Background: Aseptic complications such as stress shielding leading to bone loss are major problems associated with revision of cemented and uncemented long-stem tumor endoprostheses. Endoprosthetic reconstruction using compressive osseointegration fixation is a relatively new limb salvage technology designed to enhance osseointegration, prevent stress shielding, and provide fixation for short end-segments.

Background: Metastatic disease to the acetabulum presents a difficult technical and philosophical challenge: complicated surgeries in patients with often short life expectancies force us to examine both the outcome and cost of these operations. Therefore, we studied the durability of a cement-screw rebar reconstruction technique and risk factors for failure, and we compare the results to other reconstruction options. Methods: This is a retrospective review of 52 acetabular reconstructions in 50 patients for nonprimary disease using a retrograde screw-rebar-cement all-polyethylene technique. Mean age was 57 years (range 25–81 years). Twenty-four lesions were classified as Harrington class II; 28 were Harrington class III. Mean follow-up was 17.7 months (range 1–92 months). Outcomes included patient survival, prosthesis survival, and complications. Results: Forty-eight of 50 (96 %) patients ambulated after surgery. Five of 52 (9.6 %) of prostheses failed, three from loosening due to tumor progression, one from aseptic loosening, and one from soft tissue instability (dislocation). The three cases of tumor progression failure occurred in patients with massive preoperative ischial tumor burden. Mean surgical time was 198 min, and hospital stay was 5.2 days. Discussion: The screw-cement-rebar all-polyethylene cup reconstruction technique is a comparatively successful and inexpensive reconstruction option for treating nonprimary oncologic disease in the acetabulum. All cases of loosening occurred beyond the median patient survival. Surgeons should be wary of massive ischial tumor burden in patients with projected longevity, as it may be associated with implant failure. Surgical time and hospital stay are consistent with historical data for alternative implants, and implant cost is lower.

Synovial sarcomas are aggressive soft-tissue malignancies that express chromosomal translocation-generated fusion genes, SS18-SSX1 or SS18-SSX2 in most cases. Here, we report a mouse sarcoma model expressing SS18-SSX1, complementing our prior model expressing SS18-SSX2. Exome sequencing identified no recurrent secondary mutations in tumors of either genotype. Most of the few mutations identified in single tumors were present in genes that were minimally or not expressed in any of the tumors. Chromosome 6, either entirely or around the fusion gene expression locus, demonstrated a copy number gain in a majority of tumors of both genotypes. Thus, by fusion oncogene coding sequence alone, SS18-SSX1 and SS18-SSX2 can each drive comparable synovial sarcomagenesis, independent from other genetic drivers. SS18-SSX1 and SS18-SSX2 tumor transcriptomes demonstrated very few consistent differences overall. In direct tumorigenesis comparisons, SS18-SSX2 was slightly more sarcomagenic than SS18-SSX1, but equivalent in its generation of biphasic histologic features. Meta-analysis of human synovial sarcoma patient series identified two tumor-gentoype-phenotype correlations that were not modeled by the mice, namely a scarcity of male hosts and biphasic histologic features among SS18-SSX2 tumors. Re-analysis of human SS18-SSX1 and SS18-SSX2 tumor transcriptomes demonstrated very few consistent differences, but highlighted increased native SSX2 expression in SS18-SSX1 tumors. This suggests that the translocated locus may drive genotype-phenotype differences more than the coding sequence of the fusion gene created. Two possible roles for native SSX2 in synovial sarcomagenesis are explored. Thus, even specific partial failures of mouse genetic modeling can be instructive to human tumor biology.