Osteosarcoma of head and neck: A retrospective study on prognostic factors from a single institute database

Chen, Yiming; Shen, Qiang; Gokavarapu, Sandhya; Lin, Chengzhong; Yahiya,; Cao, Wei; Chauhan, Shubhra; Liu, Zheqi; Ji, Tong; Tian, Zhen

doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2016.04.008

Cited by 40 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, tumor size ≥5 cm, positive surgical resection margin, local recurrence, and distant metastasis were poor prognostic factors. Most studies have shown better prognosis in mandibular osteosarcoma than in osteosarcoma in other locations in the head and neck region . Similar results were found in our cohort of patients ( P < 0.01 for OS, P = 0.05 for DSS).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Most studies have shown better prognosis in mandibular osteosarcoma than in osteosarcoma in other locations in the head and neck region. 10,19,[24][25][26][27][28] Similar results were found in our cohort of patients (P < 0.01 for OS, P = 0.05 for DSS). Tumor size was regarded as another important survival factor in an analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) by Smith et al 24 Other studies did not show tumor size as a prognostic factor.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Similar results were found in our cohort of patients ( P < 0.01 for OS, P = 0.05 for DSS). Tumor size was regarded as another important survival factor in an analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) by Smith et al Other studies did not show tumor size as a prognostic factor . These contradictory conclusions may contribute to the different cutoff points of tumor size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tumor size was regarded as another important survival factor in an analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) by Smith et al 24 Other studies did not show tumor size as a prognostic factor. 25,28 These contradictory conclusions may contribute to the different cutoff points of tumor size. In the present study, tumor size was divided by those <5 cm and ≥5 cm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An individual patient data meta‐analysis on the effect of chemotherapy on survival in patients with craniofacial osteosarcoma

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemotherapy improves the survival of patients with long bone osteosarcomas. However, the benefits of chemotherapy in the treatment of craniofacial osteosarcoma (CFOS) are still controversial. We searched PubMed and EMBASE from February 1997 to December 2016 to identify studies on CFOS. The individual patient data of these studies were pooled into a meta‐analysis. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed. Thirteen studies with a total of 184 patients met our inclusion criteria. Positive resection margin was a poor prognostic factor for CFOS in the univariate and multivariate survival analyses. Chemotherapy improved overall survival (OS) and disease‐specific survival (DSS) in patients with CFOS who had tumors in the maxilla, positive resection margins, or high‐grade tumors. Patients with local tumor recurrence had better OS and DSS when treated with chemotherapy. Chemotherapy improves survival in patients with CFOS with adverse factors, such as tumors with positive margins, high‐grade tumors, and recurrent tumors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An individual patient data meta‐analysis on the effect of chemotherapy on survival in patients with craniofacial osteosarcoma

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance of surgical resection of BSs with clear margins has been emphasized in the paper of Chen et al 26 Regarding the target resection margin, some groups advocate a 3cm macroscopic margin. 8 In conventional trunk and extremities osteosarcomas, most studies suggest that a 2cm macroscopic margin is adequate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Head and neck sarcomas: A single institute series

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Head and neck osteosarcomas: Analysis of treatment trends and survival outcomes in the United States (2004–2016)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Head and neck osteosarcoma (HNOS) is a rare primary bone tumor with limited data to guide treatment approaches. Methods The NCDB was used to identify patients diagnosed with HNOS. Kaplan–Meier and Cox multivariate regression were used to examine the impact of each treatment on overall survival (OS). Results We identified 821 patients diagnosed with HNOS. Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy + surgery increased from zero cases in 2004 to 24% of cases in 2016. Among surgically treated patients, 5‐year OS was 55.8% (CI: 51.7–60.1%). No difference was seen in OS between each treatment cohort on multivariate analysis. However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy + surgery + adjuvant chemotherapy had improved 18‐month survival compared to surgery alone (95.8% vs. 78.5%, p = 0.031). Conclusions Our study demonstrated no survival benefit in perioperative chemotherapy or radiation therapy; however, short‐term survival improvement in patients receiving both neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy displays promise and requires further investigation.

show abstract

Osteosarcoma of head and neck: A retrospective study on prognostic factors from a single institute database

Cited by 40 publications

References 20 publications

An individual patient data meta‐analysis on the effect of chemotherapy on survival in patients with craniofacial osteosarcoma

An individual patient data meta‐analysis on the effect of chemotherapy on survival in patients with craniofacial osteosarcoma

Head and neck sarcomas: A single institute series

Head and neck osteosarcomas: Analysis of treatment trends and survival outcomes in the United States (2004–2016)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About