Comparing the Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Osteosarcoma Patients

<i>Background</i>: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy has been a mainstay of many osteosarcoma treatment protocols. However, the overall survival (OS) benefit over surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy is unclear. <i>Aims</i>: This study therefore directly compares the outcomes among these treatment groups using a large population in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). <i>Methods</i>: In a retrospective cross-sectional study, osteosarcoma patients in the NCDB (2004-2019) were stratified based on chemotherapy and surgery timing (neoadjuvant and adjuvant vs adjuvant-only chemotherapy). We used Kaplan-Meier curves to compare OS in the unmatched population and in a propensity score matched cohort that controlled for demographics, treatment, and tumor characteristic differences. Univariate and multivariate analyses were also used to predict the likelihood of positive margins among the population. Chi-square tests were used to compare 30- and 90-day mortality among treatment groups. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. <i>Results</i>: The study population included 4,659 patients: 3,733 neoadjuvant and 926 adjuvant-only chemotherapy regimens. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy had significantly longer survival in the unmatched analysis (p<0.001), but this difference narrowed when controlling for covariates in the matched cohort (p=0.67). Mortality at 30 and 90 days was insignificant between treatment groups in both the full and matched cohorts (p=0.3 and p=0.9 respectively). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens predominated with over 75% utilization, but this rate remained constant during the 15-year study period. Three- and five-year survival rates were relatively unchanged during this period at 75% and 62.5% respectively. Factors significantly associated with positive margins in the multivariate analysis included adjuvant-only chemotherapy (OR=1.6, p<0.001), older age (OR=1.01, p<0.001), female sex (OR=1.27, p=0.04), adjuvant radiation (OR=4.96, p<0.001), and stage IVB tumors (OR=2.11, p<0.001). <i>Conclusions</i>: These results indicate that neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase overall or short-term survival compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone in our study. However, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with fewer positive margins at the time of surgery. These insights offer information to help clinicians evaluate osteosarcoma treatment regimens to maximize outcomes and limit treatment morbidity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Cancer Treatment and Research
Published
2025-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jctr.20251301.12
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparing the Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Osteosarcoma Patients

Davinder Mand, Kyle W Blackburn, Russell A. Ward, Luke J. Dotson et al.
1 citations
Journal of Cancer Treatment and Research
Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
1.52
article

Comparing the Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Osteosarcoma Patients

Davinder Mand, Kyle W Blackburn, Russell A. Ward, Luke J. Dotson, Rashmi Agarwal, Trevor Trudeau
article en
1 citations

Abstract

<i>Background</i>: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and subsequent adjuvant chemotherapy has been a mainstay of many osteosarcoma treatment protocols. However, the overall survival (OS) benefit over surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy is unclear. <i>Aims</i>: This study therefore directly compares the outcomes among these treatment groups using a large population in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). <i>Methods</i>: In a retrospective cross-sectional study, osteosarcoma patients in the NCDB (2004-2019) were stratified based on chemotherapy and surgery timing (neoadjuvant and adjuvant vs adjuvant-only chemotherapy). We used Kaplan-Meier curves to compare OS in the unmatched population and in a propensity score matched cohort that controlled for demographics, treatment, and tumor characteristic differences. Univariate and multivariate analyses were also used to predict the likelihood of positive margins among the population. Chi-square tests were used to compare 30- and 90-day mortality among treatment groups. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. <i>Results</i>: The study population included 4,659 patients: 3,733 neoadjuvant and 926 adjuvant-only chemotherapy regimens. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy had significantly longer survival in the unmatched analysis (p<0.001), but this difference narrowed when controlling for covariates in the matched cohort (p=0.67). Mortality at 30 and 90 days was insignificant between treatment groups in both the full and matched cohorts (p=0.3 and p=0.9 respectively). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens predominated with over 75% utilization, but this rate remained constant during the 15-year study period. Three- and five-year survival rates were relatively unchanged during this period at 75% and 62.5% respectively. Factors significantly associated with positive margins in the multivariate analysis included adjuvant-only chemotherapy (OR=1.6, p<0.001), older age (OR=1.01, p<0.001), female sex (OR=1.27, p=0.04), adjuvant radiation (OR=4.96, p<0.001), and stage IVB tumors (OR=2.11, p<0.001). <i>Conclusions</i>: These results indicate that neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not increase overall or short-term survival compared to adjuvant chemotherapy alone in our study. However, neoadjuvant therapy was associated with fewer positive margins at the time of surgery. These insights offer information to help clinicians evaluate osteosarcoma treatment regimens to maximize outcomes and limit treatment morbidity.

Journal of Cancer Treatment and ResearchVol. 13(1)
Baylor College of Medicine (US), Baylor Scott & White Health (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Sarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
1.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.