En bloc resection of primary tumors of the cervical spine: report of two cases and systematic review of the literature
Survival data and rates of recurrence after en bloc resection for cervical spinal tumors are limited to single case reports and small case series, making the true risk of recurrence after this procedure unknown.
To report two cases of cervical chordoma managed via en bloc resection. To conduct a systematic review of the existing literature to determine the overall incidence of disease-free survival and investigate potential prognostic factors of recurrence.
Case report and systematic review.
We present the cases of a 60-year-old woman and a 76-year-old man who underwent en bloc resection of C3-C6 and C2 chordomas, respectively. A complete MEDLINE search was then undertaken for all articles reporting survival data for en bloc resections of primary tumors of the cervical spine. Exclusion criteria included non-English articles, lack of explicit mention or description of en bloc technique, age less than 16, no demographic or survival information reported, and follow-up less than 1 month. Survivorship analysis was conducted, and Kaplan-Meier plots were created with the primary outcome of interest being any tumor recurrence.
A total of 10 articles comprising 18 cases were included for analysis with a mean follow-up of 47.4+/-41.5 months. Mean operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospitalization were 18.6 hours, 2.9L, and 34.6 days, respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in eight of the nine patients in which these data were reported. There were three cases of local recurrence, occurring at 12, 44, and 113 months, and one case of distant metastasis, occurring at 12 months postoperatively. With the available data, 1- and 5-year disease-free survival rates of 88.2% and 73.5% were calculated. On Cox proportional hazards analysis, no factors were found to be predictive of recurrence.
In this systematic review of the literature, en bloc resection provided good disease-free survival rates in patients with primary tumors of the cervical spine. However, there are insufficient data on long-term subjective outcomes in these patients, and larger series are needed to determine the efficacy compared with piecemeal resection techniques. Other investigators should be encouraged to publish their results so that combined analyses like these may be performed with larger sample sizes.
Available from: Mitsumasa Hayashida
- "Therefore, an en bloc resection, if possible, is now recommended for many primary tumors of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine. However, in cases affecting the cervical spine, the proximity of the vertebral arteries, the complex bony structure, and the importance of the cervical nerve roots prevent the use of an ideal en bloc resection . In the present case, total en bloc resection of the tumor was practically impossible because of the bilateral tumor invasion into the C2 pedicle, so tumor curettage was performed. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma (DDCS) is a rare and aggressive bone tumor with poor prognosis. Primary DDCS of the mobile spine is extremely rare, particularly in the cervical spine. We herein describe a first case of cervical DDCS in an 81-year-old male presenting with a slowly growing mass. Radiographs showed an expansion of the cortical contour of the C2 lamina and a soft tissue mass with punctate calcification. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a lobulated lesion expanding over the entire lamina and pedicles of C2 with the tumor protuberant to the adjacent soft tissue. A complete tumor resection was performed. Histologically, the majority of the tumor was a low-grade chondrosarcoma component. However, atypical spindle cells that had proliferated in a fascicular pattern with a collagenous stroma, mimicking fibrosarcoma, were focally observed without a transitional zone, and these features confirmed that the tumor was DDCS.
World Journal of Surgical Oncology 02/2013; 11(1):32. DOI:10.1186/1477-7819-11-32 · 1.41 Impact Factor
Available from: thejns.org
Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 10/2002; 97(3):386-392. DOI:10.3171/spi.2002.97.3.0386 · 2.38 Impact Factor
Journal of Hepatology 01/2008; 48. DOI:10.1016/S0168-8278(08)60818-1 · 11.34 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.