Imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma in typical and atypical sites: Long term follow up.

PURPOSE: To assess efficacy and safety of imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of Osteoid Osteoma (OO) in both typical and atypical sites. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between January 2014 and March 2019, 102 consecutive percutaneous RFA were performed and retrospectively reviewed. The procedures were performed using a RFA bipolar ablation system (Covidien, exposed tip of 0.7-1cm), under Computed Tomography (CT) guidance or using a navigation system (Masmec) under CT and Cone Beam CT (CBCT) guidance. Patients were followed up over 24 months. Clinical success and recurrences were considered on the base of established criteria. In patients with clinical failure and/or imaging evidence of relapse, retreatment was considered. RESULTS: Administered power per-procedure was ≤8 W (mean temperature, 90°C). The pre-procedure average value of visual analog scale (VAS) was 8.33+/-0.91. Primary and secondary success rate 96.08% (98/102) and100% (102/102), respectively. No major complication was described. Technical success was proved in every patient by CT scan acquisition after needle positioning. Relapse and tumour location were significantly correlated (p-value = 0.0165). The mean dose-length product was 751.55 mGycm2. Advanced bone healing was noted in 68 lesions after 1y-follow up and in 86 lesions after 2y-follow up. CONCLUSION: Imaging-guided percutaneous RFA is a highly effective technique for OO, both in typical and atypical sites. CT or CBCT guidance, navigation systems and operator experience grant the technical success, which is the most crucial parameter affecting outcome.

What Proportion of Patients with Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors Contracted Coronavirus-19 and Died From Surgical Procedures During the Initial Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic? Results From the Multicenter British Orthopaedic Oncology Society Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Delivering uninterrupted cancer treatment to patients with musculoskeletal tumors has been essential during the rapidly evolving coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, as delays in management can be detrimental. Currently, the risk of contracting COVID-19 in hospitals when admitted for surgery and the susceptibility due to adjuvant therapies and associated mortality due to COVID-19 is unknown, but knowledge of these potential risks would help treating clinicians provide appropriate cancer care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the risk of hospital-acquired COVID-19 in patients with musculoskeletal tumors admitted for surgery during the initial period of the pandemic? (2) What is the associated mortality in patients with musculoskeletal tumors who have contracted COVID-19? (3) Are patients with musculoskeletal tumors who have had neoadjuvant therapy (chemotherapy or radiation) preoperatively at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19? (4) Is a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade in patients with musculoskeletal tumors associated with an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 when admitted to the hospital for surgery? METHODS: This retrospective, observational study analyzed patients with musculoskeletal tumors who underwent surgery in one of eight specialist centers in the United Kingdom, which included the five designated cancer centers in England, one specialist soft tissue sarcoma center, and two centers from Scotland between March 12, 2020 and May 20, 2020. A total of 347 patients were included, with a median (range) age of 53 years (10 to 94); 60% (207 of 347) were men, and the median ASA grade was II (I to IV). These patients had a median hospital stay of 8 days (0 to 53). Eighteen percent (61 of 347) of patients had received neoadjuvant therapy (8% [27] chemotherapy, 8% [28] radiation, 2% [6] chemotherapy and radiation) preoperatively. The decision to undergo surgery was made in adherence with United Kingdom National Health Service and national orthopaedic oncology guidelines, but specific data with regard to the number of patients within each category are not known. Fifty-nine percent (204 of 347) were negative in PCR testing done 48 hours before the surgical procedure; the remaining 41% (143 of 347) were treated before preoperative PCR testing was made mandatory, but these patients were asymptomatic. All patients were followed for 30 days postoperatively, and none were lost to follow-up during that period. The primary outcome of the study was contracting COVID-19 in the hospital after admission. The secondary outcome was associated mortality after contracting COVID-19 within 30 days of the surgical procedure. In addition, we assessed whether there is any association between ASA grade or neoadjuvant treatment and the chances of contracting COVID-19 in the hospital. Electronic patient record system and simple descriptive statistics were used to analyze both outcomes. RESULTS: Four percent (12 of 347) of patients contracted COVID-19 in the hospital, and 1% (4 of 347) of patients died because of COVID-19-related complications. Patients with musculoskeletal tumors who contracted COVID-19 had increased mortality compared with patients who were asymptomatic or tested negative (odds ratio 55.33 [95% CI 10.60 to 289.01]; p < 0.001).With the numbers we had, we could not show that adjuvant therapy had any association with contracting COVID-19 while in the hospital (OR 0.94 [95% CI 0.20 to 4.38]; p = 0.93). Increased ASA grade was associated with an increased likelihood of contracting COVID-19 (OR 58 [95% CI 5 to 626]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results show that surgeons must be mindful and inform patients that those with musculoskeletal tumors are at risk of contracting COVID-19 while admitted to the hospital and some may succumb to it. Hospital administrators and governmental agencies should be aware that operations on patients with lower ASA grade appear to have lower risk and should consider restructuring service delivery to ensure that procedures are performed in designated COVID-19-restricted sites. These measures may reduce the likelihood of patients contracting the virus in the hospital, although we cannot confirm a benefit from this study. Future studies should seek to identify factors influencing these outcomes and also compare surgical complications in those patients with and without COVID-19. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Musculoskeletal oncology: patient triage and management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sarcoma treatment during the covid-19 pandemic is a new challenge. This patient population is often immunocompromised and potentially more susceptible to viral complications. Government guidelines highlight the need to minimize patient exposure to unnecessary hospital visits. However, those guidelines lack practical recommendations on ways to manage triage and diagnosis expressly for new cancer patients. Furthermore, there are no reports on the efficiency of the guidelines. One of the main issues in treating musculoskeletal tumours is the complexity and variability of presentation. We offer a triage model, used in a quaternary-referral musculoskeletal oncology centre, that allows us to maintain an open pathway for referral of new patients while minimizing exposure risks. A multidisciplinary approach and analysis of existing investigations allow for a pre-clinic evaluation. The model identifies 3 groups of patients: ■ Patients with suspected high-grade malignancy, or benign cases with aggressive features, both in need of further evaluation in the clinic and prompt treatment■ Patients with low-grade malignancy, and benign cases whose treatment is not urgent, that are managed during the pandemic by telemedicine, with reassurance and information about their illness■ Patients who can be managed by their local medical professionals In comparison to a pre-pandemic period, that approach resulted in a higher ratio of malignant-to-benign conditions for new patients seen in the clinic (3:4 vs. 1:3 respectively), thus using available resources more efficiently and prioritizing patients with suspected high-grade malignancy. We believe that this triage system could be applied in other surgical oncology fields during a pandemic.

Will virtual multidisciplinary team meetings become the norm for musculoskeletal oncology care following the COVID-19 pandemic? - experience from a tertiary sarcoma centre.

BACKGROUND: Like with all cancers, multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the norm in bone and soft tissue tumour (BST) management too. Problem in attendance of specialists due to geographical location is the one of the key barriers to effective functioning of MDTs. To overcome this problem, virtual MDTs involving videoconferencing or telemedicine have been proposed, but however this has been seldom used and tested. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the implementation of virtual MDTs in the Oxford sarcoma service in order to maintain normal service provision. We conducted a survey among the participants to evaluate its efficacy. METHODS: An online questionnaire comprising of 24 questions organised into 4 sections was circulated among all participants of the MDT after completion of 8 virtual MDTs. Opinions were sought comparing virtual MDTs to the conventional face-to-face MDTs on various aspects. A total of 36 responses were received and were evaluated. RESULTS: 72.8% were satisfied with the depth of discussion in virtual MDTs and 83.3% felt that the decision-making in diagnosis had not changed following the switch from face-to-face MDTs. About 86% reported to have all essential patient data was available to make decisions and 88.9% were satisfied with the time for discussion of patient issues over virtual platform. Three-fourths of the participants were satisfied (36.1% - highly satisfied; 38.9% - moderately satisfied) with virtual MDTs and 55.6% of them were happy to attend MDTs only by the virtual platform in the future. Regarding future, 77.8% of the participants opined that virtual MDTs would be the future of cancer care and an overwhelming majority (91.7%) felt that the present exercise would serve as a precursor to global MDTs involving specialists from abroad in the future. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the forced switch to virtual MDTs in sarcoma care following the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic to be a viable and effective alternative to conventional face-to-face MDTs. With effective and efficient software in place, virtual MDTs would also facilitate in forming extended MDTs in seeking opinions on complex cases from specialists abroad and can expand cancer care globally.

Radical change in osteosarcoma surgical plan due to COVID-19 pandemic.

A 17-year-old man with osteosarcoma of the proximal humerus was planned for possible limb salvage surgery after standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, during the surgical phase of treatment, the COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) outbreak occurred changing the healthcare landscape due to uncertainty regarding the virus, risk of COVID-19 infection and complications, and implementation of an enhanced community quarantine restricting movement of people within cities. Instead of limb salvage surgery, the patient underwent a forequarter amputation. Exposure to the virus in a high-risk hospital setting was minimised with patient discharge after a short hospital stay and home convalescence monitored by video conferencing. Multidisciplinary sarcoma team meetings with family members and a sarcoma navigator nurse were crucial in managing expectations and deciding on appropriate treatment in the setting of a novel infectious disease causing a pandemic.