Welcome to Journal Of Pakistan Medical Association

Local recurrence of giant cell tumour of bone after intralesional treatment with and without adjuvant therapy, a single institution case series

Rana Dawood Ahmad Khan,Usama Bin Saaed,Muhammad Zain-ur-Rehman,Ajmal Yasin  ( Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Allied Hospital, Punjab Medical College Faisalabad, Pakistan. )

Muhammad Qasim Saeed  ( Graduate Student, Clinical Research Department of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. )

November, 2015


Background: Giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone is generally a benign tumour composed of mononuclear stromal cells and characteristic multinucleated giant cells that exhibit osteoclastic activity. It usually develops in long bones but can occur in unusual locations. The typical appearance is a lytic lesion with a well-defined but non-sclerotic margin that is eccentric in location, extends near the articular surface, and occurs in patients with closed physes.
Objective: The current study was planned to summarise our experiences with GCTB, and to evaluate individual effect of bone cement, high-speed burring and hydrogen per oxide (H2O2) on local recurrence. GCT can mimic or be mimicked by other benign or malignant lesions at both radiological evaluation and histological analysis. In the past, the mainstay of treatment was surgical, primarily consisting of curettage with cement placement, with recurrence rates of 15%-25%. Recurrence is suggested by development of progressive lucency at the cement-bone interface.
Results: Of the 21 patients who started the study, 4(19%) were lost to follow-up, and 17(81%) represented the final study sample. Of them, 16(94.11%) patients underwent the curettage procedure with adjuvant therapy and reconstruction with bone grafts taken from iliac crest. In 3(26.3%) patients, no adjuvant was used. Total of 6 (42.1%) patients had local recurrence and 3(50%) of them were those who were treated without any adjuvant; 2(33.3%) with phenol and 1(16.6%) with PMMA.
Conclusion: The results of the present study suggest that an "aggressive curettage" with the use of adjuvant reduces the recurrence rate in a disease whose aggressiveness is not easy to predict.
Keywords: Bone tumour, Giant cell tumour, Extremity, Surgery, Curettage, Resection, Wide excision. (JPMA 65: S-105 (Suppl. 3); 2015).


Giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is an intermediate, locally aggressive but rarely metastasising tumour, representing 5% of primary bone tumours and 20% of benign bone tumours.1 It occurs mostly between the ages of 30-50 years and rarely arises in the immature skeleton. There is a slight predominance for female patients.1,2 At presentation, 15%-20% of patients have a pathologic fracture due to substantial cortical destruction followed by relatively minor trauma. GCTB is typically seen solitary, mostly located in the meta-epiphyseal region of long bones (85%), but may also occur in the axial skeleton (10%) or occasionally in the small bones of hands and feet (5%).2,3 At the latter location, so-called giant cell lesion of the small bones — a different entity — should be considered.4 Approximately 1%-4% of otherwise conventional patients develop pulmonary metastases.3,5-9 These metastases often have relatively indolent behaviour. Multifocal GCTB is rare, appearing either simultaneously or metachronously. In these presentations, so-called brown tumours associated with hyperparathyroidism should be ruled out by blood biochemistry because they are histologically barely distinguishable from GCTBs. Malignant transformation has been described in less than 1% of all GCTBs and may be either primary (i.e., sarcomatous progression) or, more commonly, secondary (mostly radiation induced).1
The main problem in the management of GCTB is local recurrence after surgical treatment: 27%-65% after isolated curettage;2,3 12%-27% after curettage with adjuvants such as high-speed burr, phenol, liquid nitrogen, or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA);2,10-12 and 0%-12% after en bloc resection.2,13 In clinical practice, the choice of surgical treatment depends mostly on the feasibility of curettage and local adjuvants versus resection, but also in part on the expected risk for local recurrence in each individual patient. Soft tissue extension, for example, is commonly present and increases the risk for local recurrence.14,15 Pathological fractures are also common, and although this does not in itself increase recurrence risk, it may render curettage technically more difficult. In general, the aim for joint preservation is justified, considering the benign but locally aggressive nature, young patient population, and significant complications including need for revision surgery after resection and reconstruction with tumour prostheses.16-19
The current study was planned to summarise our experiences with GCTB, and to evaluate individual effect of bone cement, high-speed burring and hydrogen per oxide (H2O2) on local recurrence.

Materials and Methods

The descriptive case series was conducted at the Department of Orthopaedics, Punjab Medical College, Faisalabad, Pakistan, and affiliated hospitals from July 2011 to June 2014. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were admitted through the outpatient department (OPD) and those lost to follow-up were excluded. Non-probability but purposive sampling technique was used. Risks and benefits were discussed. We analysed the differences in local recurrence rates, functional results, and complications between wide excision and curettage with adjuvant therapy in management of the patients diagnosed with primary lesions after follow-up.
The data collected consisted of clinical notes, operative notes, radiographic images, pathological reports, as well as gross and microscopic imaging. They were asked to sign an informed consent form for surgery and allow the use of data for research purposes. The lesions were graded according to Campanacci et al.6 as Grade I, Grade II, or Grade III. Any pathological fractures were noted. Intra-compartmental or extra-compartmental tumour growth was identified on the basis of preoperative imaging studies, including computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and on the basis of intraoperative findings. The compartmental extension was graded T1 or T2 according to the system of Enneking et al.12,13 and Wolf and Enneking.14 All surgical specimens were reviewed by a consultant pathologist specialising in bone and soft tissue pathology and histologically classified as benign GCT.
For intralesional procedures, a wide cortical window was created to observe the tumour cavity. The tumour tissue was removed with a curette. The borders of the tumour cavity then were cleared away with a high speed burr. The tumour cavity was inspected with a dental mirror or an endoscope to verify the removal of all tumour tissue. Further, 89 per cent phenol was applied in the borders of the cavity with cotton-tipped applicators and then neutralised with alcohol in 16 patients. Finally, the tumour cavity was packed carefully with autologous and/or allogenic bone grafts and PMMA. Procedures in which polymethylmethacrylate packing was combined with bone grafting were subsumed into PMMA treatment groups.
For follow-up, patients were contacted via phone and serial radiographs of primary site and chest were taken every 3-4 months for the first 2 years and every 6 months for the next year and annually thereafter.
Data was analysed via SPSS 19 to find percentages and frequencies of study variables. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate mean and standard deviations.


Of the 21 patients who started the study, 4(19%) were lost to follow-up, and 17(81%) represented the final study sample. Of them, 16(94.11%) patients underwent the curettage procedure with adjuvant therapy and reconstruction with bone grafts taken from iliac crest.

In 3(26.3%) patients, no adjuvant was used. Total of 6 (42.1%) patients had local recurrence and 3(50%) of them were those who were treated without any adjuvant; 2(33.3%) with phenol and 1(16.6%) with PMMA (Table-2).

Using the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society system to evaluate average function,17 the results were 25.56 points for the wide excision group and 25.64 points for the curettage group, respectively.

Intralesional procedures were the most common surgical treatment and of the 16(94%) patients treated with intralesional surgery and PMMA void filling, 7(43.7%) received additional local phenol and alcohol treatment; 3(43%) with PMMA and 4(57%) with phenol alone. Six (37.5%) patients were treated solely with PMMA and no additional adjuvants. Wide resections were performed in 1(5.88%) patient (Figure-3, 4),

Reconstructions after wide resections included arthroplasties 1(5.88%), (Figure-4) The mean interval between surgery and recurrence was 16.3±12.4 months (range: 4-36 months) (Figure-5).


Giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB) is a benign but locally aggressive tumour that usually involves the end of long bone. Its histogenesis remains unclear. It is characterised by a proliferation of mononuclear stromal cells and the presence of many multinucleated giant cells with homogenous distribution. The name giant cell tumour was suggested by Cooper and Travers19 in 1818. Virchow19,20 suggested a malignant potential in 1846. Ne´laton,20 a French doctor, was the first to recognise the similarities of the multinucleated giant cell with osteoclasts in 1860. In 1912, Bloodgood21 reported on the benign nature of GCT. Most of current knowledge of this specific bone tumour has come from Jaffe et al.22
GCT has a significant incidence, accounting for 20% of all benign bone tumours and 5% of all bone tumours.23 Higher incidence has been reported for Chinese population, in which it can be up to 20% of all bone tumours.24 Although some series show a slight female predominance,25 but most support that there is no gender predilection in GCT. GCTB most frequently occurs in young adults between 20 and 40 years of age.26 Occurrence before epiphyseal plate closure is exceptional.27 GCT can be seen in patients over 50 years old. Though less frequent, this disease needs to be included in the differential diagnosis process of a lytic bone lesion.28
Intralesional curettage has been established as the preferred treatment for most GCTs. Wide resection is reserved for tumours with extensive destruction, impossible joint salvage, and when expendable bones like fibular head or distal ulna are affected.14,16,23,27,28 We analysed the recurrence-free survival after treatment of GCT with an emphasis on the impact of surgical approach, adjuvant therapy, tumour presentation and demographic factors on the risk of recurrence.
Similar to previous reports,1,3,6,15,22,28 we found that wide resection was associated with a lower risk of recurrence than intralesional surgery. When intralesional procedures are performed, local adjuvants (PMMA, phenol, H2O2, and cryotherapy) have been reported to improve tumour control.1,3,5,11,28,29 Campanacci et al. showed a rate of recurrence of 27% out of all intralesional procedures, 8% in mariginal excisions and 0% in wide excisions, and 90% of recurrences occurred in the first three years after surgery.29 We found that PMMA's use decreased the risk of local recurrence. Similar risk reductions have been observed by others,1,3,22 and have been attributed to thermal and toxic effects on tumour cells.33 Additionally, PMMA may decrease the risk of collapse and allow for more aggressive tumour removal as a result of its mechanical properties. Considering the importance of thorough tumour removal, this capacity may overshadow the effects of heat-mediated tumour effects; a suggestion that was also made by Gher et al.33 Similar results were reported by Klenke et al.34 in their retrospective study of 46 patients. The use of PMMA with intralesional curettage lowers the recurrence rate from the average of 32% to 14%. The recurrence rates seen for wide resection are near 5-6%, but they entail considerable loss of function. In another series, Klenke et al. reported on the recurrence rates of GCT in 118 patients treated with wide resection and intralesional curettage and the rates are 5% and 25%, respectively. However, they suggested the use of curettage with PMMA, since this procedure lowers the recurrence rate and it provides equivalent tumour control compared to resection.36,40 Phenol is a commonly used adjuvant for GCT treatment. Phenol induces tumour necrosis24,26,37,41 with few adverse effects.. However, tissue penetration is poor and limits tumour necrosis to superficial cell layers.34 Balke et al. found a negligible necrotising effect of phenol and discounted it as an adjuvant after curettage of bone tumours.2,19,21,33 Others have also reported little effect of phenol on recurrence.1,35-38 However, Durr et al. did report decreased local recurrence with the use of phenol.39 We did not find any effect of adjuvant phenol treatment on GCT recurrence. Age at diagnosis independently predicted recurrence regardless of the status of the disease and the aggressiveness of the chosen treatment: recurrence rate decreased as the patient's age increased. The greater risk of young patients having recurrence has been reported [40] and may be associated with increased bone turnover in young people.21,34,40,41 This hypothesis is supported by studies showing inhibition of bone turnover with bisphosphonates reducing the risk of recurrence.7,9,17,43 Other demographic and disease-related variables (gender, location, tumour grade, soft tissue extension, and pathologic fracture) had no influence on local recurrence in our patients. Previous studies have also shown that gender, location, and tumour grade did not influence recurrence.1,3,43 The prognostic relevance of soft tissue expansion and pathological fractures is controversial.1,3,15,22,31,38,40,43 Becker et al. found that the prevalence of soft tissue extension influenced the risk of local recurrence41 and O'Donnell et al. reported that pathological fractures were associated with an increased recurrence rate.43
The aggressiveness of the treatment should be considered when interpreting the correlation of soft tissue expansion or pathological fractures and local recurrence. In tumours with and without pathological fractures, wide resections were performed in 47% and 14%, respectively. Thus, patients with pathological fractures more commonly received resections. In this retrospective study, this may underestimate the risk of recurrence in patients with pathological fractures. The rate of pulmonary metastases in our study patients was 0%, similar to previous studies reporting ranges from 0% to 4%.3,4,8,10,15,20,30,39,42,44 Although GCT is classified as a benign lesion[44] but few patients develop progressive lung metastases with poor outcomes.2,6,44 It is difficult to quantify the real morbidity (physical and emotional) of patients who experience recurrence and require repeat surgery. Based on the results of this study, we recommend intralesional surgery for treating most GCTs; the selection of bone graft versus PMMA remains individualised. Because young age is a risk factor for local recurrence, we favour the use of PMMA in young patients as the best way to minimise recurrence and preserve the native joint. Similarly, when little bone stock remains or for patients with questionable compliance for a limited weight-bearing rehabilitation, methylmethacrylate is favoured for its immediate stability.


The combination of adjuncts (PMMA, burring, H2O2) reduces the likelihood of recurrence compared to curettage alone and therefore should be recommended as the standard treatment. If the tumour reaches close to the articulating surface, a strut/cancellous bone graft can be performed without risking a higher recurrence rate. Use of PMMA as an adjuvant significantly reduces the recurrence rate following intralesional treatment of benign GCT, and it appears to be the therapy of choice for primary as well as recurrent Giant Cell Tumour of Bone.


1. Errani C, Ruggieri P, Asenzio MA, Toscano A, Colangeli S, Rimondi E, et al. Giant cell tumor of the extremity: a review of 349 cases from a single institution. Cancer Treat Rev 2010; 36: 1-7.
2. Balke M, Schremper L, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Koehler G, et al. Giant cell tumor of bone: treatment and outcome of 214 cases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2008; 134: 969-78.
3. Saiz P, Virkus W, Piasecki P, Templeton A, Shott S, Gitelis S. Results of giant cell tumor of bone treated with intralesional excision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 424: 221-6.
4. Turcotte RE, Wunder JS, Isler MH, Bell RS, Schachar N, Masri BA, et al. Giant cell tumor of long bone: a Canadian Sarcoma Group study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 397: 248-58.
5. Niu X, Zhang Q, Hao L, Ding Y, Li Y, Xu H, et al. Giant cell tumor of the extremity: retrospective analysis of 621 Chinese patients from one institution. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: 461-7.
6. Turcotte RE. Giant cell tumor of bone. Orthop Clin North Am 2006; 37: 35-51.
7. Deheshi BM, Jaffer SN, Griffin AM, Ferguson PC, Bell RS, Wunder JS. Joint salvage for pathologic fracture of giant cell tumor of the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 459: 96-104.
8. Fourney DR, Rhines LD, Hentschel SJ, Skibber JM, Wolinsky JP, Weber KL, et al. En bloc resection of primary sacral tumors: classification of surgical approaches and outcome. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 3: 111-22.
9. Lackman RD, Crawford EA, King JJ, Ogilvie CM. Conservative treatment of Campanacci grade III proximal humerus giant cell tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 1355-9.
10. Roeder F, Timke C, Zwicker F, Thieke C, Bischof M, Debus J, et al. Intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in benign giant cell tumors - a single institution case series and a short review of the literature. Radiat Oncol 2010; 5:18. doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-5-18.
11. Ravi V, Wang WL, Lewis VO. Treatment of tenosynovial giant cell tumor and pigmented villonodular synovitis. Curr Opin Oncol 2011; 23: 361-6.
12. Vult von Steyern F, Bauer HC, Trovik C, Kivioja A, Bergh P, Holmberg Jörgensen P, et al. Treatment of local recurrences of giant cell tumour in long bones after curettage and cementing. A Scandinavian Sarcoma Group study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88: 531-5.
13. Mendenhall WM, Zlotecki RA, Scarborough MT, Gibbs CP, Mendenhall NP. Giant cell tumor of bone. Am J Clin Oncol 2006; 29: 96-9.
14. Prosser GH, Baloch KG, Tillman RM, Carter SR, Grimer RJ. Does curettage without adjuvant therapy provide low recurrence rates in giant-cell tumors of bone? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 435: 211-8.
15. Thangaraj R, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Stirling AJ, Spilsbury J, Spooner D. Giant cell tumour of the sacrum: a suggested algorithm for treatment. Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 1189-94.
16. van der Heijden L, Dijkstra PD, van de Sande MA, Kroep JR, Nout RA, van Rijswijk CS, et al. The clinical approach toward giant cell tumor of bone. Oncologist 2014; 19: 550-61.
17. Jawad MU, Scully SP. In brief: classifications in brief: Enneking classification: benign and malignant tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 2000-2.
18. Thomas D, Henshaw R, Skubitz K, Chawla S, Staddon A, Blay JY, et al. Denosumab in patients with giant-cell tumour of bone: an open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 275-80.
19. Balke M, Campanacci L, Gebert C, Picci P, Gibbons M, Taylor R, et al. Bisphosphonate treatment of aggressive primary, recurrent and metastatic Giant Cell Tumour of Bone. BMC Cancer 2010; 10: 462. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-462.
20. Chakarun CJ, Forrester DM, Gottsegen CJ, Patel DB, White EA, Matcuk GR Jr. Giant cell tumor of bone: review, mimics, and new developments in treatment. Radiographics 2013; 33: 197-211.
21. Balke M, Neumann A, Szuhai K, Agelopoulos K, August C, Gosheger G, et al. A short-term in vivo model for giant cell tumor of bone. BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 241. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-241.
22. Gaston CL, Bhumbra R, Watanuki M, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Jeys LM, et al. Does the addition of cement improve the rate of local recurrence after curettage of giant cell tumours in bone? J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93: 1665-9.
23. Janas A, Osica P. Central giant cell granuloma located in the maxilla in a 8-year old boy. Dev Period Med. 2015; 20(2): 189-192. PMID: 26384122
24. Wada T, Kaya M, Nagoya S, Kawaguchi S, Isu K, Yamashita T, et al. Complications associated with bone cementing for the treatment of giant cell tumors of bone. J Orthop Sci 2002; 7: 194-8.
25. Abdelrahman M, Bassiony AA, Shalaby H, Assal MK. Cryosurgery and impaction subchondral bone graft for the treatment of giant cell tumor around the knee. HSS J 2009; 5: 123-8.
26. Gortzak Y, Kandel R, Deheshi B, Werier J, Turcotte RE, Ferguson PC, et al. The efficacy of chemical adjuvants on giant-cell tumour of bone. An in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92: 1475-9.
27. Lin WH, Lan TY, Chen CY, Wu K, Yang RS. Similar local control between phenol- and ethanol-treated giant cell tumors of bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 3200-8.
28. Veth R, Schreuder B, van Beem H, Pruszczynski M, de Rooy J. Cryosurgery in aggressive, benign, and low-grade malignant bone tumours. Lancet Oncol 2005; 6: 25-34.
29. Yanagawa T, Watanabe H, Shinozaki T, Takagishi K. Curettage of benign bone tumors without grafts gives sufficient bone strength. Acta Orthop 2009; 80: 9-13.
30. Suzuki Y, Nishida Y, Yamada Y, Tsukushi S, Sugiura H, Nakashima H, et al. Re-operation results in osteoarthritic change of knee joints in patients with giant cell tumor of bone. Knee 2007; 14: 369-74.
31. Fraquet N, Faizon G, Rosset P, Phillipeau J, Waast D, Gouin F. Long bones giant cells tumors: treatment by curretage and cavity filling cementation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009; 95: 402-6.
32. van der Heijden L, Dijkstra PD, Campanacci DA, Gibbons CL, van de Sande MA. Giant cell tumor with pathologic fracture: should we curette or resect? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 820-9.
33. Balke M, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Koehler G, Winkelmann W, Gosheger G, et al. Treatment options for recurrent giant cell tumors of bone. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2009; 135: 149-58.
34. Klenke FM, Wenger DE, Inwards CY, Rose PS, Sim FH. Recurrent giant cell tumor of long bones: analysis of surgical management. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 1181-7.
35. van der Heijden L, van de Sande MA, Heineken AC, Fiocco M, Nelissen RG, Dijkstra PD. Mid-term outcome after curettage with polymethylmethacrylate for giant cell tumor around the knee: higher risk of radiographic osteoarthritis? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: e159. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00066.
36. Mankin HJ, Hornicek FJ. Treatment of giant cell tumors with allograft transplants: a 30-year study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 439: 144-50.
37. Shi W, Indelicato DJ, Reith J, Smith KB, Morris CG, Scarborough MT, et al. Radiotherapy in the management of giant cell tumor of bone. Am J Clin Oncol 2013; 36: 505-8.
38. Muheremu A, Niu X. Pulmonary metastasis of giant cell tumor of bones. World J Surg Oncol 2014; 12: 261. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-12-261.
39. Kim Y, Nizami S, Goto H, Lee FY. Modern interpretation of giant cell tumor of bone: predominantly osteoclastogenic stromal tumor. Clin Orthop Surg 2012; 4: 107-16.
40. López-Pousa A, Martín Broto J, Garrido T, Vázquez J. Giant cell tumour of bone: new treatments in development. Clin Transl Oncol 2015; 17: 419-30.
41. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Knochentumoren, Becker WT, Dohle J, Bernd L, Braun A, Cserhati M, et al. Local recurrence of giant cell tumor of bone after intralesional treatment with and without adjuvant therapy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 1060-7.
42. Ward WG Sr, Li G 3rd. Customized treatment algorithm for giant cell tumor of bone: report of a series. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 397: 259-70.
43. O'Donnell RJ, Springfield DS, Motwani HK, Ready JE, Gebhardt MC, Mankin HJ. Recurrence of giant-cell tumors of the long bones after curettage and packing with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76: 1827-33.
44. Werner M. Giant cell tumour of bone: morphological, biological and histogenetical aspects. Int Orthop 2006; 30: 484-9.



Research articles conducted on animals, will not be considered for processing or publication in the JPMA.







This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Copyrights © 2015 JPMA- All rights reserved
Powered by: PakCyber