Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Pombo, Bruno
Publication Date: 2020
Other Authors: Cristina Ferreira, Ana, Cardoso, Pedro, Oliveira, António
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2622
Summary: Purpose: Primary osteosarcoma of the spine is a rare osseous tumour. En bloc resection, in contrast to intralesional resection, is the only procedure able to provide Enneking appropriate (EA) margins, which has improved local control and survival of patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine. The objective of this study is to compare the risk of local recurrence, metastases development and survival in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine submitted to Enneking appropriate (EA) and Enneking inappropriate (EI) procedures. Methods: A systematic search was performed on EBSCO, PubMed and Web of Science, between 1966 and 2018, to identify studies evaluating patients submitted to resection of primary osteosarcoma of the spine. Two reviewers independently assessed all reports. The outcomes were local recurrence, metastases development and survival at 12, 24 and 60 months. Results: Five studies (108 patients) were included for systematic review. These studies support the conclusion that EA procedure has a lower local recurrence rate (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17-0.66), a lower metastases development rate (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.89) and a higher survival rate at 24 months (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.24-2.55) and 60 months (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.14-3.42) of follow-up; however, at 12 months, there is a non-significant difference. Conclusions: EA procedure increases the ratio of remission and survival after 24 months of follow-up. Multidisciplinary oncologic groups should weigh the morbidity of an en bloc resection, knowing that in the first year the probability of survival is the same for EA and EI procedures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
id RCAP_53889374d9de6b1e4081dee01afa727d
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.chporto.pt:10400.16/2622
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysisEnneking marginsLocal recurrenceMetastatic diseaseOsteosarcomaPrimary spine tumoursSurvivalPurpose: Primary osteosarcoma of the spine is a rare osseous tumour. En bloc resection, in contrast to intralesional resection, is the only procedure able to provide Enneking appropriate (EA) margins, which has improved local control and survival of patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine. The objective of this study is to compare the risk of local recurrence, metastases development and survival in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine submitted to Enneking appropriate (EA) and Enneking inappropriate (EI) procedures. Methods: A systematic search was performed on EBSCO, PubMed and Web of Science, between 1966 and 2018, to identify studies evaluating patients submitted to resection of primary osteosarcoma of the spine. Two reviewers independently assessed all reports. The outcomes were local recurrence, metastases development and survival at 12, 24 and 60 months. Results: Five studies (108 patients) were included for systematic review. These studies support the conclusion that EA procedure has a lower local recurrence rate (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17-0.66), a lower metastases development rate (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.89) and a higher survival rate at 24 months (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.24-2.55) and 60 months (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.14-3.42) of follow-up; however, at 12 months, there is a non-significant difference. Conclusions: EA procedure increases the ratio of remission and survival after 24 months of follow-up. Multidisciplinary oncologic groups should weigh the morbidity of an en bloc resection, knowing that in the first year the probability of survival is the same for EA and EI procedures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.Springer-VerlagRepositório Científico do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo AntónioPombo, BrunoCristina Ferreira, AnaCardoso, PedroOliveira, António2021-11-23T14:08:34Z20202020-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2622engPombo B, Cristina Ferreira A, Cardoso P, Oliveira A. Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(2):238-247. doi:10.1007/s00586-019-06099-70940-671910.1007/s00586-019-06099-7info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-10-20T11:01:21Zoai:repositorio.chporto.pt:10400.16/2622Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T20:38:49.446938Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
spellingShingle Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Pombo, Bruno
Enneking margins
Local recurrence
Metastatic disease
Osteosarcoma
Primary spine tumours
Survival
title_short Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_full Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_fullStr Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
title_sort Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
author Pombo, Bruno
author_facet Pombo, Bruno
Cristina Ferreira, Ana
Cardoso, Pedro
Oliveira, António
author_role author
author2 Cristina Ferreira, Ana
Cardoso, Pedro
Oliveira, António
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico do Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Santo António
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pombo, Bruno
Cristina Ferreira, Ana
Cardoso, Pedro
Oliveira, António
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Enneking margins
Local recurrence
Metastatic disease
Osteosarcoma
Primary spine tumours
Survival
topic Enneking margins
Local recurrence
Metastatic disease
Osteosarcoma
Primary spine tumours
Survival
description Purpose: Primary osteosarcoma of the spine is a rare osseous tumour. En bloc resection, in contrast to intralesional resection, is the only procedure able to provide Enneking appropriate (EA) margins, which has improved local control and survival of patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine. The objective of this study is to compare the risk of local recurrence, metastases development and survival in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine submitted to Enneking appropriate (EA) and Enneking inappropriate (EI) procedures. Methods: A systematic search was performed on EBSCO, PubMed and Web of Science, between 1966 and 2018, to identify studies evaluating patients submitted to resection of primary osteosarcoma of the spine. Two reviewers independently assessed all reports. The outcomes were local recurrence, metastases development and survival at 12, 24 and 60 months. Results: Five studies (108 patients) were included for systematic review. These studies support the conclusion that EA procedure has a lower local recurrence rate (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17-0.66), a lower metastases development rate (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.89) and a higher survival rate at 24 months (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.24-2.55) and 60 months (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.14-3.42) of follow-up; however, at 12 months, there is a non-significant difference. Conclusions: EA procedure increases the ratio of remission and survival after 24 months of follow-up. Multidisciplinary oncologic groups should weigh the morbidity of an en bloc resection, knowing that in the first year the probability of survival is the same for EA and EI procedures. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
2021-11-23T14:08:34Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2622
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.16/2622
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Pombo B, Cristina Ferreira A, Cardoso P, Oliveira A. Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(2):238-247. doi:10.1007/s00586-019-06099-7
0940-6719
10.1007/s00586-019-06099-7
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer-Verlag
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer-Verlag
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799133648486662144