Table 2.
Chemotherapy outcomes in PO patients.
| Author | Year | N | Chemotherapy protocol | Indication | NeoA (%) | N > 90% (%) | LR | DM | OS | Second malignancy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unni et al. (1976) | 1976 | 23 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 7 (30%) | 4 (17%) | 65% | 2 (AML and LPS) |
| Bertoni et al. (1982) | 1982 | 20 | NA | NA | 0 | NA | 8 (40%) | 3 (15%) | 10y OS = 85% | |
| Hall et al. (1985) | 1985 | 6 | Adrimaycine / methotrextate + vincristine | NA | 0 | NA | 1 (17%) | 0 | 84% | |
| Ritts et al. (1985) | 1985 | 22 | NA | NA | 0 | NA | 3 (13.6%) | 3 (13.6%) | 10y OS = 71.3% | 2 (AML and LPS) |
| Revell et al. (2002) | 2002 | 17 | Doxorubicin + Cisplatin | High grade or MI | 10 (59%) | 2 (20%) | 1 (6%) | 0 | 88% at last FU | 2 (AML/brain) |
| Grimer et al. (2005) | 2005 | 119 | Doxorubicin-based | NA | 50 (42%) | 10 (32%) | 8 (6.7%) | 17 (14%) | 10y OS = 83% | 3 (AML/colon cancer/ Brain tumor) |
| Rose et al. (2006) | 2006 | 29 | MAP + I (Various) | All patients | 2 (7%) | 0 (2 pts) | NA | NA | NA | |
| Cesari et al. (2011) | 2011 | 33 | MAP + I (Various) | Grade 3 | 5 (15%) | 3 (75%) | 7 (21%) | 3 (9%) | 10y OS = 84% | 3 (AML, breast cancer, MCS) |
| Giulia et al. (2014) | 2014 | 18 | NA | All patients | 16 (89%) | 4 (40%) | 2 (11%) | 4 (22%) | 5y OS = 83.3% | |
| Chan et al. (2018) | 2018 | 18 | NA | HIgh grade | 5 (28%) | 3 (75%) | 1 (5.3%) | 2 (10.5%) | 10y OS = 77% | 1 (MCS) |
OS: Overall survival; DM: Distant metastasis; FU:Follow-up; MI:medulary involvement; LR: local relapse; NeoA (%): neoadjuvant approach; MCS: Mesenchymal Chondrosarcoma; LPS: liposarcoma; AML: acute myeloid leukemia; N: necrosis