National Cancer Institute National Cancer Institute
U.S. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute
Send to Printer
Osteosarcoma and Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone Treatment (PDQ®)     
Last Modified: 11/26/2008
Health Professional Version
Table of Contents

Purpose of This PDQ Summary
General Information
Prognostic Factors
Primary Site
Tumor Size
Presence of Clinically Detectable Metastatic Disease
Adequacy of Tumor Resection
Necrosis Following Induction or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Additional Prognostic Factors
Cellular Classification
Central (Medullary) Tumors
Surface (Peripheral) Tumors
Staging and Site Information
Localized Osteosarcoma
Metastatic Osteosarcoma
Treatment Option Overview
Localized Osteosarcoma/Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone
Standard Treatment Options
Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation
Current Clinical Trials
Metastatic Disease at Diagnosis
Osteosarcoma
        Treatment options under clinical evaluation
Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone
Current Clinical Trials
Recurrent Osteosarcoma
Current Clinical Trials
Get More Information From NCI
Changes to This Summary (11/26/2008)
More Information

Purpose of This PDQ Summary

This PDQ cancer information summary for health professionals provides comprehensive, peer-reviewed, evidence-based information about the treatment of osteosarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone. This summary is reviewed regularly and updated as necessary by the PDQ Pediatric Treatment Editorial Board 1.

Information about the following is included in this summary:

  • Incidence.
  • Prognostic factors.
  • Cellular classification.
  • Stage information.
  • Treatment options.

This summary is intended as a resource to inform and assist clinicians and other health professionals who care for pediatric cancer patients. It does not provide formal guidelines or recommendations for making health care decisions.

Some of the reference citations in the summary are accompanied by a level-of-evidence designation. These designations are intended to help readers assess the strength of the evidence supporting the use of specific interventions or approaches. The PDQ Pediatric and Adult Treatment Editorial Boards use a formal evidence ranking system 2 in developing their level-of-evidence designations. Based on the strength of the available evidence, treatment options are described as either “standard” or “under clinical evaluation.” These classifications should not be used as a basis for reimbursement determinations.

This summary is also available in a patient version 3, which is written in less-technical language, and in Spanish 4.

General Information

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) provides the PDQ pediatric cancer treatment information summaries as a public service to increase the availability of evidence-based cancer information to health professionals, patients, and the public.

Cancer in children and adolescents is rare. Children and adolescents with cancer should be referred to medical centers that have a multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists with experience treating the cancers that occur during childhood and adolescence. This multidisciplinary team approach incorporates the skills of the primary care physician, an orthopedic surgeon experienced in bone tumors, a pathologist, radiation oncologists, pediatric oncologists, rehabilitation specialists, pediatric nurse specialists, social workers, and others to ensure that children receive treatment, supportive care, and rehabilitation that will achieve optimal survival and quality of life. (Refer to the PDQ summaries on Supportive and Palliative Care 5 for specific information about supportive care for children and adolescents with cancer.)

Guidelines for pediatric cancer centers and their role in the treatment of pediatric patients with cancer have been outlined by the American Academy of Pediatrics.[1] At these pediatric cancer centers, clinical trials are available for most types of cancer that occur in children and adolescents, and the opportunity to participate in these trials is offered to most patients/families. Clinical trials for children and adolescents with cancer are generally designed to compare potentially better therapy with therapy that is currently accepted as standard. Most of the progress made in identifying curative therapies for childhood cancers has been achieved through clinical trials. Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site 6.

In recent decades, dramatic improvements in survival have been achieved for children and adolescents with cancer. Childhood and adolescent cancer survivors require close follow-up because cancer therapy side effects may persist or develop months or years after treatment. (Refer to the PDQ summary on Late Effects of Treatment for Childhood Cancer 7 for specific information about the incidence, type, and monitoring of late effects in childhood and adolescent cancer survivors.)

Osteosarcoma is a bone tumor that occurs predominantly in adolescents and young adults. It accounts for approximately 5% of childhood tumors. In children and adolescents, more than 50% of these tumors arise from the bones around the knee. There appears to be no difference in presenting symptoms, tumor location, and outcome for younger patients (<10 years) compared with adolescents.[2] Two trials conducted in the 1980s were designed to address the natural history of surgically treated localized, resectable osteosarcoma of the extremity. The outcome of patients in these trials who were treated with surgical removal of the primary tumor recapitulated the historical experience before 1970; more than half of these patients developed metastases within 6 months of diagnosis, and overall, almost 90% [3] developed recurrent disease within 2 years of diagnosis.[4] Overall survival for patients treated with surgery alone was statistically inferior.[5] The natural history of osteosarcoma has not changed over time, and fewer than 20% of patients with localized resectable primary tumors treated with surgery alone can be expected to survive free of relapse.[4,6-8]

References

  1. Guidelines for the pediatric cancer center and role of such centers in diagnosis and treatment. American Academy of Pediatrics Section Statement Section on Hematology/Oncology. Pediatrics 99 (1): 139-41, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Bacci G, Longhi A, Bertoni F, et al.: Primary high-grade osteosarcoma: comparison between preadolescent and older patients. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 27 (3): 129-34, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. 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 (270): 8-14, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. 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 314 (25): 1600-6, 1986.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. Link MP: The multi-institutional osteosarcoma study: an update. Cancer Treat Res 62: 261-7, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  6. Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J, et al.: Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 5 (1): 21-6, 1987.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. Harris MB, Gieser P, Goorin AM, et al.: Treatment of metastatic osteosarcoma at diagnosis: a Pediatric Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 16 (11): 3641-8, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  8. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Longhi A, et al.: Nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity with pathologic fracture at presentation: local and systemic control by amputation or limb salvage after preoperative chemotherapy. Acta Orthop Scand 74 (4): 449-54, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Prognostic Factors

Factors that influence prognosis for osteosarcoma include site and size of the primary tumor, presence or absence of clinically detectable metastatic disease, adequacy of resection, and degree of necrosis observed in tumors following initial chemotherapy. The latter two factors are not conventional prognostic factors since they can be assessed only after treatment, not at initial presentation.

Primary Site

The site of the primary tumor is a significant prognostic factor in localized disease. Among tumors of the extremity, distal sites have a more favorable prognosis than proximal sites. Axial skeleton primary tumors are associated with the greatest risk of progression and death.[1,2] Pelvic osteosarcomas make up 7% to 9% of all osteosarcomas; their current overall survival rate is 20% to 47%.[1] For patients with osteosarcoma of craniofacial bones, complete resection of the primary tumor with negative margins is essential for cure.[3-5] Despite a relatively high rate of inferior necrosis following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, fewer patients with craniofacial primaries develop systemic metastases than do patients with osteosarcoma originating in the extremities.[6-8] This low rate of metastasis may be related to the relatively smaller size and higher incidence of lower grade tumors in osteosarcoma of the head and neck. There is a better prognosis for patients who have osteosarcoma of the head and neck than for those who have appendicular lesions when treated with surgery alone. While small series have not shown a benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with osteosarcoma of the head and neck, one meta-analysis concluded that systemic chemotherapy improves the prognosis for these patients. Another large meta-analysis detected no benefit from chemotherapy for patients with osteosarcoma of the head and neck, but suggested that the incorporation of chemotherapy into treatment of patients with high-grade tumors may improve survival. A retrospective analysis identified a trend toward better survival in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma of the mandible and maxilla who received adjuvant chemotherapy.[9] However, radiation-associated craniofacial osteosarcomas are high-grade lesions, usually fibroblastic, which tend to recur locally and have a high rate of metastasis.[10]

Osteosarcoma in extraskeletal sites is rare in children and young adults. With current combined-modality therapy, the outcome for patients with extraskeletal osteosarcoma appears to be similar to that for patients with primary tumors of bone.[11]

Tumor Size

Larger tumors have a worse prognosis than smaller tumors. Tumor size has been assessed by the longest single dimension, by the cross-sectional area, or by an estimate of tumor volume; all have correlated with outcome. Serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), which also correlates with outcome, is a likely surrogate for tumor volume.

Presence of Clinically Detectable Metastatic Disease

Patients with localized disease have a much better prognosis than those with overt metastatic disease. As many as 20% of patients will have radiographically detectable metastases at diagnosis, with the lung being the most common site.[12] The prognosis for patients with metastatic disease appears to be determined largely by the site(s), the number of metastases, and the surgical resectability of the metastatic disease.[12-15] Patients who have complete surgical ablation of the primary and metastatic tumor (when confined to the lung) following chemotherapy may attain long-term survival, though overall event-free survival remains about 20% to 30% for patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis.[12,13,16-18] Prognosis appears more favorable for patients with fewer pulmonary nodules and for those with unilateral rather than bilateral pulmonary metastases; however, not every nodule detected indicates metastatic disease.[13,14] The degree of necrosis in the primary tumor after induction chemotherapy remains prognostic in metastatic osteosarcoma.[19] Patients with skip metastases (≥2 discontinuous lesions in the same bone) have been reported to have inferior prognoses.[20] Analysis of the German Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study (COSS) experience, however, suggests that skip lesions in the same bone do not confer an inferior prognosis if they are included in planned surgical resection. Skip lesions across a joint have a worse prognosis.[21] Patients with multifocal osteosarcoma (>1 bone lesion at diagnosis) have an extremely poor prognosis.[22]

Adequacy of Tumor Resection

Resectability of the tumor is a critical prognostic feature because this tumor is relatively resistant to radiation therapy. Complete resection of tumor-bearing bone with adequate margins is generally considered essential for cure. Skip lesions were previously considered an unfavorable risk factor. Analysis of the German COSS experience, however, suggests that skip lesions do not confer an inferior prognosis if they are included in planned surgical resction.[21] Two studies have examined the outcome for patients with osteosarcoma in the axial skeleton whose tumors were resected with positive margins. In these retrospective analyses of nonrandomized treatments, among patients who had no surgery or intralesional resection, patients who received radiation therapy had better survival than patients who did not receive radiation therapy.[1,23]

Necrosis Following Induction or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Most treatment protocols for osteosarcoma use an initial period of systemic chemotherapy prior to definitive resection of the primary tumor (or resection of sites of metastases for patients with metastatic disease). The pathologist assesses necrosis in the resected tumor. Patients with greater than or equal to 90% [24] necrosis in the primary tumor after induction chemotherapy have a better prognosis than those with less necrosis.[24] Patients with less necrosis (<90%) in the primary tumor following initial chemotherapy have a higher rate of recurrence within the first 2 years compared with patients with a more favorable amount of necrosis (≥90%).[25] Imaging modalities such as dynamic magnetic resonance imaging may offer a noninvasive method to assess necrosis.[26] Less necrosis should not be interpreted to mean that chemotherapy has been ineffective; cure rates for patients with little or no necrosis following induction chemotherapy are much higher than cure rates for patients who receive no chemotherapy.

Additional Prognostic Factors

Patients with osteosarcoma as a second malignant neoplasm share the same prognosis as patients with newly diagnosed disease if they are treated aggressively with surgery and multiagent chemotherapy.[27-31] There have been numerous other identified prognostic features for patients with conventional localized high-grade osteosarcoma. These factors include the age of the patient, LDH level, alkaline phosphatase level, and histologic subtype.[19,24,32-37] A number of potential prognostic factors have been identified but have not been tested in large numbers of patients. These include the expression of HER2/c-erbB-2 (there are conflicting data concerning the prognostic significance of this human epidermal growth factor);[38-40] tumor cell ploidy; specific chromosomal gains or losses;[41] loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the RB gene;[42,43] LOH of the p53 locus;[44] and increased expression of p-glycoprotein.[45-48] A prospective analysis of p-glycoprotein expression determined by immunohistochemistry failed to identify prognostic significance for newly diagnosed patients with osteosarcoma, although earlier studies suggested that overexpression of p-glycoprotein predicted for poor outcome.[49] Patients with malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) of bone are treated according to osteosarcoma treatment protocols, and the outcome for patients with resectable MFH is similar to the outcome for patients with osteosarcoma.[50] As with osteosarcoma, patients with a favorable necrosis had a longer survival than those with an inferior necrosis.[51] MFH of bone is seen more commonly in older adults.

References

  1. Ozaki T, Flege S, Kevric M, et al.: Osteosarcoma of the pelvis: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 21 (2): 334-41, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Donati D, Giacomini S, Gozzi E, et al.: Osteosarcoma of the pelvis. Eur J Surg Oncol 30 (3): 332-40, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. Patel SG, Meyers P, Huvos AG, et al.: Improved outcomes in patients with osteogenic sarcoma of the head and neck. Cancer 95 (7): 1495-503, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. Smith RB, Apostolakis LW, Karnell LH, et al.: National Cancer Data Base report on osteosarcoma of the head and neck. Cancer 98 (8): 1670-80, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. Fernandes R, Nikitakis NG, Pazoki A, et al.: Osteogenic sarcoma of the jaw: a 10-year experience. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 65 (7): 1286-91, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  6. Smeele LE, Kostense PJ, van der Waal I, et al.: Effect of chemotherapy on survival of craniofacial osteosarcoma: a systematic review of 201 patients. J Clin Oncol 15 (1): 363-7, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. Ha PK, Eisele DW, Frassica FJ, et al.: Osteosarcoma of the head and neck: a review of the Johns Hopkins experience. Laryngoscope 109 (6): 964-9, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  8. Duffaud F, Digue L, Baciuchka-Palmaro M, et al.: Osteosarcomas of flat bones in adolescents and adults. Cancer 88 (2): 324-32, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  9. Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Oncology Study Group.: Osteogenic sarcoma of the mandible and maxilla: a Canadian review (1980-2000). J Otolaryngol 33 (3): 139-44, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  10. McHugh JB, Thomas DG, Herman JM, et al.: Primary versus radiation-associated craniofacial osteosarcoma: Biologic and clinicopathologic comparisons. Cancer 107 (3): 554-62, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  11. Goldstein-Jackson SY, Gosheger G, Delling G, et al.: Extraskeletal osteosarcoma has a favourable prognosis when treated like conventional osteosarcoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 131 (8): 520-6, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  12. 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 86 (8): 1602-8, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  13. Harris MB, Gieser P, Goorin AM, et al.: Treatment of metastatic osteosarcoma at diagnosis: a Pediatric Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 16 (11): 3641-8, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  14. 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 7 (2): 339-46, 2000 Mar-Apr.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  15. Bacci G, Briccoli A, Ferrari S, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma of the extremity: long-term results of the Rizzoli's 4th protocol. Eur J Cancer 37 (16): 2030-9, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  16. Goorin AM, Shuster JJ, Baker A, et al.: Changing pattern of pulmonary metastases with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with osteosarcoma: results from the multiinstitutional osteosarcoma study. J Clin Oncol 9 (4): 600-5, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  17. Bacci G, Mercuri M, Longhi A, et al.: Grade of chemotherapy-induced necrosis as a predictor of local and systemic control in 881 patients with non-metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a single institution. Eur J Cancer 41 (14): 2079-85, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  18. Bacci G, Briccoli A, Mercuri M, et al.: Osteosarcoma of the extremities with synchronous lung metastases: long-term results in 44 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Chemother 10 (1): 69-76, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  19. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey JH, et al.: Osteogenic sarcoma with clinically detectable metastasis at initial presentation. J Clin Oncol 11 (3): 449-53, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  20. Sajadi KR, Heck RK, Neel MD, et al.: The incidence and prognosis of osteosarcoma skip metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res (426): 92-6, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  21. Kager L, Zoubek A, Kastner U, et al.: Skip metastases in osteosarcoma: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 24 (10): 1535-41, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  22. Bacci G, Fabbri N, Balladelli A, et al.: Treatment and prognosis for synchronous multifocal osteosarcoma in 42 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88 (8): 1071-5, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  23. DeLaney TF, Park L, Goldberg SI, et al.: Radiotherapy for local control of osteosarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61 (2): 492-8, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  24. 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 20 (3): 776-90, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  25. Kim MS, Cho WH, Song WS, et al.: time dependency of prognostic factors in patients with stage II osteosarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463: 157-65, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  26. Reddick WE, Wang S, Xiong X, et al.: Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of regional contrast access as an additional prognostic factor in pediatric osteosarcoma. Cancer 91 (12): 2230-7, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  27. Bielack SS, Kempf-Bielack B, Heise U, et al.: Combined modality treatment for osteosarcoma occurring as a second malignant disease. Cooperative German-Austrian-Swiss Osteosarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 17 (4): 1164, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  28. Tabone MD, Terrier P, Pacquement H, et al.: Outcome of radiation-related osteosarcoma after treatment of childhood and adolescent cancer: a study of 23 cases. J Clin Oncol 17 (9): 2789-95, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  29. Gorlick R, Anderson P, Andrulis I, et al.: Biology of childhood osteogenic sarcoma and potential targets for therapeutic development: meeting summary. Clin Cancer Res 9 (15): 5442-53, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  30. Shaheen M, Deheshi BM, Riad S, et al.: Prognosis of radiation-induced bone sarcoma is similar to primary osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450: 76-81, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  31. Bacci G, Longhi A, Forni C, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for radioinduced osteosarcoma of the extremity: The Rizzoli experience in 20 cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67 (2): 505-11, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  32. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey J, et al.: Chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteogenic sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. J Clin Oncol 10 (1): 5-15, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  33. Bacci G, Longhi A, Versari M, et al.: Prognostic factors for osteosarcoma of the extremity treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: 15-year experience in 789 patients treated at a single institution. Cancer 106 (5): 1154-61, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  34. Wuisman P, Enneking WF: Prognosis for patients who have osteosarcoma with skip metastasis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72 (1): 60-8, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  35. Bieling P, Rehan N, Winkler P, et al.: Tumor size and prognosis in aggressively treated osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 14 (3): 848-58, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  36. Ferrari S, Bertoni F, Mercuri M, et al.: Predictive factors of disease-free survival for non-metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity: an analysis of 300 patients treated at the Rizzoli Institute. Ann Oncol 12 (8): 1145-50, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  37. Bacci G, Longhi A, Fagioli F, et al.: Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma of the extremities: 27 year experience at Rizzoli Institute, Italy. Eur J Cancer 41 (18): 2836-45, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  38. Gorlick R, Huvos AG, Heller G, et al.: Expression of HER2/erbB-2 correlates with survival in osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 17 (9): 2781-8, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  39. Onda M, Matsuda S, Higaki S, et al.: ErbB-2 expression is correlated with poor prognosis for patients with osteosarcoma. Cancer 77 (1): 71-8, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  40. Kilpatrick SE, Geisinger KR, King TS, et al.: Clinicopathologic analysis of HER-2/neu immunoexpression among various histologic subtypes and grades of osteosarcoma. Mod Pathol 14 (12): 1277-83, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  41. Ozaki T, Schaefer KL, Wai D, et al.: Genetic imbalances revealed by comparative genomic hybridization in osteosarcomas. Int J Cancer 102 (4): 355-65, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  42. Feugeas O, Guriec N, Babin-Boilletot A, et al.: Loss of heterozygosity of the RB gene is a poor prognostic factor in patients with osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 14 (2): 467-72, 1996.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  43. Heinsohn S, Evermann U, Zur Stadt U, et al.: Determination of the prognostic value of loss of heterozygosity at the retinoblastoma gene in osteosarcoma. Int J Oncol 30 (5): 1205-14, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  44. Goto A, Kanda H, Ishikawa Y, et al.: Association of loss of heterozygosity at the p53 locus with chemoresistance in osteosarcomas. Jpn J Cancer Res 89 (5): 539-47, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  45. Serra M, Maurici D, Scotlandi K, et al.: Relationship between P-glycoprotein expression and p53 status in high-grade osteosarcoma. Int J Oncol 14 (2): 301-7, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  46. Hornicek FJ, Gebhardt MC, Wolfe MW, et al.: P-glycoprotein levels predict poor outcome in patients with osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop (373): 11-7, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  47. Serra M, Pasello M, Manara MC, et al.: May P-glycoprotein status be used to stratify high-grade osteosarcoma patients? Results from the Italian/Scandinavian Sarcoma Group 1 treatment protocol. Int J Oncol 29 (6): 1459-68, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  48. Pakos EE, Ioannidis JP: The association of P-glycoprotein with response to chemotherapy and clinical outcome in patients with osteosarcoma. A meta-analysis. Cancer 98 (3): 581-9, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  49. Schwartz CL, Gorlick R, Teot L, et al.: Multiple drug resistance in osteogenic sarcoma: INT0133 from the Children's Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 25 (15): 2057-62, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  50. Picci P, Bacci G, Ferrari S, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone and in osteosarcoma located in the extremities: analogies and differences between the two tumors. Ann Oncol 8 (11): 1107-15, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  51. Bramwell VH, Steward WP, Nooij M, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cisplatin in malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone: A European Osteosarcoma Intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 17 (10): 3260-9, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Cellular Classification

Osteosarcoma is a primary malignant tumor of the appendicular skeleton that is characterized by the direct formation of bone or osteoid tissue by the tumor cells. The World Health Organization’s histologic classification [1] of bone tumors separates the osteosarcomas into central (medullary) and surface (peripheral) [2,3] tumors and recognizes a number of subtypes within each group.

Central (Medullary) Tumors
  • Conventional central osteosarcomas.


  • Telangiectatic osteosarcomas.


  • Intraosseous well-differentiated (low-grade) osteosarcomas.


  • Small cell osteosarcomas.


Surface (Peripheral) Tumors
  • Parosteal (juxtacortical) well-differentiated (low-grade) osteosarcomas.[4]


  • Periosteal osteosarcoma: low-grade to intermediate-grade osteosarcomas.


  • High-grade surface osteosarcomas.[3,5,6]


The most common pathologic subtype is conventional central osteosarcoma, which is characterized by areas of necrosis, atypical mitoses, and malignant osteoid tissue and/or cartilage. The other subtypes are much less common, each occurring at a frequency of less than 5%. Telangiectatic osteosarcoma may be confused radiographically with an aneurysmal bone cyst or giant cell tumor. This variant should be approached as a conventional osteosarcoma.[7,8] Recognition of intraosseous well-differentiated osteosarcoma and parosteal osteosarcoma is important because these are associated with the most favorable prognosis and can be treated successfully with radical excision of the primary tumor alone.[4] Periosteal osteosarcoma has a generally good prognosis [9,10] and treatment is guided by histologic grade.[11]

Malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) of bone is treated according to osteosarcoma treatment protocols. MFH should be distinguished from angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma, a low-grade tumor that is usually noninvasive, small, and associated with an excellent outcome with surgery alone.[12] One study suggests similar event-free survival rates for MFH and osteosarcoma.[13]

Extraosseous osteosarcoma is a malignant mesenchymal neoplasm without direct attachment to the skeletal system. Previously, treatment for extraosseous osteosarcoma followed soft tissue sarcoma guidelines,[14] though a retrospective analysis of the German Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study identified a favorable outcome for extraosseous osteosarcoma treated with surgery and conventional osteosarcoma therapy.[15]

References

  1. Schajowicz F, Sissons HA, Sobin LH: The World Health Organization's histologic classification of bone tumors. A commentary on the second edition. Cancer 75 (5): 1208-14, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Antonescu CR, Huvos AG: Low-grade osteogenic sarcoma arising in medullary and surface osseous locations. Am J Clin Pathol 114 (Suppl): S90-103, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. Kaste SC, Fuller CE, Saharia A, et al.: Pediatric surface osteosarcoma: clinical, pathologic, and radiologic features. Pediatr Blood Cancer 47 (2): 152-62, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. Hoshi M, Matsumoto S, Manabe J, et al.: Oncologic outcome of parosteal osteosarcoma. Int J Clin Oncol 11 (2): 120-6, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. Okada K, Unni KK, Swee RG, et al.: High grade surface osteosarcoma: a clinicopathologic study of 46 cases. Cancer 85 (5): 1044-54, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  6. Staals EL, Bacchini P, Bertoni F: High-grade surface osteosarcoma: a review of 25 cases from the Rizzoli Institute. Cancer 112 (7): 1592-9, 2008.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Ruggieri P, et al.: Telangiectatic osteosarcoma of the extremity: neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 24 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 72 (2): 167-72, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  8. Weiss A, Khoury JD, Hoffer FA, et al.: Telangiectatic osteosarcoma: the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's experience. Cancer 109 (8): 1627-37, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  9. Unni KK, Dahlin DC, Beabout JW: Periosteal osteogenic sarcoma. Cancer 37 (5): 2476-85, 1976.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  10. Rose PS, Dickey ID, Wenger DE, et al.: Periosteal osteosarcoma: long-term outcome and risk of late recurrence. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453: 314-7, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  11. Grimer RJ, Bielack S, Flege S, et al.: Periosteal osteosarcoma--a European review of outcome. Eur J Cancer 41 (18): 2806-11, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  12. Daw NC, Billups CA, Pappo AS, et al.: Malignant fibrous histiocytoma and other fibrohistiocytic tumors in pediatric patients: the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital experience. Cancer 97 (11): 2839-47, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  13. Picci P, Bacci G, Ferrari S, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone and in osteosarcoma located in the extremities: analogies and differences between the two tumors. Ann Oncol 8 (11): 1107-15, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  14. Wodowski K, Hill DA, Pappo AS, et al.: A chemosensitive pediatric extraosseous osteosarcoma: case report and review of the literature. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 25 (1): 73-7, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  15. Goldstein-Jackson SY, Gosheger G, Delling G, et al.: Extraskeletal osteosarcoma has a favourable prognosis when treated like conventional osteosarcoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 131 (8): 520-6, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Staging and Site Information

The Enneking staging system for musculoskeletal neoplasms is based on grade, site, and presence of metastases.[1] All conventional osteosarcomas are high grade; site is graded as intracompartmental or extracompartmental. To be intracompartmental, an osteosarcoma must be confined within the periosteum; such lesions are IIA in the Enneking system. The great majority of osteosarcomas extend beyond the periosteum, which makes them IIB. The presence of clinically detectable metastases is graded as stage III in this system. For practical purposes, there are essentially two classes of patients: those who present without clinically detectable metastatic disease (localized osteosarcoma) and those who present with clinically detectable metastatic disease (metastatic osteosarcoma).

Localized Osteosarcoma

Localized tumors are limited to the bone of origin; local skip metastases may be apparent within the bone and have previously been associated with an inferior prognosis.[2] Analysis of the German Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study experience, however, suggests that skip lesions do not confer an inferior prognosis if they are included in planned surgical resection.[3] Approximately one-half of the tumors arise in the femur; of these, 80% are in the distal femur. Other primary sites in descending order of frequency are the proximal tibia, proximal humerus, pelvis, jaw, fibula, and ribs.[4] Compared with osteosarcoma of the appendicular skeleton, osteosarcoma of the head and neck is more likely to be low grade [5] and to arise in older patients. A retrospective analysis identified a trend toward better survival in patients with osteosarcoma of the mandible and maxilla who received adjuvant chemotherapy.[6]

Metastatic Osteosarcoma

Radiologic evidence of metastatic tumor deposits in the lungs, other bones, or other distant sites is found in 10% to 20% of patients at diagnosis, with 85% to 90% of metastatic disease presenting in the lungs. The second most common site of metastasis is another bone.[7] Metastasis to other bones may be solitary or multiple. The syndrome of multifocal osteosarcoma refers to a presentation with multiple tumors in many bones, often with symmetrical metaphyseal involvement. Multifocal osteosarcoma has an extremely grave prognosis.[4]

References

  1. Enneking WF: A system of staging musculoskeletal neoplasms. Clin Orthop Relat Res (204): 9-24, 1986.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Wuisman P, Enneking WF: Prognosis for patients who have osteosarcoma with skip metastasis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72 (1): 60-8, 1990.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. Kager L, Zoubek A, Kastner U, et al.: Skip metastases in osteosarcoma: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 24 (10): 1535-41, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. Longhi A, Fabbri N, Donati D, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with synchronous multifocal osteosarcoma: results in eleven cases. J Chemother 13 (3): 324-30, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. Patel SG, Meyers P, Huvos AG, et al.: Improved outcomes in patients with osteogenic sarcoma of the head and neck. Cancer 95 (7): 1495-503, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  6. Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Oncology Study Group.: Osteogenic sarcoma of the mandible and maxilla: a Canadian review (1980-2000). J Otolaryngol 33 (3): 139-44, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. Harris MB, Gieser P, Goorin AM, et al.: Treatment of metastatic osteosarcoma at diagnosis: a Pediatric Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 16 (11): 3641-8, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Treatment Option Overview

Successful treatment generally requires the combination of effective systemic chemotherapy and complete resection of all clinically detectable disease. Protective weight bearing is recommended for patients with tumors of weight-bearing bones to prevent pathological fractures that could preclude limb-preserving surgery.

Randomized clinical trials have established that both neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy are effective in preventing relapse in patients with clinically nonmetastatic tumors.[1,2] It is imperative that patients with proven or suspected osteosarcoma have an initial evaluation by an orthopedic oncologist familiar with the surgical management of this disease. This evaluation, which includes imaging studies, should be done prior to the initial biopsy, since an inappropriately performed biopsy may jeopardize a limb-sparing procedure.

References

  1. Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J, et al.: Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 5 (1): 21-6, 1987.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. 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 314 (25): 1600-6, 1986.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Localized Osteosarcoma/Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone

Complete surgical resection is crucial for patients with localized osteosarcoma; however, at least 80% of patients treated with surgery alone will develop metastatic disease.[1,2] Randomized clinical trials have established that adjuvant chemotherapy is effective in preventing relapse or recurrence in patients with localized resectable primary tumors.[1,3] Older reports suggested that osteosarcoma arising following therapeutic radiation had a uniformly poor prognosis. A single-institution retrospective review reported that patients with osteosarcoma arising following radiation therapy treated with multiagent chemotherapy and surgical resection have a prognosis similar to patients with osteosarcoma arising de novo.[4]

A number of single-arm trials evaluated the role of chemotherapy administered both preoperatively and postoperatively. Some of these trials evaluated the necrosis of the primary tumor following chemotherapy and used this information to determine subsequent therapy.[5,6] Current chemotherapy protocols include combinations of the following agents: high-dose methotrexate, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, ifosfamide, etoposide, and carboplatin.[6-16] Overall, relapse-free survival ranges from 50% to 75% in these trials.[5,14] One randomized trial found no difference in survival between two drugs given for a shorter duration and multiagent regimens, though event-free survival (EFS) in both arms was less than 50%.[17] In a large Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group trial, higher chemotherapy dose intensity did not correlate with improved outcome.[18]

All patients with osteosarcoma should undergo surgical resection of the primary tumor if possible. The type of surgery required for complete ablation of the primary tumor depends on a number of factors that must be evaluated on an individual basis.[19] If limb-sparing (removal of the malignant bone tumor without amputation and replacement of bones or joints with allografts or prosthetic devices) is contemplated, the biopsy should be performed by the surgeon who will do the definitive operation, since incision placement is crucial. While a needle biopsy can often confirm the diagnosis, participation in some clinical trials requires collection of material for biologic studies that can only be obtained via an open biopsy or multiple needle biopsies. Rotationplasty and limb-sparing procedures have been evaluated for both their functional result and their effect on survival.[20] There is no difference in overall survival (OS) between patients initially treated by amputation and those treated with a limb-sparing procedure.[21] One randomized trial noted no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) with preoperative chemotherapy compared with immediate surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy.[22] Limb-sparing procedures should be planned only when the preoperative staging indicates that it is possible to achieve wide surgical margins. A pathologic fracture noted at diagnosis or during preoperative chemotherapy does not preclude limb-salvage surgery if wide surgical margins can be achieved.[23] In one series, patients presenting with a pathologic fracture at diagnosis had similar outcomes to those without pathologic fractures at diagnosis, while in a second series, pathologic fracture at diagnosis was associated with a worse overall outcome.[24,25] If the pathologic examination of the surgical specimen shows inadequate margins, an immediate amputation should be considered, especially if the histologic necrosis following preoperative chemotherapy was poor.[21] In one study, patients undergoing limb-salvage procedures who had poor histologic response and close surgical margins had a high rate of local recurrence.[26] For patients who receive chemotherapy prior to surgery, the degree of tumor necrosis observed postoperatively is highly predictive of DFS, local recurrence, and OS.[8,9,27] Increasing the intensity of preoperative chemotherapy raised the proportion of patients with good histologic response in two studies [28,29] but not in another.[30] A European Consortium conducted a large randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cisplatin courses every 2 or 3 weeks for six courses. Surgery was done at week 6 in both groups. Although the group randomized to every 2 week courses of therapy had a higher rate of good histologic response, there was no difference in survival.[29] Results from both arms of the study were inferior to those achieved in other large cooperative studies that used more than two drugs.[29]

The Children's Oncology Group (COG) performed a prospective randomized trial in newly diagnosed children and young adults with localized osteosarcoma. All patients received cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate. One-half of the patients were randomly assigned to receive ifosfamide. In a second randomization, one-half of the patients were assigned to receive the biological compound muramyl tripeptide-phosphatidyl ethanolamine encapsulated in liposomes (L-MTP-PE) beginning after definitive surgical resection. Neither the addition of ifosfamide alone nor L-MTP-PE alone to three standard chemotherapy agents improved EFS. The addition of both agents achieved the best EFS in this study, but the difference was not statistically significant when compared with the outcome of the three standard chemotherapy agents alone.[16] A joint Scandinavian/Italian study compared standard-dose ifosfamide (9 g/m²/course) with high-dose ifosfamide (15 g/m²/course). All patients received methotrexate, cisplatin, doxorubicin, and ifosfamide. High-dose ifosfamide did not improve EFS but was associated with increased renal and hematologic toxicity.[14]

Patients with primary tumors of the femur have a higher local recurrence rate than do patients with primary tumors of the tibia/fibula. Not surprisingly, patients who undergo amputation have lower local recurrence rates than patients undergoing limb-sparing procedures.[27] In general, more than 80% of patients with extremity osteosarcoma can be treated by a limb-sparing operation and do not require amputation.[5] While limb-sparing tumor resection is the current practice for local control at most pediatric institutions, there are few data to indicate that limb-salvage of the lower limb is substantially superior to amputation with regard to patient quality of life.[31] Patients with osteosarcoma may benefit from radiation therapy if surgical margins are inadequate.[32,33] Information about ongoing clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site 6.

Standard Treatment Options

Localized, completely resectable high-grade osteosarcoma

  • Most patients receive preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy followed by extirpative surgery (amputation, limb preservation, or rotationplasty) [20] and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Limb length inequality is a major potential problem for young children. Treatment options include extensible prostheses, amputation, and rotationplasty for these children.


  • Preoperative chemotherapy (either systemically or intra-arterially) followed by extirpative surgery (amputation, limb preservation, or rotationplasty).[10,20,34] After surgery, tumor necrosis is used to determine degree of response to the initial chemotherapy. If tumor necrosis exceeds a preset level (90%–95%), the preoperative chemotherapy regimen is continued; however, if necrosis is inferior, some groups have used alternative regimens that have not been examined in randomized studies.[5,35]


  • Surgical resection of the primary tumor with adequate margins is an essential component of the curative strategy for patients with localized osteosarcoma. Reconstruction after surgery can be accomplished with many options, including metallic endoprosthesis, allograft, vascularized autologous bone graft, and rotationplasty. The choice of optimal surgical reconstruction involves many factors, including the site and size of the primary tumor, the ability to preserve the neurovascular supply of the distal extremity, the age of the patient and potential for additional growth, and the needs and desires of the patient and family for specific function, such as sports participation. Cure of the patient remains the primary objective. If a complicated reconstruction delays or prohibits the resumption of needed systemic chemotherapy, limb preservation may endanger the chance for cure. For some patients, amputation remains the optimal choice for management of the primary tumor.


  • For lesions that cannot be removed, some data from retrospective nonrandomized studies suggest that high-dose radiation therapy may improve local control, especially when there is only microscopic or minimal residual disease.[32,33] Clinical studies are now being conducted using a phase II/III approach or using intensive combination chemotherapy and high-dose, very well-collimated and localized radiation.


For patients with malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) of bone, wide local excision is recommended regardless of tumor grade. Most patients with MFH will need preoperative chemotherapy to achieve a wide local excision.[36]

Patients who develop osteosarcoma following radiation therapy should receive chemotherapy and undergo surgical resection. Outcome for patients with radiation-induced osteosarcoma who receive chemotherapy is similar to that of patients with conventional high-grade osteosarcoma.[37] Patients with Rothmund-Thomson syndrome, and RECQL4 gene mutations, who develop osteosarcoma tend to be younger than patients with conventional osteosarcoma, however, the clinical behavior is similar and should be treated in the same manner.[38]

Treatment Options Under Clinical Evaluation

The COG, in collaboration with several European groups, has opened a trial in which all patients receive preoperative therapy with doxorubicin, cisplatin, and high-dose methotrexate. Patients are then divided into the following two strata on the basis of histologic necrosis in the resected primary tumor:

  • Favorable histologic response (<10% viable tumor): All patients receive postoperative therapy with the same drugs as those given preoperatively. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive additional therapy with pegylated interferon-alpha-2b.[39]


  • Standard histologic response (10%–100% viable tumor): Patients will be randomly assigned to receive postoperative chemotherapy with the same drugs as those given preoperatively plus or minus additional courses of ifosfamide/etoposide.


Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with localized osteosarcoma 8 and localized childhood malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone 9. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site 10.

References

  1. 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 314 (25): 1600-6, 1986.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Hosalkar HS, Dormans JP: Limb sparing surgery for pediatric musculoskeletal tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 42 (4): 295-310, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. Eilber F, Giuliano A, Eckardt J, et al.: Adjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma: a randomized prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 5 (1): 21-6, 1987.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. Shaheen M, Deheshi BM, Riad S, et al.: Prognosis of radiation-induced bone sarcoma is similar to primary osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450: 76-81, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Bertoni F, et al.: Long-term outcome for patients with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity treated at the istituto ortopedico rizzoli according to the istituto ortopedico rizzoli/osteosarcoma-2 protocol: an updated report. J Clin Oncol 18 (24): 4016-27, 2000.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  6. 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 9 (8): 893-9, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. Meyer WH, Pratt CB, Poquette CA, et al.: Carboplatin/ifosfamide window therapy for osteosarcoma: results of the St Jude Children's Research Hospital OS-91 trial. J Clin Oncol 19 (1): 171-82, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  8. Davis AM, Bell RS, Goodwin PJ: Prognostic factors in osteosarcoma: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 12 (2): 423-31, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  9. 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 15 (1): 76-84, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  10. Bacci G, Picci P, Avella M, et al.: Effect of intra-arterial versus intravenous cisplatin in addition to systemic adriamycin and high-dose methotrexate on histologic tumor response of osteosarcoma of the extremities. J Chemother 4 (3): 189-95, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  11. Cassano WF, Graham-Pole J, Dickson N: Etoposide, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and doxorubicin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma. Cancer 68 (9): 1899-902, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  12. Voûte PA, Souhami RL, Nooij M, et al.: A phase II study of cisplatin, ifosfamide and doxorubicin in operable primary, axial skeletal and metastatic osteosarcoma. European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EOI). Ann Oncol 10 (10): 1211-8, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  13. Ferguson WS, Harris MB, Goorin AM, et al.: Presurgical window of carboplatin and surgery and multidrug chemotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed metastatic or unresectable osteosarcoma: Pediatric Oncology Group Trial. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 23 (6): 340-8, 2001 Aug-Sep.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  14. Ferrari S, Smeland S, Mercuri M, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with high-dose Ifosfamide, high-dose methotrexate, cisplatin, and doxorubicin for patients with localized osteosarcoma of the extremity: a joint study by the Italian and Scandinavian Sarcoma Groups. J Clin Oncol 23 (34): 8845-52, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  15. Zalupski MM, Rankin C, Ryan JR, et al.: Adjuvant therapy of osteosarcoma--A Phase II trial: Southwest Oncology Group study 9139. Cancer 100 (4): 818-25, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  16. Meyers PA, Schwartz CL, Krailo M, et al.: Osteosarcoma: a randomized, prospective trial of the addition of ifosfamide and/or muramyl tripeptide to cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate. J Clin Oncol 23 (9): 2004-11, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  17. 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 350 (9082): 911-7, 1997.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  18. Eselgrim M, Grunert H, Kühne T, et al.: Dose intensity of chemotherapy for osteosarcoma and outcome in the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS) trials. Pediatr Blood Cancer 47 (1): 42-50, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  19. Grimer RJ: Surgical options for children with osteosarcoma. Lancet Oncol 6 (2): 85-92, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  20. Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, et al.: Malignant tumor of the distal part of the femur or the proximal part of the tibia: endoprosthetic replacement or rotationplasty. Functional outcome and quality-of-life measurements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81 (4): 462-8, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  21. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Lari S, et al.: Osteosarcoma of the limb. Amputation or limb salvage in patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84 (1): 88-92, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  22. 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 21 (8): 1574-80, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  23. Scully SP, Ghert MA, Zurakowski D, et al.: Pathologic fracture in osteosarcoma : prognostic importance and treatment implications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A (1): 49-57, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  24. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Longhi A, et al.: Nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity with pathologic fracture at presentation: local and systemic control by amputation or limb salvage after preoperative chemotherapy. Acta Orthop Scand 74 (4): 449-54, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  25. Bramer JA, Abudu AA, Grimer RJ, et al.: Do pathological fractures influence survival and local recurrence rate in bony sarcomas? Eur J Cancer 43 (13): 1944-51, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  26. Grimer RJ, Taminiau AM, Cannon SR, et al.: Surgical outcomes in osteosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84 (3): 395-400, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  27. Weeden S, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, et al.: The effect of local recurrence on survival in resected osteosarcoma. Eur J Cancer 37 (1): 39-46, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  28. 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 16 (7): 2452-8, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  29. Lewis IJ, Nooij MA, Whelan J, et al.: Improvement in histologic response but not survival in osteosarcoma patients treated with intensified chemotherapy: a randomized phase III trial of the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup. J Natl Cancer Inst 99 (2): 112-28, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  30. Bacci G, Forni C, Ferrari S, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for osteosarcoma of the extremity: intensification of preoperative treatment does not increase the rate of good histologic response to the primary tumor or improve the final outcome. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 25 (11): 845-53, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  31. Nagarajan R, Neglia JP, Clohisy DR, et al.: Limb salvage and amputation in survivors of pediatric lower-extremity bone tumors: what are the long-term implications? J Clin Oncol 20 (22): 4493-501, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  32. Ozaki T, Flege S, Kevric M, et al.: Osteosarcoma of the pelvis: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 21 (2): 334-41, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  33. DeLaney TF, Park L, Goldberg SI, et al.: Radiotherapy for local control of osteosarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61 (2): 492-8, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  34. Wilkins RM, Cullen JW, Camozzi AB, et al.: Improved survival in primary nonmetastatic pediatric osteosarcoma of the extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 438: 128-36, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  35. Meyers PA, Heller G, Healey J, et al.: Chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteogenic sarcoma: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering experience. J Clin Oncol 10 (1): 5-15, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  36. Daw NC, Billups CA, Pappo AS, et al.: Malignant fibrous histiocytoma and other fibrohistiocytic tumors in pediatric patients: the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital experience. Cancer 97 (11): 2839-47, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  37. Bacci G, Longhi A, Forni C, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for radioinduced osteosarcoma of the extremity: The Rizzoli experience in 20 cases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67 (2): 505-11, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  38. Hicks MJ, Roth JR, Kozinetz CA, et al.: Clinicopathologic features of osteosarcoma in patients with Rothmund-Thomson syndrome. J Clin Oncol 25 (4): 370-5, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  39. Müller CR, Smeland S, Bauer HC, et al.: Interferon-alpha as the only adjuvant treatment in high-grade osteosarcoma: long term results of the Karolinska Hospital series. Acta Oncol 44 (5): 475-80, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Metastatic Disease at Diagnosis



Osteosarcoma

Osteosarcoma at diagnosis can present with clinically detectable metastases. The prognosis for osteosarcoma metastatic at diagnosis varies according to the site(s) and number of metastases. As many as 20% of patients will have radiographically detectable metastases at diagnosis, with the lung being the most common site of metastasis.[1] For patients with metastatic disease at initial presentation, roughly 20% will remain continuously free of disease and, roughly 30% will survive 5 years from diagnosis.[2] For patients who present with primary osteosarcoma and metastases limited to the lungs, multiple metastatic nodules confer a worse prognosis than one or two nodules, and bilateral lung involvement is worse than unilateral.[2] The second most common site of metastasis is another bone that is distant from the primary tumor. Patients with metastasis to other bones distant from the primary tumor experience roughly 10% event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival.[2] In the Italian experience, of the 42 of 1,154 patients who over 16 years presented with primary extremity tumors and synchronous metastasis to other bones, only three patients remained continuously disease-free 5 years later.[3] Previously, noncontiguous involvement in the same bone as the primary tumor (a skip lesion) was felt to confer a prognosis similar to that of distant bony metastasis. Analysis of the German Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group experience suggests that skip lesions do not confer an inferior prognosis if they are included in planned surgical resction and in the same bone.[4] Patients with skip lesions who have transarticular lesions and/or whose tumors respond poorly to neoadjuvant chemotherapy have a significantly lower survival probability than other patients.[4]

Multifocal osteosarcoma is different from osteosarcoma which presents with a clearly delineated primary lesion and limited bone metastasis. Multifocal osteosarcoma classically presents with symmetrical, metaphyseal lesions, and it may be difficult to decide which is the primary lesion. Patients with multifocal bone disease at presentation have an extremely poor prognosis. No patient with synchronous multifocal osteosarcoma has ever been reported to be cured, but systemic chemotherapy and aggressive surgical resection may achieve significant prolongation of life.[5,6]

The most frequently used approach is preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgical ablation of the primary tumor and resection of all overt metastatic disease. This is followed by postoperative combination chemotherapy. The chemotherapeutic agents used include high-dose methotrexate, doxorubicin, cisplatin, high-dose ifosfamide, etoposide, and in some reports, carboplatin or cyclophosphamide. High-dose ifosfamide (17.5 grams per course) in combination with etoposide produced a complete (10%) or partial (49%) response in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic osteosarcoma.[7]

An alternative approach is surgical ablation of the primary tumor and metastases, where possible, followed by combination chemotherapy. This approach may be appropriate in patients with intractable pain, pathologic fracture, or uncontrolled infection of the tumor where initiation of chemotherapy could create risk of sepsis. The chemotherapeutic regimens utilized in the treatment of metastatic osteosarcoma include high-dose methotrexate, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, ifosfamide, etoposide, and carboplatin. For patients with lung metastases as the only site of metastatic disease, a cisplatin (100 mg/m²/day)–containing regimen produced a better EFS than did a carboplatin (560 mg/m²/day)–containing regimen.[8]

Treatment options under clinical evaluation

The Children's Oncology Group, in collaboration with several European groups, has opened a trial in which all patients with sites of metastatic disease amenable to surgical resection receive preoperative therapy with doxorubicin, cisplatin, and high-dose methotrexate. Patients are then divided into the following two strata on the basis of necrosis observed in the resected primary tumor:

  • Favorable histologic response (<10% viable tumor): All patients receive postoperative therapy with the same drugs as those given preoperatively. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive additional therapy with pegylated interferon-alpha-2b.[9]


  • Standard histologic response (10%–100% viable tumor): Patients will be randomly assigned to receive postoperative chemotherapy with the same drugs as those given preoperatively plus or minus additional courses of ifosfamide/etoposide.


Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma of Bone

The treatment for malignant fibrous histiocytoma (MFH) of bone with metastasis at initial presentation is the same as the treatment for osteosarcoma with metastasis. Patients with unresectable or metastatic MFH have a very poor outcome.[10]

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with metastatic osteosarcoma 11 and metastatic childhood malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone 12. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site 10.

References

  1. 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 86 (8): 1602-8, 1999.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Kager L, Zoubek A, Pötschger U, et al.: Primary metastatic osteosarcoma: presentation and outcome of patients treated on neoadjuvant Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group protocols. J Clin Oncol 21 (10): 2011-8, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. Bacci G, Fabbri N, Balladelli A, et al.: Treatment and prognosis for synchronous multifocal osteosarcoma in 42 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88 (8): 1071-5, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. Kager L, Zoubek A, Kastner U, et al.: Skip metastases in osteosarcoma: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group. J Clin Oncol 24 (10): 1535-41, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. Harris MB, Gieser P, Goorin AM, et al.: Treatment of metastatic osteosarcoma at diagnosis: a Pediatric Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 16 (11): 3641-8, 1998.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  6. Longhi A, Fabbri N, Donati D, et al.: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with synchronous multifocal osteosarcoma: results in eleven cases. J Chemother 13 (3): 324-30, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. 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 20 (2): 426-33, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  8. Daw NC, Billups CA, Rodriguez-Galindo C, et al.: Metastatic osteosarcoma. Cancer 106 (2): 403-12, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  9. Müller CR, Smeland S, Bauer HC, et al.: Interferon-alpha as the only adjuvant treatment in high-grade osteosarcoma: long term results of the Karolinska Hospital series. Acta Oncol 44 (5): 475-80, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  10. Daw NC, Billups CA, Pappo AS, et al.: Malignant fibrous histiocytoma and other fibrohistiocytic tumors in pediatric patients: the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital experience. Cancer 97 (11): 2839-47, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Recurrent Osteosarcoma

Most recurrences of osteosarcoma develop within 2 to 3 years after treatment completion. Late recurrences are rare, occurring in 0.6% to 3.7% of patients.[1-3] Recurrence of osteosarcoma is most often in the lung. Patients with recurrent osteosarcoma should be assessed for surgical resectability, as they may sometimes be cured with aggressive surgical resection with or without chemotherapy.[4-9] The ability to achieve a complete resection of recurrent disease is the most important prognostic factor at first relapse, with a 5-year survival rate of 20% to 45% following complete resection of metastatic pulmonary tumors and a 20% survival rate following complete resection of metastases at other sites.[8-11] Repeated resections of pulmonary recurrences can lead to extended disease control and possibly cure for some patients.[11,12] Survival for patients with unresectable metastatic disease is less than 5%.[8,13] Factors that suggest a better outcome include fewer pulmonary nodules, unilateral pulmonary metastases,[14] or longer intervals between primary tumor resection and metastases.[8,10,15] Resection of metastatic disease followed by observation alone results in low overall survival and disease-free survival. Patients with osteosarcoma who develop bone metastases have a poor prognosis. In one large series, the 5-year event-free survival (EFS) rate was 11%.[16] Patients with late solitary bone relapse have a 5-year EFS rate of approximately 30%.[16-18] A high percentage of patients with pulmonary nodules identified in only one lung who underwent staged bilateral thoracotomy were found to have palpable nodules in both lungs that were not visualized on a computed tomography scan. This suggests that patients with unilateral nodules may benefit from bilateral exploration.[14] The postrelapse outcome of patients who have a local recurrence is worse than that for patients who relapse with metastases alone.[19-21]

Two retrospective, single-institution series reported 10% to 40% survival following local recurrence without associated systemic metastasis.[22-25] The survival for patients with local recurrence and either prior or concurrent systemic metastases is poor.[24] The incidence of local relapse was higher in patients who had a poor pathologic response to chemotherapy in the primary tumor and in patients with inadequate surgical margins.[19,23]

The role of systemic chemotherapy is not well defined. The selection of further systemic treatment depends on many factors, including the site of recurrence, the patient’s previous primary treatment, and individual patient considerations. Ifosfamide alone with mesna uroprotection, or in combination with etoposide, has shown activity in as many as one-third of patients with recurrent osteosarcoma who have not previously received this drug.[26-29] Cyclophosphamide and etoposide have activity in recurrent osteosarcoma.[30] Peripheral blood stem cell transplant utilizing high-dose chemotherapy does not appear to improve outcome. High-dose samarium-153-EDTMP coupled with peripheral blood stem cell support may provide significant pain palliation in patients with bone metastases.[31-34] Clinical trials (phases I and II) are appropriate for patients with unresectable metastatic disease and should be considered.

Current Clinical Trials

Check for U.S. clinical trials from NCI's PDQ Cancer Clinical Trials Registry that are now accepting patients with recurrent osteosarcoma 13 and recurrent childhood malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone 14. The list of clinical trials can be further narrowed by location, drug, intervention, and other criteria.

General information about clinical trials is also available from the NCI Web site 10.

References

  1. Strauss SJ, McTiernan A, Whelan JS: Late relapse of osteosarcoma: implications for follow-up and screening. Pediatr Blood Cancer 43 (6): 692-7, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  2. Hauben EI, Bielack S, Grimer R, et al.: Clinico-histologic parameters of osteosarcoma patients with late relapse. Eur J Cancer 42 (4): 460-6, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  3. Ferrari S, Briccoli A, Mercuri M, et al.: Late relapse in osteosarcoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 28 (7): 418-22, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  4. Goorin AM, Shuster JJ, Baker A, et al.: Changing pattern of pulmonary metastases with adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with osteosarcoma: results from the multiinstitutional osteosarcoma study. J Clin Oncol 9 (4): 600-5, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  5. Harting MT, Blakely ML: Management of osteosarcoma pulmonary metastases. Semin Pediatr Surg 15 (1): 25-9, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  6. Pastorino U, Gasparini M, Tavecchio L, et al.: The contribution of salvage surgery to the management of childhood osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 9 (8): 1357-62, 1991.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  7. Skinner KA, Eilber FR, Holmes EC, et al.: Surgical treatment and chemotherapy for pulmonary metastases from osteosarcoma. Arch Surg 127 (9): 1065-70; discussion 1070-1, 1992.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  8. Bacci G, Briccoli A, Longhi A, et al.: Treatment and outcome of recurrent osteosarcoma: experience at Rizzoli in 235 patients initially treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acta Oncol 44 (7): 748-55, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  9. Chou AJ, Merola PR, Wexler LH, et al.: Treatment of osteosarcoma at first recurrence after contemporary therapy: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Cancer 104 (10): 2214-21, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  10. Kempf-Bielack B, Bielack SS, Jürgens H, et al.: Osteosarcoma relapse after combined modality therapy: an analysis of unselected patients in the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS). J Clin Oncol 23 (3): 559-68, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  11. Harting MT, Blakely ML, Jaffe N, et al.: Long-term survival after aggressive resection of pulmonary metastases among children and adolescents with osteosarcoma. J Pediatr Surg 41 (1): 194-9, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  12. Briccoli A, Rocca M, Salone M, et al.: Resection of recurrent pulmonary metastases in patients with osteosarcoma. Cancer 104 (8): 1721-5, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  13. Tabone MD, Kalifa C, Rodary C, et al.: Osteosarcoma recurrences in pediatric patients previously treated with intensive chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 12 (12): 2614-20, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  14. Su WT, Chewning J, Abramson S, et al.: Surgical management and outcome of osteosarcoma patients with unilateral pulmonary metastases. J Pediatr Surg 39 (3): 418-23; discussion 418-23, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  15. Ward WG, Mikaelian K, Dorey F, et al.: Pulmonary metastases of stage IIB extremity osteosarcoma and subsequent pulmonary metastases. J Clin Oncol 12 (9): 1849-58, 1994.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  16. Bacci G, Longhi A, Bertoni F, et al.: Bone metastases in osteosarcoma patients treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy: the Rizzoli experience in 52 patients. Acta Orthop 77 (6): 938-43, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  17. Aung L, Gorlick R, Healey JH, et al.: Metachronous skeletal osteosarcoma in patients treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for nonmetastatic osteosarcoma. J Clin Oncol 21 (2): 342-8, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  18. Jaffe N, Pearson P, Yasko AW, et al.: Single and multiple metachronous osteosarcoma tumors after therapy. Cancer 98 (11): 2457-66, 2003.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  19. Weeden S, Grimer RJ, Cannon SR, et al.: The effect of local recurrence on survival in resected osteosarcoma. Eur J Cancer 37 (1): 39-46, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  20. Bacci G, Ferrari S, Lari S, et al.: Osteosarcoma of the limb. Amputation or limb salvage in patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84 (1): 88-92, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  21. Rodriguez-Galindo C, Shah N, McCarville MB, et al.: Outcome after local recurrence of osteosarcoma: the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital experience (1970-2000). Cancer 100 (9): 1928-35, 2004.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  22. Grimer RJ, Sommerville S, Warnock D, et al.: Management and outcome after local recurrence of osteosarcoma. Eur J Cancer 41 (4): 578-83, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  23. Bacci G, Forni C, Longhi A, et al.: Local recurrence and local control of non-metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities: a 27-year experience in a single institution. J Surg Oncol 96 (2): 118-23, 2007.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  24. Bacci G, Longhi A, Cesari M, et al.: Influence of local recurrence on survival in patients with extremity osteosarcoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: the experience of a single institution with 44 patients. Cancer 106 (12): 2701-6, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  25. Nathan SS, Gorlick R, Bukata S, et al.: Treatment algorithm for locally recurrent osteosarcoma based on local disease-free interval and the presence of lung metastasis. Cancer 107 (7): 1607-16, 2006.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  26. 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 24 (2): 87-92, 1995.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  27. Miser JS, Kinsella TJ, Triche TJ, et al.: Ifosfamide with mesna uroprotection and etoposide: an effective regimen in the treatment of recurrent sarcomas and other tumors of children and young adults. J Clin Oncol 5 (8): 1191-8, 1987.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  28. Kung FH, Pratt CB, Vega RA, et al.: Ifosfamide/etoposide combination in the treatment of recurrent malignant solid tumors of childhood. A Pediatric Oncology Group Phase II study. Cancer 71 (5): 1898-903, 1993.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  29. Berrak SG, Pearson M, Berberoğlu S, et al.: High-dose ifosfamide in relapsed pediatric osteosarcoma: therapeutic effects and renal toxicity. Pediatr Blood Cancer 44 (3): 215-9, 2005.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  30. Rodríguez-Galindo C, Daw NC, Kaste SC, et al.: Treatment of refractory osteosarcoma with fractionated cyclophosphamide and etoposide. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 24 (4): 250-5, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  31. 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 20 (1): 189-96, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  32. Franzius C, Bielack S, Flege S, et al.: High-activity samarium-153-EDTMP therapy followed by autologous peripheral blood stem cell support in unresectable osteosarcoma. Nuklearmedizin 40 (6): 215-20, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  33. Sauerbrey A, Bielack S, Kempf-Bielack B, et al.: High-dose chemotherapy (HDC) and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as salvage therapy for relapsed osteosarcoma. Bone Marrow Transplant 27 (9): 933-7, 2001.  [PUBMED Abstract]

  34. Fagioli F, Aglietta M, Tienghi A, et al.: High-dose chemotherapy in the treatment of relapsed osteosarcoma: an Italian sarcoma group study. J Clin Oncol 20 (8): 2150-6, 2002.  [PUBMED Abstract]

Get More Information From NCI

Call 1-800-4-CANCER

For more information, U.S. residents may call the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Cancer Information Service toll-free at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237) Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Deaf and hard-of-hearing callers with TTY equipment may call 1-800-332-8615. The call is free and a trained Cancer Information Specialist is available to answer your questions.

Chat online

The NCI's LiveHelp® 15 online chat service provides Internet users with the ability to chat online with an Information Specialist. The service is available from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday. Information Specialists can help Internet users find information on NCI Web sites and answer questions about cancer.

Write to us

For more information from the NCI, please write to this address:

NCI Public Inquiries Office
Suite 3036A
6116 Executive Boulevard, MSC8322
Bethesda, MD 20892-8322

Search the NCI Web site

The NCI Web site 16 provides online access to information on cancer, clinical trials, and other Web sites and organizations that offer support and resources for cancer patients and their families. For a quick search, use our “Best Bets” search box in the upper right hand corner of each Web page. The results that are most closely related to your search term will be listed as Best Bets at the top of the list of search results.

There are also many other places to get materials and information about cancer treatment and services. Hospitals in your area may have information about local and regional agencies that have information on finances, getting to and from treatment, receiving care at home, and dealing with problems related to cancer treatment.

Find Publications

The NCI has booklets and other materials for patients, health professionals, and the public. These publications discuss types of cancer, methods of cancer treatment, coping with cancer, and clinical trials. Some publications provide information on tests for cancer, cancer causes and prevention, cancer statistics, and NCI research activities. NCI materials on these and other topics may be ordered online or printed directly from the NCI Publications Locator 17. These materials can also be ordered by telephone from the Cancer Information Service toll-free at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237), TTY at 1-800-332-8615.

Changes to This Summary (11/26/2008)

The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.

Cellular Classification 18

Added Staals et al. as reference 6 19.

More Information

About PDQ

Additional PDQ Summaries

Important:

This information is intended mainly for use by doctors and other health care professionals. If you have questions about this topic, you can ask your doctor, or call the Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).


Table of Links

1http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/pediatric-treatment-board
2http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/levels-evidence-adult-treatment/HealthPr
ofessional
3http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/osteosarcoma/Patient
4http://www.cancer.gov/espanol/pdq/tratamiento/osteosarcoma/HealthProfessional
5http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/supportivecare
6http://cancer.gov/clinicaltrials
7http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/lateeffects/HealthProfessional
8http://www.cancer.gov/Search/ClinicalTrialsLink.aspx?diagnosis=41816&tt=1&a
mp;format=2&cn=1
9http://www.cancer.gov/Search/ClinicalTrialsLink.aspx?diagnosis=570850&tt=1&
amp;format=2&cn=1
10http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials
11http://www.cancer.gov/Search/ClinicalTrialsLink.aspx?diagnosis=41885&tt=1&a
mp;format=2&cn=1
12http://www.cancer.gov/Search/ClinicalTrialsLink.aspx?diagnosis=570842&tt=1&
amp;format=2&cn=1
13http://www.cancer.gov/Search/ClinicalTrialsLink.aspx?diagnosis=38675&tt=1&a
mp;format=2&cn=1
14http://www.cancer.gov/Search/ClinicalTrialsLink.aspx?diagnosis=570846&tt=1&
amp;format=2&cn=1
15https://cissecure.nci.nih.gov/livehelp/welcome.asp
16http://cancer.gov
17https://cissecure.nci.nih.gov/ncipubs
18http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/osteosarcoma/HealthProfessiona
l/8.cdr#Section_8
19http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/osteosarcoma/HealthProfessiona
l/47.cdr#Section_47
20http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/cancerdatabase
21http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/adulttreatment
22http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/pediatrictreatment
23http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/screening
24http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/prevention
25http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/genetics
26http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/cam