Background: Recent clinical studies have suggested that denosumab is associated with tumor response and reduced surgical morbidity in patients with giant-cell tumor of bone (GCTB). We therefore evaluated the recurrence-free survival rate of patients who had GCTB in an extremity and were treated with surgery and denosumab, to determine the influence of denosumab and clinical factors on the risk of local recurrence. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients treated for GCTB in an extremity in a single institution from 1990 through 2013. Two hundred and forty-seven patients underwent curettage (intralesional surgery) with a high-speed burr, and 161 underwent resection. Phenol adjuvant was used in 221 of the 247 patients who had curettage. We also reviewed the medical records of 30 patients treated surgically (25 with curettage and 5 with resection) and with denosumab from 2010 through 2013 and compared their clinical results with 378 historical control subjects. The overall minimum duration of follow-up was 24 months. Results: The local recurrence rates were 60% (15) of 25 patients treated with curettage and denosumab and 16% (36) of 222 patients treated with curettage alone. The joint preservation rates were 80% (20) of 25 patients treated with curettage and denosumab and 94% (209) of 222 patients treated with curettage alone. Univariate and multivariable analyses showed that denosumab was the only independent factor associated with a poor prognosis when recurrence-free survival and joint preservation were considered. The overall median duration of follow-up was 85.6 months (interquartile range, 54.3 to 125.1 months). Viable tumor was present in all 30 specimens from patients treated with denosumab. Conclusions: There was a higher rate of recurrence in the cohort exposed to denosumab. Because there were substantial differences in the cohorts and randomization was not applied, however, causation could not be evaluated. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: A musculoskeletal tumor biopsy can involve fine needle aspiration, core needle biopsy, or incisional biopsy. Controversy regarding the diagnostic yield of these biopsy techniques continues. The purpose of this article is to summarize the current concepts in the biopsy of musculoskeletal tumors. Methods: We performed a literature review of clinical articles reporting on the biopsy of bone and soft-tissue primary tumors. Clinical articles were excluded on the basis on abstract content if they represented case reports, review or opinion articles, or technique descriptions. Eighteen of the thirty-nine articles that remained were excluded because the results did not indicate the diagnostic accuracy of the various biopsy techniques. Thus, twenty-one articles with diagnostic data on the biopsy of bone and soft-tissue tumors were included in this review. Results: Core needle biopsy appeared to be more accurate than fine needle aspiration, and incisional biopsy appeared to be more accurate than both of these techniques, but the differences did not reach significance. Incisional biopsy was more expensive than the percutaneous biopsy methods. In deep musculoskeletal tumors, incorporation of ultrasonography or computed tomography for guidance is easy and safe and can be useful for increasing the accuracy of the biopsy. Advantages of a percutaneous technique compared with an incisional one are the low risk of contamination and the minimally invasive nature. Certain anatomic locations and histologic types were associated with diagnostic difficulty. Vertebral tumors had the lowest diagnostic accuracy regardless of the biopsy technique. Myxoid, infection, and round cell histologies were associated with the lowest diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: The current literature has not clarified the optimal biopsy technique for the diagnosis of bone and soft-tissue tumors. However, core needle biopsy is usually preferable to incisional biopsy because of the low risk of contamination and the low cost. In addition, the use of imaging guidance increases the diagnostic accuracy of musculoskeletal biopsies and reduces the risk of complications. If the result of a percutaneous biopsy is nondiagnostic, a small incisional biopsy should be performed. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.