↓ Skip to main content

Survival in Mesenchymal Chondrosarcoma Varies Based on Age and Tumor Location: A Survival Analysis of the SEER Database

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Survival in Mesenchymal Chondrosarcoma Varies Based on Age and Tumor Location: A Survival Analysis of the SEER Database
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4779-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian A. Schneiderman, Stephanie A. Kliethermes, Lukas M. Nystrom

Abstract

Studies suggest that mesenchymal chondrosarcoma is associated with a poorer prognosis and a higher proportion of extraskeletal tumors than conventional chondrosarcoma. However, these investigations have been small heterogeneous cohorts, limiting analysis of prognostic factors. (1) What is the 5- and 10-year survival rate of patients diagnosed with mesenchymal chondrosarcoma? (2) What is the effect of demographic and tumor characteristics on survival in patients with mesenchymal chondrosarcoma? The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to identify all patients diagnosed with mesenchymal chondrosarcoma from 1973 to 2011. SEER reports survival data on over 8.2 million patients with cancer and has attained 98% completeness in reporting. Using variables within the database, this study designated each patient's tumor as skeletal or extraskeletal and cranial, axial, or appendicular, respectively. Overall survival (OS) was determined for the entire series as well as each group. Median survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine whether demographic and tumor variables affected survival. Two hundred five patients with mesenchymal chondrosarcoma were identified, including 82 (40%) skeletal and 123 (60%) extraskeletal. OS for the entire series was 51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43%-58%) and 43% (95% CI, 35%-51%) at 5 and 10 years, respectively. No difference in OS was detected between extraskeletal and skeletal tumors. Kaplan-Meier analyses showed OS was worse for tumors in axial locations compared with appendicular and cranial locations. Appendicular tumors demonstrated an OS of 50% (95% CI, 36%-63%) at 5 years and 39% (95% CI, 26%-52%) at 10 years. OS for axial tumors was 37% (95% CI, 25%-49%) and 31% (95% CI, 20%-43%), whereas it was 74% (95% CI, 59%-84%) and 67% (95% CI, 50%-79%) for cranial tumors at 5 and 10 years, respectively. When controlling for age, sex, tumor origin, and tumor location, the presence of metastasis (hazard ratio [HR], 12.38; 95% CI, 5.75-26.65; p < 0.001) and 1-cm size increase (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.23; p < 0.001) were both independently associated with an increased risk of death. Tumor location showed different behaviors depending on patient age. In comparison to cranial tumors at age 20 years, the HR was 5.56 (95% CI, 1.47-21.05; p = 0.01) for axial tumors and 6.26 (95% CI, 1.54-25.42; p = 0.01) for appendicular tumors. At age 60 years, those ratios were 0.10 (95% CI, 0.02-0.55; p = 0.01) and 0.14 (95% CI, 0.04-0.58; p = 0.01), respectively. Our data suggest that extraskeletal tumors are more common than previously reported; however, this factor does not have clear prognostic value. Presence of metastatic disease and increased tumor size are the main predictors of poor survival outcome. Cranial tumors appear to have a different clinical behavior with our data suggesting better overall survival in young patients (compared with axial and appendicular locations) and a worse survival outcome in older patients. Level IV, prognostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,345,186
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,495
of 7,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,823
of 318,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#86
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.