Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35814640›Full record

ArticleSarcoma2022

Malignant Transformation of Giant Cell Tumor of Bone and the Association with Denosumab Treatment: A Radiology and Pathology Perspective.

K van Langevelde, A H G Cleven, A Navas Cañete, L van der Heijden, M A J van de Sande, H Gelderblom, J V M G Bovée

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sarcoma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Denosumab Induces Neoplastic Stromal Cell ApoptosisCurrent cancer drug targets · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K van LangeveldeDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8871-9081
A H G ClevenDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3672-4348
A Navas CañeteDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5952-5210
L van der HeijdenDepartment of Orthopedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4440-793X
M A J van de SandeDepartment of Orthopedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9156-7656
H GelderblomDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9270-8636
J V M G BovéeDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1155-0481
Leiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Malignancy in giant cell tumor of bone (mGCTB) is categorized as primary (concomitantly with conventional GCTB) or secondary (after radiotherapy or other treatment). Denosumab therapy has been suggested to play a role in the etiology of secondary mGCTB. In this case series from a tertiary referral sarcoma center, we aimed to find distinctive features for malignant transformation in GCTB on different imaging modalities. Furthermore, we assessed the duration of denosumab treatment and lag time to the development of malignancy. Methods: From a histopathology database search, 6 patients were pathologically confirmed as having initial conventional GCTB and subsequently with secondary mGCTB. Results: At the time of mGCTB diagnosis, 2 cases were treated with denosumab only, 2 with denosumab and surgery, 1 with multiple curettages and radiotherapy, and 1 with surgery only. In the 4 denosumab treated patients, the mean lag time to malignant transformation was 7 months (range 2-11 months). Imaging findings suspicious of malignant transformation related to denosumab therapy are the absence of fibro-osseous matrix formation and absent neocortex formation on CT, and stable or even increased size of the soft tissue component. Conclusion: In 4 patients treated with denosumab, secondary mGCTB occurred within the first year after initiation of treatment. Radiotherapy-associated mGCTB has a longer lag time than denosumab-associated mGCTB. Close clinical and imaging follow-up during the first months of denosumab therapy is key, as mGCTB tends to have rapid aggressive behavior, similar to other high-grade sarcomas. Nonresponders should be (re) evaluated for their primary diagnosis of conventional GCTB.

Identifiers

PMID35814640
PMCPMC9262566
OpenAlexW4283079463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.