Bone sarcoma incidence in the Netherlands

Goedhart, Louren M; Ho, Vincent K.Y.; Dijkstra, Sander; Schreuder, H.W.B.; Schaap, Gerard R.; Ploegmakers, Joris J. W.; Geest, I.C.M. van der; Sande, Michiel A. J. van de; Bramer, Jos A. M.; Suurmeijer, Albert; Jutte, Paul C.

doi:10.1016/j.canep.2019.03.002

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 7 In the Netherlands, a study found that the incidence of chondrosarcoma was 0.15 per 100,000 the osteosarcoma incidence was 0.25 per 100,000 and the Ewing sarcoma incidence was 0.15 per 100,000. 8 In Brazil, the median incidence rate of bone cancer was 5.74 per 1,000,000 among children and 11.25 per 1,000,000 among adolescents. 9 In Taiwan, an overall incidence of 6.70 per 1,000,000 person-years was detected for bone sarcomas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary bone sarcomas in KSA: A Saudi tumor registry review

Aljuhani

Alanazi

Alghafees

2021

Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The geographical incidence of tumours is usually influenced by the environment, race, and culture. This study aimed to report the incidence and differences in tumour type, site of origin, and mortality across gender, regions, age, and the different characteristics of tumour types. Methods This retrospective cohort study included all patients diagnosed with primary bone sarcomas from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017. Frequencies and percentages were generated for categorical variables. Means and standard deviations were calculated for quantitative variables. A chi-squared test was used to detect differences among categorical variables. Student-t, ANOVA, and Tukey tests were used to detect differences among quantitative variables. Lastly, we calculated the incidence of each tumour type. Results Of 451 patients, 248 (55%) had osteosarcomas; 160 (35.5%) had Ewing's sarcoma, and 43 (9.5%) had chondrosarcoma. The incidence was 1.56 cases per 1,000,000 per year for osteosarcoma, 0.95 cases per 1,000,000 per year for Ewing's sarcoma, and 0.27 cases per million per year for chondrosarcoma. The three-year survival rate was 82.30%. Significant differences in tumour type, origin site, and three-year survival across age and gender were detected. Similarly, significant differences were also noted in origin site, grade, basis of diagnosis, and lateralisation across tumour types. Conclusions In our study, the observed bone sarcoma incidence rates were lower than the ones reported worldwide. Understanding the pattern of tumour behaviour in the region will help develop a risk and response-based treatment plan for early decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary bone sarcomas in KSA: A Saudi tumor registry review

Aljuhani

Alanazi

Alghafees

2021

Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At an earlier stage, comprehensive incidence estimates were published for all the main primary bone sarcomas in the Netherlands 8 . These incidences for high-grade chondrosarcoma (0.15 per 100,000 European Standardized Rate (ESR)), high-grade central osteosarcoma (0.25 per 100,000 ESR), and Ewing sarcoma (0.15 per 100,000 ESR) are relatively low compared to other cancer types.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further differences are seen in terms of patient adherence to bone sarcoma centers due to centralization of care. Based on a single study, treatment in a bone sarcoma center was associated with higher survival for high-grade osteosarcoma patients 8 . However, this association was not seen for high-grade chondrosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organization of Bone Sarcoma Care: A Cross‐Sectional European Study

Goedhart

Leithner

Jutte

2020

Orthopaedic Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess organization of care in several bone sarcoma centers in Europe affiliated with the European Musculoskeletal Oncology Society (EMSOS) for comparison and to identify potential improvements in organization of care. Methods Data for this observational cross‐sectional study was obtained through healthcare professionals affiliated to EMSOS. The authors formulated 10 questions regarding organization of care. The questions were focused on guidance, multidisciplinary decision‐making, and data storage. A digital questionnaire was synthesized and included quality control. The digital questionnaire was sent to 54 representative members of EMSOS. We did not receive responses from 29 representative countries (53.7%) after one digital invitation and two digital reminders. Results We received data from 25 representatives of bone sarcoma centers from 17 countries across Europe (46.3%). Authorization to perform oncological care in a bone sarcoma center was government issued in 41.2% of cases and based on expertise without governmental influence in 52.9% of cases. In 64.7% of the countries, a national bone tumor guideline regarding for diagnosis and treatment is used in oncological care. A national bone tumor board for extensive case evaluation including classification and advice for treatment is available for 47.1% of the countries. All participating bone sarcoma centers have a mandatory local multidisciplinary meeting before the start of treatment; in 84.0% this meeting takes place once a week. During this multidisciplinary meeting a median of 15 cases (range, 4–40 cases) are discussed. In terms of storage of oncological data, a local registry is used in eight countries (47.1%). A national registry is used in eight countries (47.1%). Conclusions A national bone tumor board gives bone sarcoma centers with little adherence the opportunity to gain knowledge from a more experienced team. Centralization of care in a bone sarcoma center is important to lower incidences. The optimal size for a bone sarcoma center in terms of patient adherence is not known at present.

show abstract

“…Sarcoma, presenting as either bone or soft‐tissue sarcomas are uncommon malignancies with an incidence close to 17 000 cases annually in the United States, of which about one in eight are located in the upper extremity (UE) 1‐4 . These tumors can occur in patients of any age, with some histologic types having a peak incidence in children and adolescents (e.g., rhabdomyosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma) and others having a peak incidence in older adults (e.g., liposarcoma) 5‐8 . These malignancies cause significant morbidity and mortality due to their aggressive nature and the proximity to neurovascular structures when they occur in the UEs 9,10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long‐term patient‐reported outcome measures following limb salvage with complex reconstruction or amputation in the treatment of upper extremity sarcoma

Hoftiezer

Lans

Heijden

et al. 2021

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives This study compares long‐term patient‐reported outcomes between patients that underwent limb‐salvage surgery with complex reconstruction by free or pedicled flap (LS) or amputation. Additionally, the need for revision surgery is compared. Methods A total of 43 patients were studied at a median follow‐up of 9.54 years. Sixteen patients completed questionnaires regarding functional outcome and mental wellbeing. Functional outcomes were measured by using the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), QuickDASH, and PROMIS Upper Extremity instruments. Mental wellbeing was assessed using the PROMIS Anxiety and Depression instruments. Revision surgery was assessed for the entire follow‐up. Results The median TESS scores were 96.0 versus 71.7 (p = 0.034) and the PROMIS Upper Extremity scores were 50.1 versus 40.3 (p = 0.039) for the LS and amputation cohorts, respectively. No significant difference was found regarding symptoms of anxiety (52.7 vs. 53.8; p = 0.587) or depression (52.0 vs. 50.5; p = 0.745). Of the patients in the LS cohort 51.6% required at least one reoperation compared to 8.33% in the amputation cohort. Conclusions LS surgery maintains functional benefits over amputation after almost a decade of follow‐up. Still, mental wellbeing seems to be comparable between these patients, whereas LS procedures are associated with a sixfold increased need for reoperations.

show abstract

Bone sarcoma incidence in the Netherlands

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Primary bone sarcomas in KSA: A Saudi tumor registry review

Primary bone sarcomas in KSA: A Saudi tumor registry review

Organization of Bone Sarcoma Care: A Cross‐Sectional European Study

Long‐term patient‐reported outcome measures following limb salvage with complex reconstruction or amputation in the treatment of upper extremity sarcoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About