Delay in Diagnosis and Its Effect on Clinical Outcome in High‐grade Sarcoma of Bone: A Referral Oncological Centre Study

Objective

To investigate delay in diagnosis by both patients and doctors, and to evaluate its effect on outcomes of high‐grade sarcoma of bone in a single‐referral oncological center.

Methods

Fifty‐four patients with osteosarcoma, 29 with Ewing sarcoma and 19 with chondrosarcoma were enrolled in this retrospective study. Delay in diagnosis was defined as the period between initial clinical symptoms and histopathological diagnosis at our center. The delays were categorized as patient‐ or doctor‐related. Short total delays were defined as <4 months; prolonged delays >4 months were assumed to have prognostic relevance.

Results

Total delay in diagnosis was 688.0 days in patients with chondrosarcoma, which is significantly longer than the 163.3 days for osteosarcoma (P < 0.01) and 160.2 days for Ewing sarcoma (P < 0.01). Most doctor‐related delays were at the pre‐hospital stage, occurring at the general practitioner (GP)'s office. However, prolonged total delays (≥4 months) did not result in lower survival rates. Five‐year‐overall survival rates were 67.0% for osteosarcoma, 49.0% for Ewing sarcoma and 60.9% for chondrosarcoma. Survival was significantly lower for patients with metastatic disease for all three types of sarcoma.

Conclusion

Prolonged delay in diagnosis does not result in lower survival. Metastatic disease has a pronounced effect on survival. Aggressive tumor behavior results in shorter delays. Minimizing GP‐related delays could be achieved by adopting a lower threshold for obtaining plain radiographs at the pre‐hospital stage.

     

Patient‐Specific Orthopaedic Implants

Patient‐specific orthopaedic implants are emerging as a clinically promising treatment option for a growing number of conditions to better match an individual's anatomy. Patient‐specific implant (PSI) technology aims to reduce overall procedural costs, minimize surgical time, and maximize patient outcomes by achieving better biomechanical implant fit. With this commercially‐available technology, computed tomography or magnetic resonance images can be used in conjunction with specialized computer programs to create preoperative patient‐specific surgical plans and to develop custom cutting guides from 3‐D reconstructed images of patient anatomy. Surgeons can then place these temporary guides or “jigs” during the procedure, allowing them to better recreate the exact resections of the computer‐generated surgical plan. Over the past decade, patient‐specific implants have seen increased use in orthopaedics and they have been widely indicated in total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, and corrective osteotomies. Patient‐specific implants have also been explored for use in total shoulder arthroplasty and spinal surgery. Despite their increasing popularity, significant support for PSI use in orthopaedics has been lacking in the literature and it is currently uncertain whether the theoretical biomechanical advantages of patient‐specific orthopaedic implants carry true advantages in surgical outcomes when compared to standard procedures. The purpose of this review was to assess the current status of patient‐specific orthopaedic implants, to explore their future direction, and to summarize any comparative published studies that measure definitive surgical characteristics of patient‐specific orthopaedic implant use such as patient outcomes, biomechanical implant alignment, surgical cost, patient blood loss, or patient recovery.     

False‐positive Extra‐Mammary Findings in Breast MRI: Another Cause for Concern

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been repeatedly shown to have a high false‐positive rate for additional findings in the breast resulting in additional breast imaging and biopsies. We hypothesize that breast MRI is also associated with a high rate of false‐positive findings outside of the breast requiring additional evaluation, interventions, and delays in treatment. We performed a retrospective review of all breast MRIs performed on breast cancer patients in 2010 at a single institution. MRI reports were analyzed for extra‐mammary findings. The timing and yield of the additional procedures was also analyzed. Three hundred and twenty‐seven breast cancer patients (average age = 53.53 ± 11.08 years) had a breast MRI. Incidental, extra‐mammary findings were reported in 35/327 patients (10.7%) with a total of 38 incidental findings. The extra‐mammary findings were located in the liver (n = 21, 60.0%), thoracic cavity (n = 12, 34.3%), kidneys (n = 1, 2.9%), musculoskeletal system (n = 3, 8.6%), and neck (n = 1, 2.9%). Eighteen of the 35 patients (51.4%) received additional radiographic imaging, 3 (8.6%) received additional laboratory testing, 2 (5.7%) received additional physician referrals and 2 (5.7%) received a biopsy of the finding. The average time to additional procedures in these patients was 14.5 days. None of the incidental, extra‐mammary findings were associated with breast cancer or other malignancy. Breast MRI was associated with a high rate (10.7%) of extra‐mammary findings, which led to costly additional imaging studies, referrals, and tests. These findings were not associated with breast cancer or other malignancies. Extra‐mammary findings highlight an unrecognized adverse consequence of breast MRI.     

Is there an Upgrading to Malignancy at Surgery of Mucocele‐Like Lesions Diagnosed on Percutaneous Breast Biopsy?

Management of pure mucocele‐like lesion (MLL) diagnosed on percutaneous breast biopsy (PBB) is controversial. To assess surgical upgrade rate and clinical outcome of pure MLL obtained as sole diagnosis on PBB. Patients diagnosed with a MLL as the most advanced lesion on PBB from April 1997 to December 2010 were reviewed for radiologic presentation, biopsy technique, and pathologic and clinical outcomes. Of the 21,340 image‐guided PBB performed during the study period, 50 women with 51 MLL (0.24%) were identified. Mean age was 53.1 ± 7.7 years. Radiologic findings were mostly microcalcifications (n = 47, 92.2%). Stereotactic PBB was performed for 49 lesions (96.1%). Surgery was performed shortly after biopsy in 35 women, with benign final pathology in 33, and upgrade to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in two patients (2/35, 5.7%). Mean follow‐up was 4.2 ± 2.5 years (3.7 ± 2.1 years for surgical patients; 5.9 ± 2.9 years for follow‐up only patients); three women were lost to follow‐up (3/50). Three invasive cancers (3/47, 6.4%) were diagnosed 1.2, 1.2, and 2.8 years after biopsy: two in surgical patients, and one in a follow‐up only patient. No cancer occurred at the same site as the original MLL. Pure MLL lesion of the breast is a rare entity and is mostly associated with a benign outcome. We observed an upgrade to DCIS slightly superior to 5%, but no invasive cancer. It is therefore unclear if these lesions should be excised or clinically and radiologically followed up when such lesions are found at PBB.     

Comparative Diagnostic Utility of Low‐Dose Breast‐Specific Gamma Imaging to Current Clinical Standard

To retrospectively compare low‐dose (7–10 mCi) to high‐dose (15–30 mCi) breast‐specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in the detection of breast cancer. A retrospective review of 223 consecutive women who underwent BSGI exam between February 2011 and August 2013 with subsequent pathologic analysis was performed. Women were divided into low‐dose and high‐dose groups. The results of BSGI and pathology were compared, and the sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were determined. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate specificity using benign follow‐up imaging to establish true‐negative results. There were 223 women who met inclusion criteria with 109 patients with 153 lesions in the low‐dose group and 114 patients with 145 lesions in the high‐dose group. Pathologic correlation demonstrates sensitivities of 97.6% (95% CI = 90.9–99.6%) and 94.6% (95% CI = 84.2–98.6%; p = 0.093), PPVs of 62.1% (95% CI = 53.2–70.3%) and 50.5% (95% CI = 40.6–60.3%, p = 0.089), and NPVs of 90.5% (95% CI = 68.2–98.3%) and 92.5% (95% CI = 78.5–98.0%, p = 0.781) in the low‐dose and high‐dose groups, respectively. Subgroup analysis included 72 patients with 98 lesions in the low‐dose group and 116 patients with 132 lesions in the high‐dose group, with a specificity of 53.7% (95% CI = 39.7–67.1%) and 66.3% (95% CI = 56.2–75.2%%, p = 0.143), respectively. Low‐dose BSGI demonstrated high sensitivity and NPV in the detection of breast cancer comparable to the current standard dose BSGI, with moderate specificity and PPV in a limited subgroup analysis, which was associated with a substantial number of false‐positives.