Skip to main content

Table 6 Studies reporting the result of non-surgical treatments excluding radiotherapy in sacral giant cell tumor

From: Intralesional nerve-sparing surgery versus non-surgical treatment for giant cell tumor of the sacrum

First author, year of publication

Tumor level

Campanacci stage

Number of patients

Response

Follow-up (months)

Functional outcome

Complications

Denosumab combined with embolization

Ji, 2017 [3]

S1–4

Stage 3: 100%

1

Stable: 100%

31

Asymptomatic: 100%

None

Puri, 2020 [15]

S1: 77%; S2: 15%; S3: 8%

Stage 3: 100%

12

Stable: 42%; Progression: 58%

Mean 49

10 patients (83%) were asymptomatic. The patient with loss of bladder control at presentation recovered.

Foot drop: 17%

Embolization

Chuang, 1981 [33]

NR

NR

3

Response: 67%

Mean 34

2 patients (67%) recovered from pain

Foot drop: 33%, Foot numbness: 33%

Hosalkar, 2007 [34]

Above S3: 0%; at or below S3: 0%; in both parts: 100%

stage 2: 67%; stage 3: 33%

9

Partial response: 78%; progression: 22%

Mean 108

Mean MSTS 29

NR

Lackman, 2002 [35]

NR

NR

4

Stable: 50%; progression: 50%

Mean 80

All the patients (100%) recovered from pain.

NR

Lin, 2002 [36]

Above S3: 50%, at or below S3: 33%, in both parts: 17%

NR

17

Partial response: 82%; progression: 18%

Median 105

14 patients (73%) recovered from pain and neurologic symptoms.

Foot drop: 12%, Foot numbness: 6%; Malignant transformation due to RT: 12%

Nakanishi, 2013 [37]

NR

NR

4

Partial response: 75%; progression: 25%

Mean 78

Mean MSTS increased from 28% preoperatively to 90% postoperatively.

Foot drop: 25%

Bisphosphonate

Balke, 2010 [38]

NR

NR

9 (3 patients underwent surgery; 1 received interferon therapy, 2 received RT, 7 underwent embolization)

Partial response: 11%; stable: 67%; progression: 22%

Mean 24

NR

None

  1. NR, not reported; RT, radiotherapy; MSTS, musculoskeletal tumor society