ABSTRACT Background Osteosarcoma is a primary bone malignancy with a known bimodal age distribution. However, epidemiological patterns based on precise primary anatomical sites are not well characterized. This population‐based study analyzed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to compare the incidence and clinical features of central‐site versus peripheral‐site osteosarcoma across different age groups. Aims This study aimed to compare the incidence characteristics of peripheral and central‐site osteosarcoma (OS) and to explore the impact of different primary sites on the prognosis of patients with OS. Methods Patients diagnosed with OS (1975–2019) were selected from the SEER databases. The different primary sites, diagnosis time, and incidence of OS were described statistically. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for clinical characteristics and treatment. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to compare overall survival and CSS of peripheral and central‐site OS before and after matching. Univariate and multivariate Cox models were used to investigate prognostic factors for CSS in both groups. Results A total of 3129 patients were included (899/28.73% central‐site OS, 2166/69.22% peripheral‐site OS, 64/2.05% other‐site OS). After PSM, central‐site OS had lower overall survival and CSS than peripheral‐site OS (5‐year overall survival, 0.415 vs. 0.468; 5‐year CSS, 0.454 vs. 0.555). Multivariate analysis revealed that age ( p = 0.010), primary site ( p = 0.039), historical SEER stage (regional, p = 0.012; distant, p < 0.001), histologic grade (grade III, p = 0.014; grade IV, p = 0.009), surgery ( p < 0.001), and radiotherapy ( p = 0.005) were significant factors for CSS. Subgroup analyses adjusting for these factors showed better CSS in peripheral‐site OS patients. Conclusions The incidence of central‐site OS is lower than that of peripheral‐site OS, while the prognosis of patients with peripheral‐site OS is more favorable than that of patients with central‐site OS. Surgical intervention is a cornerstone in the management of OS and is effective for both central‐site and peripheral‐site OS.
Wang et al. (Sun,) studied this question.