Comparison of the effects of local treatment strategies in non-metastatic Ewing sarcoma of bone

ABSTRACT

Background: To investigate the optimal local treatment strategies for patients with non-metastatic Ewing sarcoma (ES) of bone.

Methods: Patients with ES of bone were identified using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database. Kaplan-Meier log-rank test and Cox regression models were performed to assess the effect of the types of local treatment strategies on cause-specific survival and overall survival.

Results: 560 patients were included with a median age of 16 years. A total of 284, 162 and 114 patients received surgery alone, surgery and radiotherapy, and radiotherapy alone, respectively. The types of local treatment strategies had no effect on survival outcomes in multivariate analysis. In the subgroup analysis of patients with tumor diameter <8 cm, surgery ± radiotherapy had a significantly improved cause-specific survival (P = 0.039), and had potential to improve overall survival (P = 0.070) in multivariate analysis. The local treatment strategies had no effect on survival in patients with different tumor location.

Conclusion: There is no local treatment of choice for non-metastatic ES of bone in terms of survival. More well-designed studies are needed to confirm our findings and investigate the role of various local treatment strategies in relation to primary tumor diameter.

KEYWORDS:

• Ewing sarcoma
• local treatment
• survival
• surgery
• radiotherapy

Author contributions

WTZ, WWZ, QX, and SGW were involved in the conception and design; drafting of the paper; and final approval of the version to be published. SGW, ZYH, JYS, and LZ were involved in acquisition of data; analysis and interpretation of the data. QX and SGW were involved in critical revision of the paper. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This manuscript has not received any funding.