Loading…

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

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. Th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European spine journal 2020-02, Vol.29 (2), p.238-247
Main Authors: Pombo, Bruno, Ferreira, Ana Cristina, Cardoso, Pedro, Oliveira, António
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-1610b1356183316c124ae34cc1657cdfa04af7dec35adf21fccb94d3d533b1a43
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-1610b1356183316c124ae34cc1657cdfa04af7dec35adf21fccb94d3d533b1a43
container_end_page 247
container_issue 2
container_start_page 238
container_title European spine journal
container_volume 29
creator Pombo, Bruno
Ferreira, Ana Cristina
Cardoso, Pedro
Oliveira, António
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. Graphic abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00586-019-06099-7
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2273215421</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2273215421</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-1610b1356183316c124ae34cc1657cdfa04af7dec35adf21fccb94d3d533b1a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxiMEokvhBTggS1y4BDy24yTc0Kr8kSpxgbPldSatS-IEj7PVPlbfEG-zUMSBky1_v29mPF9RvAT-Fjiv3xHnVaNLDm3JNW_bsn5UbEBJUfJWisfFhreKl7qG9qx4RnTDOVQt10-LMwkKuIZ2U9xtBx-8swPDvkeX_B4DErGpZxch4A8frpid5zjN0duEbI-RFnrQfPhbzTeH3RIxv7PZJo8hEbv16TpLfrTxwCZKOJGNbhrtsUu6RkazD_ieWUaHrI7Z51jEvcfb1TtisqUNdjiQp-fFk94OhC9O53nx_ePFt-3n8vLrpy_bD5elU0qlEjTwHchKQyMlaAdCWZTKOdBV7brecmX7ukMnK9v1Anrndq3qZFdJuQOr5HnxZq2bP_VzQUpm9ORwGGzAaSEjRC0FVEpARl__g95MS8zz3lNCNVDrJlNipVyciCL25rQTA9wcAzVroCYHau4DNXU2vTqVXnYjdn8svxPMgFwBylK4wvjQ-79l2eqKztrZHJdNyWZLI4TRTV018heZWLrd</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2272481768</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Pombo, Bruno ; Ferreira, Ana Cristina ; Cardoso, Pedro ; Oliveira, António</creator><creatorcontrib>Pombo, Bruno ; Ferreira, Ana Cristina ; Cardoso, Pedro ; Oliveira, António</creatorcontrib><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. Graphic abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0940-6719</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0932</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00586-019-06099-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31410619</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer</publisher><subject>Bone cancer ; Ciências Médicas ; Ciências Naturais ; Enneking margins ; Local recurrence ; Matemáticas ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Metastatic disease ; Morbidity ; Neurosurgery ; Osteosarcoma ; Outras Ciências Médicas ; Primary spine tumours ; Remission ; Review Article ; Sarcoma ; Science &amp; Technology ; Spinal cancer ; Surgical Orthopedics ; Survival ; Systematic review ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>European spine journal, 2020-02, Vol.29 (2), p.238-247</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>European Spine Journal is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-1610b1356183316c124ae34cc1657cdfa04af7dec35adf21fccb94d3d533b1a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-1610b1356183316c124ae34cc1657cdfa04af7dec35adf21fccb94d3d533b1a43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6337-2368</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31410619$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pombo, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Ana Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cardoso, Pedro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oliveira, António</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis</title><title>European spine journal</title><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><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. Graphic abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.</description><subject>Bone cancer</subject><subject>Ciências Médicas</subject><subject>Ciências Naturais</subject><subject>Enneking margins</subject><subject>Local recurrence</subject><subject>Matemáticas</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Metastatic disease</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Neurosurgery</subject><subject>Osteosarcoma</subject><subject>Outras Ciências Médicas</subject><subject>Primary spine tumours</subject><subject>Remission</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Sarcoma</subject><subject>Science &amp; Technology</subject><subject>Spinal cancer</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>0940-6719</issn><issn>1432-0932</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxiMEokvhBTggS1y4BDy24yTc0Kr8kSpxgbPldSatS-IEj7PVPlbfEG-zUMSBky1_v29mPF9RvAT-Fjiv3xHnVaNLDm3JNW_bsn5UbEBJUfJWisfFhreKl7qG9qx4RnTDOVQt10-LMwkKuIZ2U9xtBx-8swPDvkeX_B4DErGpZxch4A8frpid5zjN0duEbI-RFnrQfPhbzTeH3RIxv7PZJo8hEbv16TpLfrTxwCZKOJGNbhrtsUu6RkazD_ieWUaHrI7Z51jEvcfb1TtisqUNdjiQp-fFk94OhC9O53nx_ePFt-3n8vLrpy_bD5elU0qlEjTwHchKQyMlaAdCWZTKOdBV7brecmX7ukMnK9v1Anrndq3qZFdJuQOr5HnxZq2bP_VzQUpm9ORwGGzAaSEjRC0FVEpARl__g95MS8zz3lNCNVDrJlNipVyciCL25rQTA9wcAzVroCYHau4DNXU2vTqVXnYjdn8svxPMgFwBylK4wvjQ-79l2eqKztrZHJdNyWZLI4TRTV018heZWLrd</recordid><startdate>20200201</startdate><enddate>20200201</enddate><creator>Pombo, Bruno</creator><creator>Ferreira, Ana Cristina</creator><creator>Cardoso, Pedro</creator><creator>Oliveira, António</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>RCLKO</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6337-2368</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200201</creationdate><title>Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis</title><author>Pombo, Bruno ; Ferreira, Ana Cristina ; Cardoso, Pedro ; Oliveira, António</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-1610b1356183316c124ae34cc1657cdfa04af7dec35adf21fccb94d3d533b1a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Bone cancer</topic><topic>Ciências Médicas</topic><topic>Ciências Naturais</topic><topic>Enneking margins</topic><topic>Local recurrence</topic><topic>Matemáticas</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Metastatic disease</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Neurosurgery</topic><topic>Osteosarcoma</topic><topic>Outras Ciências Médicas</topic><topic>Primary spine tumours</topic><topic>Remission</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Sarcoma</topic><topic>Science &amp; Technology</topic><topic>Spinal cancer</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pombo, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferreira, Ana Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cardoso, Pedro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oliveira, António</creatorcontrib><collection>RCAAP open access repository</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pombo, Bruno</au><au>Ferreira, Ana Cristina</au><au>Cardoso, Pedro</au><au>Oliveira, António</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>European spine journal</jtitle><stitle>Eur Spine J</stitle><addtitle>Eur Spine J</addtitle><date>2020-02-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>238</spage><epage>247</epage><pages>238-247</pages><issn>0940-6719</issn><eissn>1432-0932</eissn><abstract>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. Graphic abstract These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer</pub><pmid>31410619</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00586-019-06099-7</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6337-2368</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0940-6719
ispartof European spine journal, 2020-02, Vol.29 (2), p.238-247
issn 0940-6719
1432-0932
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2273215421
source Springer Nature
subjects Bone cancer
Ciências Médicas
Ciências Naturais
Enneking margins
Local recurrence
Matemáticas
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Metastases
Metastasis
Metastatic disease
Morbidity
Neurosurgery
Osteosarcoma
Outras Ciências Médicas
Primary spine tumours
Remission
Review Article
Sarcoma
Science & Technology
Spinal cancer
Surgical Orthopedics
Survival
Systematic review
Tumors
title Clinical effectiveness of Enneking appropriate versus Enneking inappropriate procedure in patients with primary osteosarcoma of the spine: a systematic review with meta-analysis
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T17%3A59%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20effectiveness%20of%20Enneking%20appropriate%20versus%20Enneking%20inappropriate%20procedure%20in%20patients%20with%20primary%20osteosarcoma%20of%20the%20spine:%20a%20systematic%20review%20with%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=European%20spine%20journal&rft.au=Pombo,%20Bruno&rft.date=2020-02-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=238&rft.epage=247&rft.pages=238-247&rft.issn=0940-6719&rft.eissn=1432-0932&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00586-019-06099-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2273215421%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c444t-1610b1356183316c124ae34cc1657cdfa04af7dec35adf21fccb94d3d533b1a43%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2272481768&rft_id=info:pmid/31410619&rfr_iscdi=true