Similar Local Control between Phenol- and Ethanol-treated Giant Cell Tumors of Bone

Department of Orthopedics, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsinchu Branch, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.77). 07/2011; 469(11):3200-8. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1962-3
Source: PubMed


Giant cell tumors (GCTs) of bone often are treated with curettage, adjuvant therapy, and cementation. Phenol is a commonly used adjuvant associated with local control rates ranging from 9% to 25%. However, it is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. Ethanol is readily available and does not cause chemical burns on contact, but it is unclear whether ethanol can achieve similar local control rates as phenol for treating GCTs.
We evaluated (1) the recurrence rate and recurrence-free Kaplan-Meier survival function, (2) Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) functional score (1993 version), and (3) complications of two groups of patients with GCTs treated with extensive curettage, local adjuvant therapy with phenol or ethanol, and cement reconstruction, to determine if ethanol was a reasonable alternative to phenol.
We retrospectively reviewed all 26 patients with GCTs in the long bones of extremities treated with curettage, high-speed burring, phenolization, and cementation between May 1995 and November 2001, and 35 patients treated with the same protocol, except phenol was replaced with 95% ethanol, between November 2001 and November 2007. The recurrence rates, Kaplan-Meier recurrence-free survival curves, and MSTS functional scores of these two treatment groups were compared with Fisher's exact test, Tarone-Ware test, and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. The minimum followup was 36 months (mean, 58 months; range, 36-156 months).
Local recurrence rates were similar in the two groups: 11% in the ethanol group and 12% in the phenol group. The survival curves (using local recurrence as an endpoint) of the two groups were similar. The mean MSTS functional score was 27.3 (91%) for the ethanol group and 26.9 (90%) for the phenol group.
Ethanol is a reasonable alternative to phenol when adjuvant therapy is considered in the treatment of GCTs of long bones.
Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Download full-text


Available from: Wei-Hsin Lin, Sep 17, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Giant cell tumor (GCT) of bone is one type of giant cell-rich lesion of bone. This benign mesenchymal tumor has characteristic multinuclear giant cells. Mononuclear stromal cells are the physiologically active and diagnostic cell type. Most GCTs are located in the epiphyseal regions of long bones. The axial skeleton-primarily the sacrum-is a secondary site of involvement. Most patients present with pain, swelling, joint effusion, and disability in the third and fourth decades of life. Imaging studies are important for tumor staging and radiographic grading. Typically, these clinically active but slow-growing tumors are confined to bone, with relatively well-defined radiographic borders. Monostotic disease is most common. Metastatic spread to the lungs is rare. Extended intralesional curettage with or without adjuvant therapy is the primary treatment choice. Local recurrence is seen in ≤20% of cases, and a second local intralesional procedure is typically sufficient in cases that are detected early. Medical therapies include diphosphonates and denosumab. Denosumab has been approved for use in osteoporosis as well as breast and prostate cancer metastatic to bone. Medical therapy and radiotherapy can alter the management of GCT of bone, especially in multifocal disease, local recurrences, and bulky central/axial disease.
    The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 02/2013; 21(2):118-26. DOI:10.5435/JAAOS-21-02-118 · 2.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Local adjuvant treatment of giant cell tumours (GCTs) of the bone with phenol has led to a significant reduction in recurrence rates. In the current study, the optimal phenol concentration and duration of intralesional exposure were evaluated. Specimens of GCTs were exposed to various concentrations of phenol solution (6, 60 and 80%) for either 1 or 3 min. Following embedding in glutaraldehyde, the tumour cell layers were examined by transmission electron microscopy. Destroyed cell organelles indicated the penetration depth as a sign of denaturation. Incubation of GCT specimens with 6% phenol solution for 3 min resulted in the most tissue damage and the deepest tissue penetration of ∼200 μm. Incubation with 60 and 80% phenol solution reached a penetration depth of only ∼100 μm. Phenol instillation may be used for the treatment of small scattered cellular debris following intralesional curettage; however, it is not suitable for treatment of remaining solid tumour tissue of GCT. The use of high phenol concentrations has no benefit and increases the risk of local or systemic intoxication.
    Oncology letters 05/2013; 5(5):1595-1598. DOI:10.3892/ol.2013.1244 · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been suggested that, when a patient has a giant cell tumor, subchondral bone involvement close to articular cartilage and a hyperthermic reaction from polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) are risk factors for the development of osteoarthritis. We determined the prevalence, risk factors, and clinical relevance of osteoarthritis on radiographs after curettage and application of PMMA for the treatment of giant cell tumors around the knee. This retrospective single-center study included fifty-three patients with giant cell tumor around the knee treated with curettage and PMMA between 1987 and 2007. The median age at the time of follow-up was forty-two years (range, twenty-three to seventy years). There were twenty-nine women. Radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis was defined, preoperatively and postoperatively, as Kellgren and Lawrence grade 3 or 4 (KL3-4). We studied the influence of age, sex, tumor-cartilage distance, subchondral bone involvement (≤3 mm of residual subchondral bone), subchondral bone-grafting, intra-articular fracture, multiple curettage procedures, and complications on progression to KL3-4. Functional outcomes and quality of life were assessed with the Short Form-36 (SF-36), Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). After a median duration of follow-up of eighty-six months (range, sixty to 285 months), six patients (11%) had progression to KL3, two (4%) had progression to KL4, and one had preexistent KL4. No patient underwent total knee replacement. The hazard ratio for KL3-4 was 9.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.0 to 41; p = 0.004) when >70% of the subchondral bone was affected and 4.2 (95% CI = 0.84 to 21; p = 0.081) when the tumor-cartilage distance was ≤3 mm. Age, sex, subchondral bone-grafting, intra-articular fracture, multiple curettage procedures, and complications did not affect progression to KL3-4. Patients with KL3-4 reported lower scores on the KOOS symptom subscale (58 versus 82; p = 0.01), but their scores on the other KOOS subscales, the MSTS score (21 versus 24), and the SF-36 (76 versus 81) were similar to those for the patients with KL0, 1, or 2 (KL0-2). Seventeen percent of patients with giant cell tumor around the knee had radiographic findings of osteoarthritis after treatment with curettage and PMMA. A large amount of subchondral bone involvement close to articular cartilage increased the risk for osteoarthritis. The function and quality of life of the patients with KL3-4 were comparable with those for the patients with KL0-2, suggesting that radiographic findings of osteoarthritis at the time of intermediate follow-up had a modest clinical impact. Treatment with curettage and PMMA is safe for primary and recurrent giant cell tumors, even large tumors close to the joint. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 11/2013; 95(21):e1591-10. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.M.00066 · 5.28 Impact Factor
Show more