Prognostic Factors for Refractory Outcome in Localizing Tumor-induced Osteomalacia (TIO): Experience in a Tertiary Center
Authors' conclusion
Tumors diagnosed within the past decade with clear resection margins had more favorable prognoses. With regards to tumoral factors, baseline biochemistry was uninformative in predicting cure, while bone and/or spine localizations were associated with a refractory outcome.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with tumor-induced osteomalacia diagnosed 1998–2023 who underwent targeted intervention after successful localization
- Participants
- 44 patients
- Exposure
- Prognostic factors for cure vs refractory outcome after targeted intervention for localized TIO
- Curen = 29
- Refractoryn = 15
- Outcome
- Cure (normophosphatemia without supplementation for ≥1 month, maintained at last follow-up)
- Follow-up
- Last
Methodological detailssingle tertiary centre
- Single tertiary centre
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Cure (univariate Cox regression HR for predicting cure)
Hazard ratio (95% CI)P value
Diagnosed after 2013vs Diagnosed before 2013univariate Cox regression
3.43(1.45–8.11)
P = 0.005Negative surgical marginvs Positive/unspecified marginsunivariate Cox regression
2.56(1.20–5.45)
P = 0.015Soft tissue originvs Boneadjusted for year of diagnosis
2.72(1.22–6.09)
P = 0.015Spinevs Nonspineadjusted for year of diagnosis
0.22(0.05–0.96)
P = 0.043Patients
- Achieved cure
- 29
- Refractory outcome
- 15
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Postprocedural FGF23 as biochemical marker of cure
- AUC
- 0.899 (95% CI 0.764-1.00, P < .001)
- Best biochemical marker of cure
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Prognostic Factors for Refractory Outcome in Localizing TIO: Experience in a Tertiary Center. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Published 6 January 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →