AbstractBackgroundThe care of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with bone sarcomas involves unique challenges. The objectives of this study were to identify challenges and evaluate long‐term outcomes of these patients from India who received treatment with novel protocols.MethodsThis prospective cohort study included AYA patients (aged 15–39 years) with osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma (ES), who were treated uniformly at the authors' institute using unique protocols (OGS‐12 and EFT‐2001) from 2011 to 2021 and from 2013 to 2018, respectively.ResultsThe cohorts included 688 of 748 (91.9%) treatment‐naive AYA patients with osteosarcoma and 126 of 142 (88.7%) treatment‐naive AYA patients with ES. Among 481 of 561 patients (85.7%) who had nonmetastatic osteosarcoma treated according to protocol, at a median follow‐up of 59.7 months, the 5‐year event‐free survival (5‐EFS) rate was 58.6% (95% confidence interval, 54.1%–63.5%) and for 142 patients (20.6%) who had metastatic osteosarcoma, the 5‐EFS rate was 18.7%. The 5‐EFS rate was 66.4% and 21.9% for 104 patients (73%) with nonmetastatic ES and 38 patients (27%) with metastatic ES, respectively. Treatment‐naive patients had better outcomes, similar to compliance in the form of protocol completion (hazard ratio, 1.93 [p = .0043] and 2.66 [p < .0001], respectively. Only 230 of 377 (61.0%) male patients and 10 of 134 (7.4%) female patients reached out to fertility specialists. In addition, 17 of 161 (10.6%) eligible male survivors and 14 of 61 (22.9%) eligible female survivors got married posttreatment. Furthermore, 14 of 17 (82.4%) males and 14 of 14 (100%) females conceived. Among 311 patients who were working or attending school during diagnosis, greater than 90% had interruptions.ConclusionsHomogenous treatment with the OGS‐12 and EFT‐2001 protocols resulted in internationally comparable long‐term outcomes in the cohorts with nonmetastatic and metastatic AYA bone sarcomas. Treatment compliance, timely referral to sarcoma reference centers (avoiding prior inadvertent treatment), and streamlining fertility‐preservation practices constitute unmet needs that demand prioritization.