Letter to the Editor: “Reinforced cementoplasty for pelvic tumour lesions and pelvic traumatic fractures: preliminary experience”

by Hongyu Zhu, Ling Ye (zerodq_hx@163.com)

Reinforced cementoplasty for pelvic tumour lesions and pelvic traumatic fractures: preliminary experience

Dear Editor in Chief,

We have read the recently published European Radiology article by Al Raaisi et al: Reinforced cementoplasty for pelvic tumour lesions and pelvic traumatic fractures: preliminary experience [1] with great interest. However, we have some doubts regarding this study.

Firstly, the difference between RC and percutaneous cementation was not mentioned. We thought they were the same thing at first. Then, we find that they are mentioned together, but the difference between them was not explained in the article.

Secondly, is it necessary to include three patients who have undergone percutaneous cementoplasty with poor effect and the RC as second-line treatment?

Thirdly, it is mentioned in the article that the patients have carried out additional anti-tumor treatment for the metastatic site. We would like to know whether the anti-tumor treatment methods are the same, and if they are different, whether the influencing factors (such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, particle implantation, etc.) should be included to analysis.

Fourthly, will there be bias if the operator who performed the RC evaluate the clinical outcomes?

Fifthly, because of the particularity of tumor patients, a significant number of patients lost to the follow-up at 6 months. Should the follow-up data at 3 months can be added and can analyze the ECOG grading scale statistically?

In summary, this study by Al Raaisi et al was a great and clinically significant work focusing on a new method for pelvic tumour lesions and pelvic traumatic fractures. We look forward to your reply. Thank you.