high-dose methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin up front and replacement with ifosfamide and etoposide for poor responders, resulted in a 5-year overall survival rate of 74%. Although the ifosfamide/etoposide combination failed to improve outcome, this drug pair replaced the standard agents postoperatively, making it difficult to determine whether the addition of this combination improved outcome.

The event-free survival time for patients treated by COSS investigators was superior when ifosfamide was incorporated into the standard three-drug regimen, and a previous nonrandomized Italian trial reported that the addition of ifosfamide and etoposide to standard chemotherapy for patients with poor histologic responses resulted in an outcome for those patients that was similar to that reported for patients with good histologic responses [127]. In addition, although the INT-0133 trial concluded that the addition of ifosfamide did not improve outcome, this drug was administered at a lower dose than the one administered to patients with metastatic osteosarcoma [138, 140], and studies in those patients suggested the presence of a dose-dependent effect. Taken together, these findings suggest that the combination of ifosfamide and etoposide has significant activity and might improve the outcome for patients with poor histologic responses. Although a few studies have evaluated the role of altering postoperative therapy in poor histologic responders, the role of high-dose ifosfamide and etoposide in this setting has not been investigated in a large controlled trial. The North American Children’s Oncology Group (COG) has recently completed a series of three pilot studies using a backbone of cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate. The purpose of these pilots was to develop a chemotherapy regimen that could subsequently be tested in a randomized study. The pilots evaluated three different strategies. Pilot 1 was based on the premise that doxorubicin is an essential component of osteosarcoma therapy [147], and its use has been limited by the potential for cardiotoxicity. This complication appears to be at least partially ameliorated with dexrazoxane (Zinecard^®; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; New York, NY) [148]. Hence, pilot 1 evaluated the feasibility of increasing doxorubicin dose intensity by administering dexrazoxane. Pilot 2 evaluated the feasibility of combining standard-dose ifosfamide with dose-intensive doxorubicin with dexrazoxane and pilot 3 evaluated the feasibility of increasing the dose intensity of ifosfamide and etoposide.

It appears that we have reached the limit in the survival of osteosarcoma patients achievable with currently available chemotherapy. Since further improvements in outcome will depend on refinements of therapy, the impact of which will be assessable only in large patient groups, four major research groups in osteosarcoma, the COG, the COSS, the EOI, and the SSG, have agreed on trying to conduct an intergroup randomized study. The power of such a collaboration lies in the ability to conduct large trials with rapid accrual, allowing investigation of new agents quickly and effectively. Acknowledging the difficulties that face the establishment of such a collaboration and recognizing that there are no available new agents, the group has agreed on a relatively simple randomized study to determine whether ifosfamide and etoposide improve the outcome for patients with poor histologic responses.

Patients with good histologic responses have a 3-year event-free survival rate of 75%, and the use of ifosfamide and etoposide results in an increased risk of late sequelae. In these patients, the group proposes to determine, in a randomized comparison, whether interferon- improves event-free survival. The rationale for using interferon- is to maintain remission in a significant proportion of patients who have previously had good responses to chemotherapy. The in vitro effects of interferon- on osteosarcoma cells were demonstrated more than 20 years ago, and observations since have consistently supported its growth inhibitory effect on osteosarcoma both in cell lines and in animal models [149–151]. Although interferon- has not been widely tested in clinical trials in osteosarcoma, its role as maintenance in other tumors has been extensively studied [152, 153]. Most information on patients with osteosarcoma comes from a Scandinavian series in which 64 patients received interferon- as a single adjuvant to surgery, and 69% remained in complete remission [154]. A pegylated preparation of interferon-, with an extended half-life, offers the advantages of less frequent administration and improved dose delivery [155]. The tolerability of this preparation has now been demonstrated, and there is additional extensive data on the tolerability of interferon- in children treated for chronic hepatitis [156, 157].

Although adjuvant chemotherapy is effective in the setting of localized osteosarcoma, the outcome for patients with clinically detectable metastases at diagnosis continues to be suboptimal [23–25, 158]. The standard management of these patients follows the same principles as the management of those patients who present with localized disease and, with this approach, a small subset of patients achieves prolonged disease-free survival [23–25, 158]. The treatment of patients who develop recurrent osteosarcoma depends on the initial therapy, time to recurrence, and the site and number of recurrent tumors. With aggressive treatment, as many as 40% of patients who develop lung metastases survive more than 5 years after relapse [159–162]. Patients who relapse following the use of modern treatment approaches, including chemotherapy and surgery, have a significantly lower probability of survival.

	THERAPY-RELATED SEQUELAE

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
Unfortunately, the use of multiagent treatment for osteosarcoma is associated with acute and long-term toxicities. These include the potential for hearing loss [91, 163] and hypomagnesemia [164] associated with the administration of cisplatin. Therefore, it is essential to obtain baseline audiograms prior to initiation of treatment to monitor for hearing loss. It is also important to monitor electrolytes secondary to the potential for abnormalities even years after treatment completion [165].

Other treatment-related complications include anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy [166–169], which is typically observed with high cumulative doses [170]. To monitor for this complication, patients usually have baseline cardiac evaluations with an echocardiogram or radionuclide scan. Cardiac function is usually followed closely during treatment. Since doxorubicin appears to be an important component of therapy [147], methods to minimize the potential for this complication are under evaluation. These include the use of dexrazoxane [148], continuous-infusion doxorubicin, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [171]. Both pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and dexrazoxane appear effective at minimizing acute cardiac toxicity, but there is limited information regarding their long-term efficacy. In addition, postpubertal males should be given the opportunity to carry out sperm banking [1, 5, 6], since chemotherapy for osteosarcoma has the potential to produce sterility [172]. Although newer techniques for maintaining fertility in women are under development, their indications are not well established.

	SURGERY

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
Biopsy
The initial surgical procedure for any patient with a bone tumor is usually a biopsy. There are two types: incisional and excisional; but, in general, when cancer is suspected, excisional biopsies are rarely performed. Incisional biopsies can be needle (closed) or open, and needle biopsies can be either fine or core. The type of biopsy performed must be carefully determined by evaluating the size and location of the tumor, the differential diagnosis, and the age of the patient. The placement of the biopsy site relative to the location of the tumor and the anatomic structures is of critical importance.

Primary excision of expendable bones (rib, clavicle, sternum, ilium, scapular body, distal ulna) at diagnosis should only be considered by an experienced musculoskeletal oncologist, but in virtually all cases, patients receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definite resection [173, 174]. Most patients with bone tumors undergo diagnostic biopsies using an incisional approach, and the biopsy site is determined by assessment of the extent of local disease and the relationship of the tumor to critical structures (i.e., neurovascular bundle). It is strongly recommended that the biopsy be performed by the surgeon who will be performing the definitive resection so that the biopsy tract can be excised en bloc with the planned surgical resection [175].

Although needle (closed) biopsies can potentially expedite the diagnostic process, especially when performed as an outpatient in the doctor’s office (using a local anesthetic), they are not recommended in children. Most malignant bone tumors have a soft tissue component, which is also the most representative tissue and, thus, deep deployment of the needle within the tumor is unnecessary. When a well-trained cytopathologist is available, fine-needle biopsy is definitely an option. This procedure is performed using a 0.7-mm diameter needle and has up to a 90% diagnostic accuracy [176], exceeding 80% in bone sarcomas [177]. The drawback to this technique is that it may not be possible to obtain sufficient material to perform cytogenetics, flow cytometry, gene profiling, and other helpful diagnostic tests. While needle biopsies can facilitate diagnosis, they can also lead to diagnostic delays (if the specimen is nondiagnostic) in up to 33% of cases, even at experienced centers [178]. In contrast, core biopsies are minimally invasive, can be performed under local anesthesia, maintain the architecture of the tissue, and provide an adequate specimen even for ancillary studies. This procedure has a diagnostic accuracy of over 95% [179].

Generally, open incisional biopsies are performed in the operating room employing longitudinal incisions, since the use of transverse incisions can contaminate flap planes and compromise subsequent resection. The area where the tumor is most superficial is preferable unless other factors, such as an overlying vessel or nerve, preclude it. Preoperative diagnostic imaging may help guide the biopsy. Deep sampling of the tumor is again not necessary and, once the tumor is reached, the biopsy should involve the periphery. Obtaining a frozen section is important in deciding if diagnostic tissue has been obtained. There should also be careful communication between the surgeon and pathologist preoperatively to clarify the amount of tissue necessary for special studies as well as the optimal way of processing the sample.

Surgical Treatment of Malignant Bone Tumors
The surgical management of malignant bone tumors has evolved into a complex field. Surgical approaches are a function of tumor type, location, and extent of disease. The two most common malignant bone tumors in children are osteosarcoma and the Ewing’s sarcoma family of tumors, the management of which requires a multidisciplinary team approach.

Surgical extirpation of the primary tumor generally occurs after treatment with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is followed by postoperative chemotherapy. The goal of any malignant tumor operation is to perform a complete, en bloc removal of the lesion with adequate margins. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy along with advances in imaging techniques has enabled the oncologic surgeon to obtain local control rates equivalent to amputation using limb-salvage surgery. Therefore, limb-salvage has become the standard of care, except in situations where it may compromise oncologic outcome. Because of the complexity of the musculoskeletal system, different reconstructive options are available depending on the site of involvement.

Types of Reconstruction
The main reconstructive options include autogenous bone grafts, structural bone allografts (intercalary or osteoarticular), and metallic endoprosthetics. All three have inherent advantages and disadvantages, and the choice of procedure depends on the location of the tumor and the age of the patient. In general, however, large structural allografts and endoprosthetics should be reserved for children older than 8 years of age.

Nonvascularized autografts from the pelvis or other sites may be used in a limited fashion for relatively small defects and work well [180]. The advantage is a high incorporation rate, but with potential donor site morbidity and limited supply. Vascularized autografts such as those taken from the fibula are attractive because, when successful, the graft incorporates and may even remodel secondary to the forces exerted across it. Again, donor site complications can occur.

Structural allografts have no donor site morbidity. The major drawback is the difficulty of the graft incorporating with the host bone (nonunion) and fracture. Their advantage is that they are a biologic solution and, if they heal and do not fracture, may last the lifetime of the patient. They also spare the adjacent epiphysis and growth plate and preserve bone stock for future reconstructions. Osteoarticular allografts may be used in the reconstruction of the proximal humerus, distal femur, and proximal tibia as well as potentially any joint [180–186]. Diaphyseal tumors can be reconstructed with intercalary allografts [187–190] and, in these instances, the physis may be spared allowing preservation of the epiphysis and the joint surface.

Infection can occur in 10%–15% of allograft reconstructions [180, 185, 186, 191–193], and nonunion at the osteosynthesis can occur in another 10%–25% [186, 187]. Infection often requires graft removal, whereas nonunions are managed by revision fixation and autogenous bone grafting. Both these complications are more likely in patients receiving chemotherapy. Augmentation of the allograft with a vascularized fibula, while adding its own set of potential complications, may facilitate osseous integration of the structural graft and prevent some of the inherent problems associated with allografts [194, 195].

The use of osteoarticular allografts results in satisfactory function in 60%–70% of cases following chemotherapy in high-grade sarcomas [181, 182, 185, 192, 196, 197]. Function is generally better with intercalary reconstructions [180, 189]. Although patients are discouraged from participation in sports and impact activities, compliance with this policy is not uniform, and fractures occur in about 20% of cases [181]. Fractures may require the use of grafts or implant removal and replacement. Vascularized fibular augmentation can be utilized as well [194, 195].

Metallic endoprosthetics provide an immediate stable reconstruction. Their major drawback is that they eventually fail due to loosening or failure of components. Modular components are now available for both pediatric and adult patients, making delay for customization the exception. Infections are a significant risk with endoprostheses, with rates ranging from 0%–35% [198–203]. The durability of endoprostheses is influenced by many factors, but the anticipated event-free 5-year survival rate for proximal femur reconstructions approaches 90%; it is about 50% for the distal femur and just over 50% for the proximal tibia [204]. Prosthetic reconstructions of the proximal humerus tend to be more durable since they are not subjected to weight-bearing stresses. Failure can result from loosening at the prosthesis-host interface or from infection. Sometimes failure can be catastrophic, requiring delayed amputation.

The development of newer, expandable prostheses has allowed limb-sparing procedures in younger children. The 5-year revision-free survival rate for these complex prostheses can be as low as 15% [203]. As with any reconstruction in the skeletally immature patient, the construct must be dynamic, so that it facilitates skeletal growth. Expandable prosthetics are available with a variety of mechanisms for expansion [196, 198, 203, 205–211]. While some of these devices may be easy to expand, their longevity is poor in younger children. In younger children, the expandable prosthesis will need to be revised as the child reaches skeletal maturity. Although there are newer cementless, porous ingrowth systems [199, 212, 213], these have not yet replaced cemented stems in most centers. A novel prestress compliant fixation device (designed to facilitate osseous integration at the bone-implant interface) currently in development obviates the need for long intramedullary stems [214]. This device is currently undergoing U.S. Food and Drug Administration testing and is available at only a few centers.

Allograft-prosthetic composites are another alternative for limb salvage surgery [181, 184, 188, 196, 215–221]. Their advantage is the hybridization of a more conventional arthroplasty with the potential incorporation of an allograft for future bone stock. The construct may also prevent delayed allograft fracture.

Although the use of arthrodesis remains an option in limb-preservation surgery, it is used with diminishing frequency as experience with endoprostheses and allografts has improved. The advantage to fusion is that, once healed, the construct is very durable and may endure heavy labor [180, 222–224]. This procedure is better tolerated in the shoulder but, because of the lack of joint motion, many patients are dissatisfied.

Reconstruction as a Function of Location
For tumors of the shoulder and proximal humerus, limb salvage is generally possible with preservation of the neurovascular structures. Arthrodesis rather than arthroplasty is also a viable alternative. Preservation of hand function is preferable to amputation with the goal of positioning the hand in front of the patient so that they are able to feed and groom. Overhead activity, however, is frequently not recovered, even with the best reconstructions. Prosthetic replacements for the hand and upper extremity are not as functional as those for the lower extremity, and attempts at preserving the hand are worthwhile, even if good shoulder function cannot be preserved.

The proximal fibula, rib, clavicle, scapular body, and most areas of the ilium, ischium, and pubis (pelvis) can be removed without reconstruction with good functional results. Periacetabular pelvic lesions, however, can be particularly troublesome in terms of resection and reconstruction. External hemipelvectomy (hind quarter amputation) historically was the only surgical option; however, internal hemipelvectomy (removal of the bony pelvis leaving an intact limb with neurovascular structures in place) can frequently be performed [225]. Reconstruction of the defect can be a challenge. Without reconstruction, the space between the hip and residual pelvis/sacrum produces significant limb shortening (up to 4 inches) and poor function, albeit better than external hemipelvectomy. An attempt at creating a sling from synthetic material to prevent proximal migration may assist in minimizing limb length inequality. Saddle endoprostheses, allograft-hip arthroplasty composites, and complete endoprosthetic replacement have all been performed. Each has significant disadvantages and complications, however [226–230]. The type of reconstruction used is at the discretion of the surgeon and the patient. If internal hemipelvectomy is attempted, the goal must be an adequate resection of the tumor, which can prove to be difficult [10, 231–235].

Special Considerations for the Skeletally Immature
The skeletally immature patient presents a particular challenge in that reconstruction must be dynamic in order to accommodate future growth. In girls, the growth spurt occurs in pre- and early adolescence (12–14 years), while in boys it happens 1–2 years later (14–16 years). Therefore, girls reach skeletal maturity by age 14–15 years, while this occurs at age 16–19 in boys. Most of the growth in the lower extremity occurs at the physes about the knee joint (distal femur 40%, proximal tibia 30%), while the upper femur and lower tibia have contributions of about 15% each. Since limb-sparing procedures usually result in resection of a major growth center, other alternatives need to be considered in the skeletally immature patient. These include the available expandable prostheses (described above) and limb lengthening via distraction osteogenesis. Although an option, this technique is complicated by adjuvant treatment, which may compromise new bone formation and increase the risk of infection.

Reconstructions such as rotationplasty and tibial turn-up-plasties are particularly attractive in the skeletally immature patient, especially in children less than 8 years of age who will experience a significant amount of growth. Rotationplasty utilizes the ankle joint, rotated along its long axis 180 degrees, to convert a distal femoral amputation to a below-the-knee amputation. Functionally, rotationplasty compares quite well with other limb-salvage procedures in terms of gait and energy expenditure [236]. Additionally, it is far more durable than other forms of reconstruction and retains the distal tibial physis for growth. The drawbacks relate to body image.

Indications for Limb-Salvage Versus Amputation Surgery
Generally, contemporary limb-sparing surgery results in a local recurrence rate of 5%–10%, not significantly different from amputation [237]. In addition, amputation does not guarantee local control since "skip" lesions, if undetected, can result in recurrence within the stump in up to 20% of cases [21]. Currently, with the use of MRI, the entire bone is imaged to detect any noncontiguous disease or involvement of neurovascular structures that may preclude limb-salvage surgery. When carefully screened by experienced orthopedic oncologists, contemporary limb-salvage surgery does not appear to result in a survival disadvantage versus amputation [238–240]. However, complications are more frequent in limb-salvage patients, but as techniques evolve, the complication rate is steadily decreasing.

Patients presenting with a pathologic fracture or fracture during induction chemotherapy may be poor candidates for limb-salvage surgery. However, this is not an absolute contraindication [241–243]. The decision to amputate is a complex one and must involve the entire team of health care providers as well as the patient and family. The age of the patient, location of the tumor, presence or absence of pathologic fracture, and desires of the patient and family must all be considered.

Functionally, in the upper extremity, amputation leads to very poor results. Accordingly, aggressive reconstruction with vascular and/or nerve grafting should be done to preserve even limited hand and wrist function. However, if adequate margins cannot be obtained, then amputation is necessary. In the lower extremity, external hemipelvectomy leads to particularly poor functional results, while a hip disarticulation permits improved sitting, but prosthetic use remains poor. Patients undergoing above-the-knee amputation have greater energy expenditures than those undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction [244], while a knee arthrodesis is intermediate between the two [245]. However, with modern prosthetics, using light weight materials and hydraulic joints, above-the-knee amputees can have excellent function and participate in sporting activities. Tibial diaphyseal lesions often are amenable to limb salvage, which is preferable to amputation. However, for lesions around the ankle, a below-the-knee amputation is generally preferable to limb-salvage. In a study evaluating psychosocial adjustment, physical complaints were reported more often in patients undergoing limb salvage, yet amputees tended to have lower self-esteem and experience more social isolation [246].

	PROGNOSIS

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
The outcome of osteosarcoma patients depends on several factors including treatment approach. The most consistent prognostic factor at diagnosis is the presence of clinically detectable metastatic disease, which confers an unfavorable prognosis [23, 24, 100]. Although a recent report suggests that primary site, tumor size, response to chemotherapy, and surgical remission are important prognostic factors, only the presence of metastases is sufficiently predictive to allow treatment stratification [100]. The site of the primary tumor is of prognostic value, with axial lesions having an inferior outcome [10, 100, 101], but these patients are not usually admitted to clinical trials. Although both serum LDH [12] and alkaline phosphatase [16, 247] levels correlate with outcome, these factors most likely reflect tumor burden.

The histologic response to induction chemotherapy is also a consistent prognostic factor but cannot be assessed at the time of diagnosis [100]. For patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, the number of pulmonary nodules, their laterality, the ability to do a complete resection, and the response to preoperative therapy appear to be of prognostic significance [158, 248].

	FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 
The major goals of cancer biology studies are to identify prognostic factors and therapeutic targets. Future needs and directions to study the molecular pathology of osteosarcoma include: incorporating the current lists of genetic alterations into functionally related groups of genetic alterations (hyperproliferative, cell cycle control, apoptosis, DNA damage response); gaining a better understanding of the timing and relationship of common oncogenic events; developing a comprehensive analysis of the p53 and Rb pathways in a large set of osteosarcoma samples; gaining a better understanding of different "equivalent" oncogenic events (preferential 12q13 amplification in low-grade/surface osteosarcoma, preferential p53 missense mutation in adult osteosarcoma); gaining a better understanding of the paradox of carcinoma-type cytogenetics in the setting of a younger age range; and defining the biologic/genetic subsets of osteosarcoma according to karyotypic complexity. Gene and protein expression array data may soon provide customized information on tumor prognosis and metastatic potential as well as indications of possible tumor targets for selective therapy.

Increasing the understanding of the basic biology of osteosarcoma has been a high priority in recent years. Since therapy intensification after a poor histologic response has not generally resulted in improved outcome and the prognostic factors available are limited, efforts are directed at identifying biological factors that predict outcome. Examples include studies of P-glycoprotein expression, DNA ploidy, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression, cDNA expression profiling, and comparative genomic hybridization. Many molecular markers are also currently under study, but sufficient data have not yet been accrued to allow any to be recommended as prognostic factors [66, 249–252].

Another area of active research has been the use of radiographic studies as predictors of chemotherapy response at surgical resection. Although several methods have been tested, none thus far have been sufficiently sensitive or reliable. Assessments by conventional radiographs, CT, and MRI show definite changes in response to presurgical chemotherapy, but the changes do not correlate reliably with histologic response [19]. Various studies suggest that three-phase bone scans and thallium scintigraphy may predict histologic tumor response [253–256]. Dynamic MRI [257–259] and positron emission spectroscopy [260–262] are also promising. Ultimately, if radiographic studies are effective at determining the degree of necrosis at surgical resection, serial evaluation of tumor response could be performed, and these radiographic studies could then serve as a prognostic factor or a determinant of therapeutic efficacy.

There is a clear need for newer effective agents for patients with osteosarcoma, especially for patients who present with metastatic disease or develop disease recurrence. Those patients are candidates for participation in clinical trials of novel agents. Monoclonal antibodies directed against osteosarcoma may prove useful as treatment, either for drug delivery or as radiopharmaceuticals. Trastuzumab (Herceptin^®; Genentech, Inc.; South San Francisco, CA), which targets the epidermal growth factor receptor 2, is currently under investigation in osteosarcoma. Monoclonal antibodies specific for the ganglioside GD2, a cell surface antigen expressed by human neuroblastomas, also recognize human osteosarcomas and could be considered for therapy [263]. Other biologic approaches, such as the use of inhaled GM-CSF and interferon-, are under investigation, while interleukin-12 and interferon- are being investigated in vitro. Insulin-like growth factor I has been found to be expressed on osteosarcoma cells, suggesting growth hormone antagonists may be an effective treatment [264]. Bone-seeking isotopes such as samarium may allow the delivery of extremely high doses of local irradiation, perhaps providing an appropriate treatment approach for sites of mineralized disease [265]. Adenoviral gene therapy using selective promoters, such as the promoter that drives osteocalcin expression, controlling a suicide gene (thymidine kinase) are under development [266]. Investigation of new agents such as trimetrexate (Neutrexin^®; MedImmune, Inc.; Gaithersburg, MD) and imatinib (Gleevec^®; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; East Hanover, NJ) is also an active area of research in osteosarcoma. For patients presenting with localized osteosarcoma, increasing the dose intensity may increase the efficacy of currently available agents.

	References

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction Clinical Features Radiographic Work-up and Staging Epidemiology Pathogenesis Histomorphology Treatment Therapy-Related Sequelae Surgery Prognosis Future Directions References

 

1. Link MP, Eilber F. Pediatric Oncology: Osteosarcoma. In: Pizzo PA, Poplack DG, eds. Principles and Practice of Pediatric Oncology. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1989:689–711.
2. Friedman MA, Carter SK. The therapy of osteogenic sarcoma: current status and thoughts for the future. J Surg Oncol 1972;4:482–510.[Medline]
3. Marcove RC, Mike V, Hajek JV et al. Osteogenic sarcoma under the age of twenty-one. A review of one hundred and forty-five operative cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1970;52:411–423.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Weinfeld MS, Dudley HR Jr. Osteogenic sarcoma: a follow-up study of the ninety-four cases observed at the Massachusetts General Hospital from 1920 to 1960. Am J Orthop 1962;44-A:269–276.[Medline]
5. Rosen G, Forscher CA, Mankin HJ et al. Neoplasms of bone and soft tissue: bone tumors. In: Bast RCJ, Kufe DW, Pollock RE et al., eds. Cancer Medicine, Fifth Edition. Hamilton, Canada: B.C. Decker, Inc, 2000:1870–1902.
6. Meyers PA, Gorlick R. Osteosarcoma. Pediatr Clin North Am 1997;44:973–989.[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Dahlin DC, Coventry MB. Osteogenic sarcoma. A study of six hundred cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1967;49:101–110.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Dahlin DC, Unni KK. Osteosarcoma of bone and its important recognizable varieties. Am J Surg Pathol 1977;1:61–72.[Medline]
9. Dahlin DC, Unni KK. Osteosarcoma. In: Dahlin DC, Unni KK, eds. Bone Tumors. General Aspects and Data on 8542 Cases. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1986:269–307.
10. Estrada-Aguilar J, Greenberg H, Walling A et al. Primary treatment of pelvic osteosarcoma. Report of five cases. Cancer 1992;69:1137–1145.[Medline]
11. Kaste SC, Pratt CB, Cain AM et al. Metastases detected at the time of diagnosis of primary pediatric extremity osteosarcoma at diagnosis: imaging features. Cancer 1999;86:1602–1608.[CrossRef][Medline]
12. Link MP, Goorin AM, Miser AW et al. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1600–1606.[Abstract]
13. Fitzgerald RH Jr, Dahlin DC, Sim FH. Multiple metachronous osteogenic sarcoma. Report of twelve cases with two long-term survivors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1973;55:595–605.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Jeffree GM, Price CH, Sissons HA. The metastatic patterns of osteosarcoma. Br J Cancer 1975;32:87–107.[Medline]
15. Marina NM, Pratt CB, Shema SJ et al. Brain metastases in osteosarcoma. Report of a long-term survivor and review of the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital experience. Cancer 1993;71:3656–3660.[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Thorpe W, Loeb W, Hyatt C et al. Alkaline phosphatase measurements of paired normal and osteosarcoma tissue culture lines obtained from the same patient. Cancer Res 1979;39:277–279.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Gillespy T 3rd, Manfrini M, Ruggieri P et al. Staging of intraosseous extent of osteosarcoma: correlation of preoperative CT and MR imaging with pathologic macroslides. Radiology 1988;167:765–767.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Panicek DM, Gatsonis C, Rosenthal DI et al. CT and MR imaging in the local staging of primary malignant musculoskeletal neoplasms: report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology 1997;202:237–246.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Murphy WA Jr. Imaging bone tumors in the 1990s. Cancer 1991;67(4 suppl):1169–1176.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. McKillop JH, Etcubanas E, Goris ML. The indications for and limitations of bone scintigraphy in osteogenic sarcoma: a review of 55 patients. Cancer 1981;48:1133–1138.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Enneking WF, Kagan A. "Skip" metastases in osteosarcoma. Cancer 1975;36:2192–2205.[Medline]
22. Neifeld JP, Michaelis LL, Doppman JL. Suspected pulmonary metastases: correlation of chest x-ray, whole lung tomograms, and operative findings. Cancer 1977;39:383–387.[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Marina NM, Pratt CB, Rao BN et al. Improved prognosis of children with osteosarcoma metastatic to the lung(s) at the time of diagnosis. Cancer 1992;70:2722–2727. Erratum in Cancer 1993;71:2879.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey JH et al. Osteogenic sarcoma with clinically detectable metastasis at initial presentation. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:449–453.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Bacci G, Briccoli A, Ferrari S et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma of the extremities with synchronous lung metastases: treatment with cisplatin, adriamycin and high dose of methotrexate and ifosfamide. Oncol Rep 2000;7:339–346.[Medline]
26. Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop 1980;153:106–120.
27. Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA. Current concepts review. The surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1980;62:1027–1030.[Free Full Text]
28. Wolf RE, Enneking WF. The staging and surgery of musculoskeletal neoplasms. Orthop Clin North Am 1996;27:473–481.[Medline]
29. Gurney JG, Swensen AR, Bulterys M. Malignant bone tumors. In: Ries LAG, Smith MA, Gurney JG et al., eds. Cancer Incidence and Survival Among Children and Adolescents: United States SEER Program 1975–1995. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, SEER Program, 1999:99–110.
30. Tjalma RA. Canine bone sarcoma: estimation of relative risk as a function of body size. J Natl Cancer Inst 1966;36:1137–1150.
31. Price CH. Primary bone-forming tumours and their relationship to skeletal growth. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1958;40:574–593.
32. Weatherby RP, Dahlin DC, Ivins JC. Postradiation sarcoma of bone: review of 78 Mayo Clinic cases. Mayo Clin Proc 1981;56:294–306.[Medline]
33. Tucker MA. Risk factors for the occurrence of leukemia and bone sarcomas as second malignant tumors. International Conference on Complications of Treatment of Children, 1990:13.
34. Tucker MA, D’Angio GJ, Boice JD Jr et al. Bone sarcomas linked to radiotherapy and chemotherapy in children. N Engl J Med 1987;317:588–593.[Abstract]
35. Tucker MA, Meadows AT, Boice JD et al. Bone cancer (BC) linked to radiotherapy and chemotherapy in children. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1985;4:239.
36. Huvos AG, Woodard HQ, Cahan WG et al. Postradiation osteogenic sarcoma of bone and soft tissues: a clinicopathologic study of 66 patients. Cancer 1985;55:1244–1255.[CrossRef][Medline]
37. Mitelman F. Recurrent chromosome aberrations in cancer. Mutat Res 2000;462:247–253.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. Boehm AK, Neff JR, Squire JA et al. Cytogenetic findings in 36 osteosarcoma specimens and a review of the literature. Pediatr Pathol Mol Med 2000;19:359–376.[CrossRef]
39. Bridge JA, Nelson M, McComb E et al. Cytogenetic findings in 73 osteosarcoma specimens and a review of the literature. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1997;95:74–87.[CrossRef][Medline]
40. Gisselsson D, Palsson E, Hoglund M et al. Differentially amplified chromosome 12 sequences in low- and high-grade osteosarcoma. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2002;33:133–140.[CrossRef][Medline]
41. Sandberg AA, Bridge JA. Updates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors: chondrosarcoma and other cartilaginous neoplasms. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2003;143:1–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
42. Sandberg AA, Bridge JA. Updates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors: osteosarcoma and related tumors. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2003;145:1–30.[CrossRef][Medline]
43. Sandberg AA, Bridge JA. Updates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and giant cell fibroblastoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2003;140:1–12.[CrossRef][Medline]
44. Raymond AK, Ayala AG, Knuutila S. Conventional osteosarcoma. In: Kleihues P, Sobin L, Fletcher C et al., eds. WHO Classification of Tumours: Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2002:264–270.
45. Bayani J, Zielenska M, Pandita A et al. Spectral karyotyping identifies recurrent complex rearrangements of chromosomes 8, 17, and 20 in osteosarcomas. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 2003;36:7–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
46. Ladanyi M, Gorlick R. Molecular pathology and molecular pharmacology of osteosarcoma. Pediatr Pathol Mol Med 2000;19:391–413.[CrossRef]
47. Toguchida J, Yamaguchi T, Dayton SH et al. Prevalence and spectrum of germline mutations of the p53 gene among patients with sarcoma. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1301–1308.[Abstract]
48. Kruzelock RP, Hansen MF. Molecular genetics and cytogenetics of sarcomas. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1995;9:513–540.[Medline]
49. Kruzelock RP, Murphy EC, Strong LC et al. Localization of a novel tumor suppressor locus on human chromosome 3q important in osteosarcoma tumorigenesis. Cancer Res 1997;57:106–109.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
50. Nellissery MJ, Padalecki SS, Brkanac Z et al. Evidence for a novel osteosarcoma tumor-suppressor gene in the chromosome 18 region genetically linked with Paget disease of bone. Am J Hum Genet 1998;63:817–824.[CrossRef][Medline]
51. Meadows AT, Strong LC, Li FP et al. Bone sarcoma as a second malignant neoplasm in children: influence of radiation and genetic predisposition. Cancer 1980;46:2603–2606.[CrossRef][Medline]
52. Smith LM, Donaldson SS, Egbert PR et al. Aggressive management of second primary tumors in survivors of hereditary retinoblastoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989;17:499–505.[Medline]
53. Draper GJ, Sanders BM, Kingston JE. Second primary neoplasms in patients with retinoblastoma. Br J Cancer 1986;53:661–671.[Medline]
54. Abramson DH, Ellsworth RM, Kitchin FD et al. Second nonocular tumors in retinoblastoma survivors. Are they radiation-induced? Ophthalmology 1984;91:1351–1355.[Medline]
55. Friend SH, Bernards R, Rogelj S et al. A human DNA segment with properties of the gene that predisposes to retinoblastoma and osteosarcoma. Nature 1986;323:643–646.[CrossRef][Medline]
56. Diller L, Kassel J, Nelson CE et al. p53 functions as a cell cycle control protein in osteosarcomas. Mol Cell Biol 1990;10:5772–5781.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
57. Lane DP. Cancer. p53, guardian of the genome. Nature 1992;358:15–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
58. Harris H. Malignant tumours generated by recessive mutations. Nature 1986;323:582–583.[CrossRef][Medline]
59. Huang HJ, Yee JK, Shew JY et al. Suppression of the neoplastic phenotype by replacement of the RB gene in human cancer cells. Science 1988;242:1563–1566.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
60. Murphree AL, Benedict WF. Retinoblastoma: clues to human oncogenesis. Science 1984;223:1028–1033.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. Miller CW, Aslo A, Tsay C et al. Frequency and structure of p53 rearrangements in human osteosarcoma. Cancer Res 1990;50:7950–7954.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
62. Toguchida J, Yamaguchi T, Ritchie B et al. Mutation spectrum of the p53 gene in bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Res 1992;52:6194–6199.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
63. Gokgoz N, Wunder JS, Mousses S et al. Comparison of p53 mutations in patients with localized osteosarcoma and metastatic osteosarcoma. Cancer 2001;92:2181–2189.[CrossRef][Medline]
64. Ladanyi M, Cha C, Lewis R et al. MDM2 gene amplification in metastatic osteosarcoma. Cancer Res 1993;53:16–18.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
65. Onda M, Matsuda S, Higaki S et al. ErbB-2 expression is correlated with poor prognosis for patients with osteosarcoma. Cancer 1996;77:71–78.[CrossRef][Medline]
66. Gorlick R, Huvos AG, Heller G et al. Expression of HER2/erbB-2 correlates with survival in osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2781–2788.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
67. Wei G, Lonardo F, Ueda T et al. CDK4 gene amplification in osteosarcoma: reciprocal relationship with INK4A gene alterations and mapping of 12q13 amplicons. Int J Cancer 1999;80:199–204.[CrossRef][Medline]
68. Artandi SE, Chang S, Lee SL et al. Telomere dysfunction promotes non-reciprocal translocations and epithelial cancers in mice. Nature 2000;406:641–645.[CrossRef][Medline]
69. Bodnar AG, Ouellette M, Frolkis M et al. Extension of life-span by introduction of telomerase into normal human cells. Science 1998;279:349–352.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
70. Harley CB. Telomere loss: mitotic clock or genetic time bomb? Mutat Res 1991;256:271–282.[CrossRef][Medline]
71. Shay JW, Bacchetti S. A survey of telomerase activity in human cancer. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:787–791.
72. Bryan TM, Englezou A, Dalla-Pozza L et al. Evidence for an alternative mechanism for maintaining telomere length in human tumors and tumor-derived cell lines. Nat Med 1997;3:1271–1274.[CrossRef][Medline]
73. Scheel C, Schaefer KL, Jauch A et al. Alternative lengthening of telomeres is associated with chromosomal instability in osteosarcomas. Oncogene 2001;20:3835–3844.[CrossRef][Medline]
74. Aue G, Muralidhar B, Schwartz HS et al. Telomerase activity in skeletal sarcomas. Ann Surg Oncol 1998;5:627–634.[CrossRef][Medline]
75. Sangiorgi L, Gobbi GA, Lucarelli E et al. Presence of telomerase activity in different musculoskeletal tumor histotypes and correlation with aggressiveness. Int J Cancer 2001;95:156–161.[CrossRef][Medline]
76. Chang S, Khoo CM, Naylor ML et al. Telomere-based crisis: functional differences between telomerase activation and ALT in tumor progression. Genes Dev 2003;17:88–100.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
77. Finkel MP, Biskis BO, Jinkins PB. Virus induction of osteosarcomas in mice. Science 1966;151:698–701.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
78. Friedlaender GE, Mitchell MS. A virally induced osteosarcoma in rats. A model for immunological studies of human osteosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976;58:295–302.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
79. Finkel MP, Biskis BO, Farrell C. Osteosarcomas appearing in Syrian hamsters after treatment with extracts of human osteosarcomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1968;60:1223–1230.[Free Full Text]
80. Carbone M, Rizzo P, Procopio A et al. SV40-like sequences in human bone tumors. Oncogene 1996;13:527–535.[Medline]
81. Mendoza SM, Konishi T, Miller CW. Integration of SV40 in human osteosarcoma DNA. Oncogene 1998;17:2457–2462.[CrossRef][Medline]
82. Lednicky JA, Stewart AR, Jenkins JJ 3rd et al. SV40 DNA in human osteosarcomas shows sequence variation among T-antigen genes. Int J Cancer 1997;72:791–800.[CrossRef][Medline]
83. Matsuno T, Okada K, Knuutila S. Telangiectatic osteosarcoma. In: Fletcher CDM, Unni KK, Mertens F, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours: Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. Lyons, France: IARC Press, 2002:271–272.
84. Kalil R, Bridge JA. Small cell osteosarcoma. In: Fletcher CDM, Unni KK, Mertens F, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours: Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of Soft Tissue and Bone. Lyons, France: IARC Press, 2002:273–274.
85. Huvos AG, Rosen G, Bretsky SS et al. Telangiectatic osteogenic sarcoma: a clinicopathologic study of 124 patients. Cancer 1982;49:1679–1689.[CrossRef][Medline]
86. Nakajima H, Sim FH, Bond JR et al. Small cell osteosarcoma of bone. Review of 72 cases. Cancer 1997;79:2095–2106.[CrossRef][Medline]
87. Downing JR, Khandekar A, Shurtleff SA et al. Multiplex RT-PCR assay for the differential diagnosis of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma. Am J Pathol 1995;146:626–634.[Abstract]
88. de Alava E, Gerald WL. Molecular biology of the Ewing’s sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor family. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:204–213.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
89. Uribe-Botero G, Russell WO, Sutow WW et al. Primary osteosarcoma of bone. Clinicopathologic investigation of 243 cases, with necropsy studies in 54. Am J Clin Pathol 1977;67:427–435.[Medline]
90. Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:21–26[Abstract]
91. Baum ES, Gaynon P, Greenberg L et al. Phase II trail cisplatin in refractory childhood cancer: Children’s Cancer Study Group Report. Cancer Treat Rep 1981;65:815–822.[Medline]
92. Gasparini M, Rouesse J, van Oosterom A et al. Phase II study of cisplatin in advanced osteogenic sarcoma. European Organization for Research on Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Cancer Treat Rep 1985;69:211–213.[Medline]
93. Ochs JJ, Freeman AI, Douglass HO Jr et al. cis-Dichlorodiammineplatinum (II) in advanced osteogenic sarcoma. Cancer Treat Rep 1978;62:239–245.[Medline]
94. Pratt CB, Shanks EC. Doxorubicin in treatment of malignant solid tumors in children. Am J Dis Child 1974;127:534–536.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
95. Cortes EP, Holland JF, Wang JJ et al. Amputation and adriamycin in primary osteosarcoma. N Engl J Med 1974;291:998–1000.
96. Jaffe N, Frei E 3rd, Traggis D et al. Adjuvant methotrexate and citrovorum-factor treatment of osteogenic sarcoma. N Engl J Med 1974;291:994–997.
97. Pratt CB, Howarth C, Ransom JL et al. High-dose methotrexate used alone and in combination for measurable primary or metastatic osteosarcoma. Cancer Treat Rep 1980;64:11–20.[Medline]
98. Pratt CB, Roberts D, Shanks EC et al. Clinical trials and pharmacokinetics of intermittent high-dose methotrexate-"leucovorin rescue" for children with malignant tumors. Cancer Res 1974;34:3326–3331.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
99. Meyers PA, Schwartz CL, Bernstein M et al. Addition of ifosfamide and muramyl tripeptide to cisplatin, doxorubicin and high-dose methotrexate improves event free survival (EFS) in localized osteosarcoma (OS). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:367a.
100. Bielack SS, Kempf-Bielack B, Delling G et al. Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:776–790.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
101. Ozaki T, Flege S, Kevric M et al. Osteosarcoma of the pelvis: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:334–341.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
102. Pratt CB, Rivera G, Shanks E et al. Combination chemotherapy for osteosarcoma. Cancer Treat Rep 1978;62:251–257.[Medline]
103. Pratt C, Shanks E, Hustu O et al. Adjuvant multiple drug chemotherapy for osteosarcoma of the extremity. Cancer 1977;39:51–57.[CrossRef][Medline]
104. Sutow WW, Gehan EA, Dyment PG et al. Multidrug adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: interim report of the Southwest Oncology Group Studies. Cancer Treat Rep 1978;62:265–269.[Medline]
105. Sutow WW, Sullivan MP, Fernbach DJ et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in primary treatment of osteogenic sarcoma. A Southwest Oncology Group study. Cancer 1975;36:1598–1602.[CrossRef][Medline]
106. Goorin AM, Frei E 3rd, Abelson HT. Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a decade of experience. Surg Clin North Am 1981;61:1379–1389.[Medline]
107. Taylor WF, Ivins JC, Pritchard DJ et al. Trends and variability in survival among patients with osteosarcoma: a 7-year update. Mayo Clin Proc 1985;60:91–104.[Medline]
108. Lange B, Levine AS. Is it ethical not to conduct a prospectively controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy in osteosarcoma? Cancer Treat Rep 1982;66:1699–1704.[Medline]
109. Carter SK. Adjuvant chemotherapy in osteogenic sarcoma: the triumph that isn’t? J Clin Oncol 1984;2:147–148.[Medline]
110. Edmonson JH, Green SJ, Ivins JC et al. A controlled pilot study of high-dose methotrexate as postsurgical adjuvant treatment for primary osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1984;2:152–156.[Abstract]
111. Jaffe N, van Eys J, Gehan E. Response to: "Is it ethical Not to conduct a prospectively controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy in osteosarcoma?" Cancer Treat Rep 1983;67:743–745.[Medline]
112. Holland JF. Adjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcoma: no runs, no hits, two men left on base. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:4–6.[Medline]
113. Link MP, Goorin AM, Horowitz M et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy of high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremity. Updated results of the Multi-Institutional Osteosarcoma Study. Clin Orthop 1991;(270):8–14.
114. Link MP. The multi-institutional osteosarcoma study: an update. Cancer Treat Res 1993;62:261–267.[Medline]
115. Rosen G, Marcove RC, Caparros B et al. Primary osteogenic sarcoma: the rationale for preoperative chemotherapy and delayed surgery. Cancer 1979;43:2163–2177.[CrossRef][Medline]
116. Rosen G, Murphy ML, Huvos AG et al. Chemotherapy, en bloc resection, and prosthetic bone replacement in the treatment of osteogenic sarcoma. Cancer 1976;37:1–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
117. Winkler K, Beron G, Delling G et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of osteosarcoma: results of a randomized cooperative trial (COSS-82) with salvage chemotherapy based on histological tumor response. J Clin Oncol 1988;6:329–337.[Abstract]
118. Bacci G, Picci P, Ruggieri P et al. Primary chemotherapy and delayed surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy) for osteosarcoma of the extremities. The Istituto Rizzoli experience in 127 patients treated preoperatively with intravenous methotrexate (high versus moderate doses) and intraarterial cisplatin. Cancer 1990;65:2539–2553.[CrossRef][Medline]
119. Provisor AJ, Ettinger LJ, Nachman JB et al. Treatment of nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity with preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy: a report from the Children’s Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:76–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
120. Goorin AM, Schwartzentruber DJ, Devidas M et al. Presurgical chemotherapy compared with immediate surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteosarcoma: Pediatric Oncology Group Study POG-8651. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1574–1580.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
121. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey J et al. Chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteogenic sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:5–15.[Abstract]
122. Glasser DB, Lane JM, Huvos AG et al. Survival, prognosis, and therapeutic response in osteogenic sarcoma. The Memorial Hospital experience. Cancer 1992;69:698–708.[CrossRef][Medline]
123. Meyers PA, Gorlick R, Heller G et al. Intensification of preoperative chemotherapy for osteogenic sarcoma: results of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering (T12) protocol. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2452–2458.[Abstract]
124. Grem JL, King SA, Wittes RE et al. The role of methotrexate in osteosarcoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988;80:626–655.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
125. Krailo M, Ertel I, Makley J et al. A randomized study comparing high-dose methotrexate with moderate-dose methotrexate as components of adjuvant chemotherapy in childhood nonmetastatic osteosarcoma: a report from the Childrens Cancer Study Group. Med Pediatr Oncol 1987;15:69–77.[Medline]
126. Bramwell VH, Burgers M, Sneath R et al. A comparison of two short intensive adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in operable osteosarcoma of limbs in children and young adults: the first study of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1579–1591.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
127. Bacci G, Picci P, Ferrari S et al. Primary chemotherapy and delayed surgery for nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities: results of 164 patients preoperatively treated with high doses of methotrexate followed by cisplatin and doxorubicin. Cancer 1993;72:3227–3238.[CrossRef][Medline]
128. Souhami RL, Craft AW, Van der Eijken JW et al. Randomised trial of two regimens of chemotherapy in operable osteosarcoma: a study of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. Lancet 1997;350:911–917.[CrossRef][Medline]
129. Lewis IJ, Nooij M, for the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. Chemotherapy at standard or increased dose intensity in patients with operable osteosarcoma of the extremity: a randomised controlled trial conducted by the European Osteo Sarcoma Intergroup (ISRCTN 86294690). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:816.
130. Pratt CB, Epelman S, Jaffe N. Bleomycin, cyclophosphamide, and dactinomycin in metastatic osteosarcoma: lack of tumor regression in previously treated patients. Cancer Treat Rep 1987;71:421–423.[Medline]
131. Jaffe N, Prudich J, Knapp J et al. Treatment of primary osteosarcoma with intra-arterial and intravenous high-dose methotrexate. J Clin Oncol 1983;1:428–431.[Abstract]
132. Jaffe N, Robertson R, Ayala A et al. Comparison of intra-arterial cis-diamminedichloroplatinum II with high-dose methotrexate and citrovorum factor rescue in the treatment of primary osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1985;3:1101–1104.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
133. Jaffe N, Knapp J, Chuang VP et al. Osteosarcoma: intra-arterial treatment of the primary tumor with cis-diammine-dichloroplatinum II (CDP). Angiographic, pathologic, and pharmacologic studies. Cancer 1983;51:402–407.[CrossRef][Medline]
134. Winkler K, Bielack S, Delling G et al. Effect of intraarterial versus intravenous cisplatin in addition to systemic doxorubicin, high-dose methotrexate, and ifosfamide on histologic tumor response in osteosarcoma (study COSS-86). Cancer 1990;66:1703–1710.[CrossRef][Medline]
135. Pratt CB, Horowitz ME, Meyer WH et al. Phase II trial of ifosfamide in children with malignant solid tumors. Cancer Treat Rep 1987;71:131–135.[Medline]
136. Gasparini M. High-dose ifosfamide alone and in combination for solid malignancies in childhood. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1986;18(suppl 2):S18.
137. de Kraker J, Voute PA. Experience with ifosfamide in paediatric tumours. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1989;24(suppl 1):S28–S29.
138. Goorin AM, Harris MB, Bernstein M et al. Phase II/III trial of etoposide and high-dose ifosfamide in newly diagnosed metastatic osteosarcoma: a Pediatric Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:426–433.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
139. Harris MB, Cantor AB, Goorin AM et al. Treatment of osteosarcoma with ifosfamide: comparison of response in pediatric patients with recurrent disease versus patients previously untreated: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. Med Pediatr Oncol 1995;24:87–92.[Medline]
140. Harris MB, Gieser P, Goorin AM et al. Treatment of metastatic osteosarcoma at diagnosis: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:3641–3648.[Abstract]
141. Kleinerman ES, Jia SF, Griffin J et al. Phase II study of liposomal muramyl tripeptide in osteosarcoma: the cytokine cascade and monocyte activation following administration. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1310–1316.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
142. Kleinerman ES, Snyder JS, Jaffe N. Influence of chemotherapy administration on monocyte activation by liposomal muramyl tripeptide phosphatidylethanolamine in children with osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:259–267.[Abstract]
143. MacEwen EG, Kurzman ID, Rosenthal RC et al. Therapy for osteosarcoma in dogs with intravenous injection of liposome-encapsulated muramyl tripeptide. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:935–938.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
144. Kleinerman ES, Gano JB, Johnston DA et al. Efficacy of liposomal muramyl tripeptide (CGP 19835A) in the treatment of relapsed osteosarcoma. Am J Clin Oncol 1995;18:93–99.[Medline]
145. Kleinerman ES, Meyers PA, Raymond AK et al. Combination therapy with ifosfamide and liposome-encapsulated muramyl tripeptide: tolerability, toxicity, and immune stimulation. J Immunother Emphasis Tumor Immunol 1995;17:181–193.[Medline]
146. Fuchs N, Bielack SS, Epler D et al. Long-term results of the co-operative German-Austrian-Swiss Osteosarcoma Study Group’s protocol COSS-86 of intensive multidrug chemotherapy and surgery for osteosarcoma of the limbs. Ann Oncol 1998;9:893–899.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
147. Smith MA, Ungerleider RS, Horowitz ME et al. Influence of doxorubicin dose intensity on response and outcome for patients with osteogenic sarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 1991;83:1460–1470.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
148. Wexler LH, Andrich MP, Venzon D et al. Randomized trial of the cardioprotective agent ICRF-187 in pediatric sarcoma patients treated with doxorubicin. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:362–372.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
149. Bauer HC, Brosjo O, Strander H. Comparison of growth inhibiting effect of natural and recombinant interferon-alpha on human osteosarcomas in nude mice. J Interferon Res 1987;7:365–369.[Medline]
150. Brosjo O, Bauer HC, Brostrom LA et al. Influence of human alpha-interferon on four human osteosarcoma xenografts in nude mice. Cancer Res 1985;45:5598–5602.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
151. Strander H, Einhorn S. Effect of human leukocyte interferon on the growth of human osteosarcoma cells in tissue culture. Int J Cancer 1977;19:468–473.[Medline]
152. Bjorkstrand B, Svensson H, Goldschmidt H et al. Alpha-interferon maintenance treatment is associated with improved survival after high-dose treatment and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma: a retrospective registry study from the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT). Bone Marrow Transplant 2001;27:511–515.[CrossRef][Medline]
153. Allen IE, Ross SD, Borden SP et al. Meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of interferon-alpha in patients with follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Immunother 2001;24:58–65.
154. Strander H, Bauer HC, Brosjo O et al. Long-term adjuvant interferon treatment of human osteosarcoma. A pilot study. Acta Oncol 1995;34:877–880.[Medline]
155. Bukowski R, Ernstoff MS, Gore ME et al. Pegylated interferon alfa-2b treatment for patients with solid tumors: a phase I/II study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3841–3849.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
156. Bunn S, Kelly D, Murray KF. Safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin in children with chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2000;32:763.
157. Wozniakowska-Gesicka T, Wisniewska-Ligier M, Kups J et al. [Influence of interferon-alpha therapy on the count and function of T lymphocytes in children with chronic hepatitis C]. Pol Merkuriusz Lek 2001;11:344–347. Polish.[Medline]
158. Kager L, Zoubek A, Potschger U et al. Primary metastatic osteosarcoma: presentation and outcome of patients treated on neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2011–2018.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
159. Meyer WH, Schell MJ, Kumar AP et al. Thoracotomy for pulmonary metastatic osteosarcoma. An analysis of prognostic indicators of survival. Cancer 1987;59:374–379.[CrossRef][Medline]
160. Goorin AM, Delorey MJ, Lack EE et al. Prognostic significance of complete surgical resection of pulmonary metastases in patients with osteogenic sarcoma: analysis of 32 patients. J Clin Oncol 1984;2:425–431.[Abstract]
161. Saeter G, Hoie J, Stenwig AE et al. Systemic relapse of patients with osteogenic sarcoma. Prognostic factors for long term survival. Cancer 1995;75:1084–1093.[CrossRef][Medline]
162. Han MT, Telander RL, Pairolero PC et al. Aggressive thoracotomy for pulmonary metastatic osteogenic sarcoma in children and young adolescents. J Pediatr Surg 1981;16:928–933.[CrossRef][Medline]
163. Brock PR, Bellman SC, Yeomans EC et al. Cisplatin ototoxicity in children: a practical grading system. Med Pediatr Oncol 1991;19:295–300.[Medline]
164. Hayes FA, Green AA, Senzer N et al. Tetany: a complication of cis-Dichlorodiammineplatinum(II) therapy. Cancer Treat Rep 1979;63:547–548.[Medline]
165. Marina NM, Poquette CA, Cain AM et al. Comparative renal tubular toxicity of chemotherapy regimens including ifosfamide in patients with newly diagnosed sarcomas. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2000;22:112–118.[CrossRef][Medline]
166. Goorin AM, Borow KM, Goldman A et al. Congestive heart failure due to Adriamycin cardiotoxicity: its natural history in children. Cancer 1981;47:2810–2816.[CrossRef][Medline]
167. Goorin AM, Chauvenet AR, Perez-Atayde AR et al. Initial congestive heart failure, six to ten years after doxorubicin chemotherapy for childhood cancer. J Pediatr 1990;116:144–147.[CrossRef][Medline]
168. Krischer JP, Epstein S, Cuthbertson DD et al. Clinical cardiotoxicity following anthracycline treatment for childhood cancer: the Pediatric Oncology Group experience. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:1544–1552.[Abstract]
169. Lipshultz SE, Lipsitz SR, Mone SM et al. Female sex and drug dose as risk factors for late cardiotoxic effects of doxorubicin therapy for childhood cancer. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1738–1743.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
170. Von Hoff DD, Layard MW, Basa P et al. Risk factors for doxorubicin-induced congestive heart failure. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:710–717.
171. Marina NM, Cochrane D, Harney E et al. Dose escalation and pharmacokinetics of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) in children with solid tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group study. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:413–418.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
172. Meistrich ML, Chawla SP, da Cunha MF et al. Recovery of sperm production after chemotherapy for osteosarcoma. Cancer 1989;63:2115–2123.[CrossRef][Medline]
173. Shamberger RC, Grier HE. Ewing’s sarcoma/primitive neuroectodermal tumor of the chest wall. Semin Pediatr Surg 2001;10:153–160.[CrossRef][Medline]
174. Shamberger RC, Laquaglia MP, Krailo MD et al. Ewing sarcoma of the rib: results of an intergroup study with analysis of outcome by timing of resection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:1154–1161.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
175. Mankin HJ, Mankin CJ, Simon MA. The hazards of the biopsy, revisited. Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78:656–663.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
176. Stewart CJ, Coldewey J, Stewart IS. Comparison of fine needle aspiration cytology and needle core biopsy in the diagnosis of radiologically detected abdominal lesions. J Clin Pathol 2002;55:93–97.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
177. Nicol KK, Ward WG, Savage PD et al. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of skeletal versus extraskeletal osteosarcoma. Cancer 1998;84:176–185.[CrossRef][Medline]
178. Simon MA. Biopsy. In: Simon MA, Springfield DS, eds. Surgery for Bone and Soft-Tissue Tumors. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998:55–65.
179. Pramesh CS, Deshpande MS, Pardiwala DN et al. Core needle biopsy for bone tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol 2001;27:668–671.[CrossRef][Medline]
180. Alman BA, De Bari A, Krajbich JI. Massive allografts in the treatment of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma in children and adolescents. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:54–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
181. Gebhardt MC, Flugstad DI, Springfield DS et al. The use of bone allografts for limb salvage in high-grade extremity osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop 1991;(270):181–196.
182. Gebhardt MC, Roth YF, Mankin HJ. Osteoarticular allografts for reconstruction in the proximal part of the humerus after excision of a musculoskeletal tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:334–345.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
183. Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Aponte-Tinao LA. Survivorship and radiographic analysis of knee osteoarticular allografts. Clin Orthop 2000;(373):73–79.
184. Clohisy DR, Mankin HJ. Osteoarticular allografts for reconstruction after resection of a musculoskeletal tumor in the proximal end of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76:549–554.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
185. Hornicek FJ Jr, Mnaymneh W, Lackman RD et al. Limb salvage with osteoarticular allografts after resection of proximal tibia bone tumors. Clin Orthop 1998;(352):179–186.
186. Mankin HJ, Gebhardt MC, Jennings LC et al. Long-term results of allograft replacement in the management of bone tumors. Clin Orthop 1996;(324):86–97.
187. Gebhardt MC, Jaffe K, Mankin HJ. Bone allografts for tumors and other reconstructions in children. In: Langlais F, Tomeno E, eds. Limb Salvage—Major Reconstructions in Oncologic and Nontumoral Conditions. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1991:561–572.
188. O’Connor MI, Sim FH, Chao EY. Limb salvage for neoplasms of the shoulder girdle. Intermediate reconstructive and functional results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78:1872–1888.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
189. Ortiz-Cruz E, Gebhardt MC, Jennings LC et al. The results of transplantation of intercalary allografts after resection of tumors. A long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:97–106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
190. Weiner SD, Scarborough M, Vander Griend RA. Resection arthrodesis of the knee with an intercalary allograft. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78:185–192.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
191. Lord CF, Gebhardt MC, Tomford WW et al. Infection in bone allografts. Incidence, nature, and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:369–376.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
192. Getty PJ, Peabody TD. Complications and functional outcomes of reconstruction with an osteoarticular allograft after intra-articular resection of the proximal aspect of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999;81:1138–1146.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
193. Dick HM, Strauch RJ. Infection of massive bone allografts. Clin Orthop 1994;(306):46–53.
194. Shapiro MS, Endrizzi DP, Cannon RM et al. Treatment of tibial defects and nonunions using ipsilateral vascularized fibular transposition. Clin Orthop 1993;(296):207–212.
195. Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Wuisman P et al. Reconstruction of tibia by ipsilateral vascularized fibula and allograft. 12 cases with malignant bone tumors. Acta Orthop Scand 1997;68:298–301.[Medline]
196. Finn HA, Simon MA. Limb-salvage surgery in the treatment of osteosarcoma in skeletally immature individuals. Clin Orthop 1991;(262):108–118.
197. Mnaymneh W, Malinin TI, Makley JT et al. Massive osteoarticular allografts in the reconstruction of extremities following resection of tumors not requiring chemotherapy and radiation. Clin Orthop 1985;(197):76–87.
198. Grimer RJ, Belthur M, Carter SR et al. Extendible replacements of the proximal tibia for bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000;82:255–260.
199. McDonald DJ, Capanna R, Gherlinzoni F et al. Influence of chemotherapy on perioperative complications in limb salvage surgery for bone tumors. Cancer 1990;65:1509–1516.[CrossRef][Medline]
200. Wirganowicz PZ, Eckardt JJ, Dorey FJ et al. Etiology and results of tumor endoprosthesis revision surgery in 64 patients. Clin Orthop 1999;(358):64–74.
201. Malawer MM, Chou LB. Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77:1154–1165.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
202. Ritschl P, Capanna R, Helwig U et al. [KMFTR (Kotz Modular Femur Tibia Reconstruction System) modular tumor endoprosthesis system for the lower extremity]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1992;130:290–293. German.[Medline]
203. Ward WG, Yang RS, Eckardt JJ. Endoprosthetic bone reconstruction following malignant tumor resection in skeletally immature patients. Orthop Clin North Am 1996;27:493–502.[Medline]
204. Horowitz SM, Glasser DB, Lane JM et al. Prosthetic and extremity survivorship after limb salvage for sarcoma. How long do the reconstructions last? Clin Orthop 1993;(293):280–286.
205. Eckardt JJ, Kabo JM, Kelley CM et al. Expandable endoprosthesis reconstruction in skeletally immature patients with tumors. Clin Orthop 2000;(373):51–61.
206. Eckardt JJ, Safran MR, Eilber FR et al. Expandable endoprosthetic reconstruction of the skeletally immature after malignant bone tumor resection. Clin Orthop 1993;(297):188–202.
207. Schiller C, Windhager R, Fellinger EJ et al. Extendable tumour endoprostheses for the leg in children. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995;77:608–614.
208. Schindler OS, Cannon SR, Briggs TW et al. Stanmore custom-made extendible distal femoral replacements. Clinical experience in children with primary malignant bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79:927–937.
209. Schindler OS, Cannon SR, Briggs TW et al. Use of extendable total femoral replacements in children with malignant bone tumors. Clin Orthop 1998;(357):157–170.
210. Kenan S, Bloom N, Lewis MM. Limb-sparing surgery in skeletally immature patients with osteosarcoma. The use of an expandable prosthesis. Clin Orthop 1991;(270):223–230.
211. Lewis MM, Bloom N, Esquieres EM et al. The expandable prosthesis. An alternative to amputation for children with malignant bone tumors. AORN J 1987;46:457–470.[Medline]
212. Renard AJ, Veth RP, Schreuder HW et al. Function and complications after ablative and limb-salvage therapy in lower extremity sarcoma of bone. J Surg Oncol 2000;73:198–205.[CrossRef][Medline]
213. Kaste SC, Neel MD, Meyer WH et al. Extracortical bridging callus after limb salvage surgery about the knee. Clin Orthop 1999;(363):180–185.
214. Bini SA, Johnston JO, Martin DL. Compliant prestress fixation in tumor prostheses: interface retrieval data. Orthopedics 2000;23:707–711; discussion 711–712.[Medline]
215. Jensen KL, Johnston JO. Proximal humeral reconstruction after excision of a primary sarcoma. Clin Orthop 1995;(311):164–175.
216. Dick HM, Malinin TI, Mnaymneh WA. Massive allograft implantation following radical resection of high-grade tumors requiring adjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Clin Orthop 1985;(197):88–95.
217. Gitelis S, Piasecki P. Allograft prosthetic composite arthroplasty for osteosarcoma and other aggressive bone tumors. Clin Orthop 1991;(270):197–201.
218. Jofe MH, Gebhardt MC, Tomford WW et al. Reconstruction for defects of the proximal part of the femur using allograft arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:507–516.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
219. Brien EW, Terek RM, Healey JH et al. Allograft reconstruction after proximal tibial resection for bone tumors. An analysis of function and outcome comparing allograft and prosthetic reconstructions. Clin Orthop 1994;(303):116–127.
220. McGoveran BM, Davis AM, Gross AE et al. Evaluation of the allograft-prosthesis composite technique for proximal femoral reconstruction after resection of a primary bone tumour. Can J Surg 1999;42:37–45.[Medline]
221. Hejna MJ, Gitelis S. Allograft prosthetic composite replacement for bone tumors. Semin Surg Oncol 1997;13:18–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
222. Cheng EY, Gebhardt MC. Allograft reconstructions of the shoulder after bone tumor resections. Orthop Clin North Am 1991;22:37–48.[Medline]
223. Kneisl JS. Function after amputation, arthrodesis, or arthroplasty for tumors about the shoulder. J South Orthop Assoc 1995;4:228–236.[Medline]
224. Enneking WF, Shirley PD. Resection-arthrodesis for malignant and potentially malignant lesions about the knee using an intramedullary rod and local bone grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977;59:223–236.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
225. Eilber FR, Grant TT, Sakai D et al. Internal hemipelvectomy—excision of the hemipelvis with limb preservation. An alternative to hemipelvectomy. Cancer 1979;43:806–809.[CrossRef][Medline]
226. Ozaki T, Hillmann A, Winkelmann W. Treatment outcome of pelvic sarcomas in young children: orthopaedic and oncologic analysis. J Pediatr Orthop 1998;18:350–355.[CrossRef][Medline]
227. Bell RS, Davis AM, Wunder JS et al. Allograft reconstruction of the acetabulum after resection of stage-IIB sarcoma. Intermediate-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:1663–1674.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
228. Harrington KD. The use of hemipelvic allografts or autoclaved grafts for reconstruction after wide resections of malignant tumors of the pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:331–341.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
229. Gradinger R, Rechl H, Hipp E. Pelvic osteosarcoma. Resection, reconstruction, local control, and survival statistics. Clin Orthop 1991;(270):149–158.
230. Aboulafia AJ, Buch R, Mathews J et al. Reconstruction using the saddle prosthesis following excision of primary and metastatic periacetabular tumors. Clin Orthop 1995;(314):203–213.
231. Kozlowski K, Campbell J, Beluffi G et al. Primary bone tumours of the pelvis in childhood—Ewing’s sarcoma of the ilium, pubis and ischium (report of 30 cases). (Part I). Australas Radiol 1989;33:354–360.[Medline]
232. O’Connor MI, Sim FH. Salvage of the limb in the treatment of malignant pelvic tumors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71:481–494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
233. Fahey M, Spanier SS, Vander Griend RA. Osteosarcoma of the pelvis. A clinical and histopathological study of twenty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:321–330.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
234. Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM et al. Osteosarcoma of the pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999;81:796–802.
235. Ham SJ, Kroon HM, Koops HS et al. Osteosarcoma of the pelvis—oncological results of 40 patients registered by The Netherlands Committee on Bone Tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000;26:53–60.[CrossRef][Medline]
236. McClenaghan BA, Krajbich JI, Pirone AM et al. Comparative assessment of gait after limb-salvage procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989;71:1178–1182.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
237. Rougraff BT, Simon MA, Kneisl JS et al. Limb salvage compared with amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur. A long-term oncological, functional, and quality-of-life study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76:649–656.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
238. Simon MA. Limb salvage for osteosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:307–310.[Free Full Text]
239. Lindner NJ, Ramm O, Hillmann A et al. Limb salvage and outcome of osteosarcoma. The University of Muenster experience. Clin Orthop 1999;(358):83–89.
240. Gherlinzoni F, Picci P, Bacci G et al. Limb sparing versus amputation in osteosarcoma. Correlation between local control, surgical margins and tumor necrosis: Istituto Rizzoli experience. Ann Oncol 1992;3(suppl 2):S23–S27.
241. Scully SP, Ghert MA, Zurakowski D et al. Pathologic fracture in osteosarcoma: prognostic importance and treatment implications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84-A:49–57.
242. Scully SP, Temple HT, O’Keefe RJ et al. The surgical treatment of patients with osteosarcoma who sustain a pathologic fracture. Clin Orthop 1996;(324):227–232.
243. Jaffe N, Spears R, Eftekhari F et al. Pathologic fracture in osteosarcoma. Impact of chemotherapy on primary tumor and survival. Cancer 1987;59:701–709.[CrossRef][Medline]
244. Otis JC, Lane JM, Kroll MA. Energy cost during gait in osteosarcoma patients after resection and knee replacement and after above-the-knee amputation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985;67:606–611.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
245. Harris IE, Leff AR, Gitelis S et al. Function after amputation, arthrodesis, or arthroplasty for tumors about the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72:1477–1485.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
246. Postma A, Kingma A, De Ruiter JH et al. Quality of life in bone tumor patients comparing limb salvage and amputation of the lower extremity. J Surg Oncol 1992;51:47–51.[Medline]
247. Levine AM, Rosenberg SA. Alkaline phosphatase levels in osteosarcoma tissue are related to prognosis. Cancer 1979;44:2291–2293.[CrossRef][Medline]
248. Tsuchiya H, Kanazawa Y, Abdel-Wanis ME et al. Effect of timing of pulmonary metastases identification on prognosis of patients with osteosarcoma: The Japanese Musculoskeletal Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3470–3477.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
249. Guo W, Healey JH, Meyers PA et al. Mechanisms of methotrexate resistance in osteosarcoma. Clin Cancer Res 1999;5:621–627.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
250. Baldini N, Scotlandi K, Barbanti-Brodano G et al. Expression of P-glycoprotein in high-grade osteosarcomas in relation to clinical outcome. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1380–1385.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
251. Gebhardt MC, Lew RA, Bell RS et al. DNA ploidy as a prognostic indicator in human osteosarcoma. Chir Organi Mov 1990;75(1 suppl):18–21.[Medline]
252. Tarkkanen M, Karhu R, Kallioniemi A et al. Gains and losses of DNA sequences in osteosarcomas by comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Res 1995;55:1334–1338.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
253. Knop J, Delling G, Heise U et al. Scintigraphic evaluation of tumor regression during preoperative chemotherapy of osteosarcoma. Correlation of 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate parametric imaging with surgical histopathology. Skeletal Radiol 1990;19:165–172.[Medline]
254. Ramanna L, Waxman A, Binney G et al. Thallium-201 scintigraphy in bone sarcoma: comparison with gallium-67 and technetium-MDP in the evaluation of chemotherapeutic response. J Nucl Med 1990;31:567–572.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
255. Lin J, Leung WT, Ho SK et al. Quantitative evaluation of thallium-201 uptake in predicting chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma. Eur J Nucl Med 1995;22:553–555.[Medline]
256. Imbriaco M, Yeh SD, Yeung H et al. Thallium-201 scintigraphy for the evaluation of tumor response to preoperative chemotherapy in patients with osteosarcoma. Cancer 1997;80:1507–1512.[CrossRef][Medline]
257. Hanna SL, Parham DM, Fairclough DL et al. Assessment of osteosarcoma response to preoperative chemotherapy using dynamic FLASH gadolinium-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance mapping. Invest Radiol 1992;27:367–373.[CrossRef][Medline]
258. Hanna SL, Reddick WE, Parham DM et al. Automated pixel-by-pixel mapping of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images for evaluation of osteosarcoma response to chemotherapy: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993;3:849–853.[Medline]
259. Erlemann R, Sciuk J, Bosse A et al. Response of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma to preoperative chemotherapy: assessment with dynamic and static MR imaging and skeletal scintigraphy. Radiology 1990;175:791–796.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
260. Hawkins DS, Rajendran JG, Conrad EU 3rd et al. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in pediatric bone sarcomas by [F-18]-fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 2002;94:3277–3284.[CrossRef][Medline]
261. Franzius C, Sciuk J, Brinkschmidt C et al. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in primary bone tumors with F-18 FDG positron emission tomography compared with histologically assessed tumor necrosis. Clin Nucl Med 2000;25:874–881.[CrossRef][Medline]
262. Schulte M, Brecht-Krauss D, Werner M et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy response of osteogenic sarcoma using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1637–1643.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
263. Heiner JP, Miraldi F, Kallick S et al. Localization of GD2-specific monoclonal antibody 3F8 in human osteosarcoma. Cancer Res 1987;47:5377–5381.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
264. Pollak M, Sem AW, Richard M et al. Inhibition of metastatic behavior of murine osteosarcoma by hypophysectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84:966–971.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
265. Anderson PM, Wiseman GA, Dispenzieri A et al. High-dose samarium-153 ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate: low toxicity of skeletal irradiation in patients with osteosarcoma and bone metastases. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:189–196[Abstract/Free Full Text]
266. Ko SC, Cheon J, Kao C et al. Osteocalcin promoter-based toxic gene therapy for the treatment of osteosarcoma in experimental models. Cancer Res 1996;56:4614–4619.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. C. Manara, G. Nicoletti, D. Zambelli, S. Ventura, C. Guerzoni, L. Landuzzi, P.-L. Lollini, S.-M. Maira, C. Garcia-Echeverria, M. Mercuri, et al. NVP-BEZ235 as a New Therapeutic Option for Sarcomas Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2010; 16(2): 530 - 540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. COMSTOCK, C. L. HALL, S. DAIGNAULT, S. A. MANDLEBAUM, C. YU, and E. T. KELLER A Bioluminescent Orthotopic Mouse Model of Human Osteosarcoma that Allows Sensitive and Rapid Evaluation of New Therapeutic Agents In Vivo In Vivo, September 1, 2009; 23(5): 661 - 668. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Guise, R. O'Keefe, R. L. Randall, and R. M. Terek Molecular Biology and Therapeutics in Musculoskeletal Oncology J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., March 1, 2009; 91(3): 724 - 732. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Akiyama, C. R. Dass, and P. F.M. Choong Novel therapeutic strategy for osteosarcoma targeting osteoclast differentiation, bone-resorbing activity, and apoptosis pathway Mol. Cancer Ther., November 1, 2008; 7(11): 3461 - 3469. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Ketola, A. Hinkkanen, F. Yongabi, P. Furu, A.-M. Maatta, T. Liimatainen, R. Pirinen, M. Bjorn, T. Hakkarainen, K. Makinen, et al. Oncolytic Semliki Forest Virus Vector as a Novel Candidate against Unresectable Osteosarcoma Cancer Res., October 15, 2008; 68(20): 8342 - 8350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Scionti, F. Michelacci, M. Pasello, C. M. Hattinger, M. Alberghini, M. C. Manara, G. Bacci, S. Ferrari, K. Scotlandi, P. Picci, et al. Clinical impact of the methotrexate resistance-associated genes C-MYC and dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) in high-grade osteosarcoma Ann. Onc., August 1, 2008; 19(8): 1500 - 1508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Spreafico, S. Schenone, T. Serchi, M. Orlandini, A. Angelucci, D. Magrini, G. Bernardini, G. Collodel, A. Di Stefano, C. Tintori, et al. Antiproliferative and proapoptotic activities of new pyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidine derivative Src kinase inhibitors in human osteosarcoma cells FASEB J, May 1, 2008; 22(5): 1560 - 1571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. V. Koshkina, C. Khanna, A. Mendoza, H. Guan, L. DeLauter, and E. S. Kleinerman Fas-Negative Osteosarcoma Tumor Cells Are Selected during Metastasis to the Lungs: The Role of the Fas Pathway in the Metastatic Process of Osteosarcoma Mol. Cancer Res., October 1, 2007; 5(10): 991 - 999. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X. Wan and L. J. Helman The Biology Behind mTOR Inhibition in Sarcoma Oncologist, August 1, 2007; 12(8): 1007 - 1018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Hicks, J. R. Roth, C. A. Kozinetz, and L. L. Wang Clinicopathologic Features of Osteosarcoma in Patients With Rothmund-Thomson Syndrome J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2007; 25(4): 370 - 375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Hendershot, A. Pappo, D. Malkin, and L. Sung Tumor Necrosis in Pediatric Osteosarcoma: Impact of Modern Therapies Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, July 1, 2006; 23(4): 176 - 181. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Kager, A. Zoubek, U. Kastner, B. Kempf-Bielack, J. Potratz, R. Kotz, G. U. Exner, C. Franzius, S. Lang, R. Maas, et al. Skip Metastases in Osteosarcoma: Experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group J. Clin. Oncol., April 1, 2006; 24(10): 1535 - 1541. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. S. Petrilli, B. de Camargo, V. O. Filho, P. Bruniera, A. L. Brunetto, R. Jesus-Garcia, O. P. Camargo, W. Pena, P. Pericles, A. Davi, et al. Results of the Brazilian Osteosarcoma Treatment Group Studies III and IV: Prognostic Factors and Impact on Survival J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2006; 24(7): 1161 - 1168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. L. Weber What's New in Musculoskeletal Oncology J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 2005; 87(6): 1400 - 1410. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Marina, N. Articles by Gorlick, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Marina, N. Articles by Gorlick, R.