Experts' agreement on therapy for bone metastases.
Du Zhi-Ye,Zang Jie,Tang Xiao-Dong,Guo Wei,null null
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-7861.2010.00095.x
2010-01-01
Orthopaedic Surgery
Abstract:After lung and liver, the skeleton is the third most frequent site to which malignant tumors metastasize. About 70%–80% patients with malignant tumor will eventually develop bone metastasis, the incidence being 35–40 times that of primary bone tumor, making bone metastasis a very common problem for the orthopedist. Bone metastases typically present with destruction of multiple bones and have a high incidence rate in middle-aged to elderly patients with a male-to-female ratio of 3:1. Spine, pelvis and the metaphyses of long bones are common locations. Frequent clinical manifestations include: (i) pain (50%–90%); (ii) pathological fracture (5%–40%); (iii) hypercalcemia (10%–20%); (iv) symptoms of spinal instability and spinal cord or nerve compression (<10%); and (v) bone marrow suppression (<10%). Cancers from breast, prostate, lung, thyroid gland, and kidney account for more than 80% of all skeletal metastases1 (Table 1). A high proportion (65%–75%) of patients with breast cancer develop bony metastases depends upon the fairly good prognosis. Thus a relatively aggressive treatment strategy should be adopted because patients with breast cancer have a 2-year median survival even after the development of bony metastases. With the characteristics of osteogenic metastatic focus in a high proportion of patients and prostatic specific antigen (PSA) providing an important clinical parameter, prostate cancer also has a high incidence of bony metastases, the incidence being similar to that of breast cancer. Most patients with early-stage prostate cancer have a favorable prognosis thanks to its hormone-dependence. Patients with lung cancer have a 30%–40% incidence of bone metastasis and a fairly poor prognosis, with an approximate one-year survival rate of 5%. Bone metastasis from renal cancer has a high incidence, 25% of patients with renal cancer developing bony metastases. Preventive internal fixation for bone metastasis from renal cancer should be adopted with a positive attitude, because metastatic foci resolve spontaneously in some of these patients after removal of the primary tumor. Thyroid carcinoma is also prone to bony metastases, serious bone destruction by osteolytic lesions and a high incidence of pathological fracture occurring commonly. In patients with bone metastasis from thyroid carcinoma, pathological fractures can be prevented by preventive internal fixation and there is a favorable prognosis when such surgery is combined with postoperative internal radiation by 131I or radiotherapy. There are three types of radiographic appearance of metastatic bone lesions, namely osteolytic, osteoblastic and mixed lytic-sclerotic. The majority have an osteolytic appearance, the bone defects having a moth-eaten or geographical appearance with unclear boundaries, irregular margins, non-sclerotic rims and no periosteal reaction. Punctate, flake-like or even dentin-like hyperdense lesions can be found in osteoblastic metastases with disordered, thickened, coarse bone trabeculae and, in some instances, an increased volume of bone. Both osteolytic and osteoblastic characteristics can be found in bony metastases of mixed lytic-sclerotic type. The tumor size, extent of invasion and relationship to adjacent tissue or organs can be defined precisely and effectively by CT and MRI. The radionuclide bone scan is extremely significant in the diagnosis of metastatic bone disease, being an effective means of early screening of the entire skeleton for metastatic foci, however false positives must be excluded. The new technology of PET is gradually assuming a more significant role in the process of diagnosis of bony metastases. When evaluating patients with a history of primary cancer who present with bone destruction, the surgeon can assume that bony metastases are most likely to be the correct diagnosis. In addition, the location of the primary tumor can be ascertained in 22.6%–30.0% of patients with metastases of unknown origin but without a history of primary cancer (Fig. 1)2, 3. A prospective study of diagnostic strategy showed that primary lesions could be found in 85% of cases through a standard process of diagnosis as follows4: Diagnostic process for bone metastases. Age, medical history and tumor location: the incidence of bone metastases is much higher than that of primary bone tumors in adults aged 40 years or older and bony metastases are generally located in the proximal limbs or spine. Most bony metastases of unknown origin come from the lung or kidney, thus most of the primary foci can be found through examination of the thoracic and abdominal viscera. Physical examination: more clues may be obtained by focusing on prostate, breast, thyroid gland and abdomen. Laboratory examination: apart from PSA, alpha feto-protein and ruling out the diagnosis of multiple myeloma, it is difficult to determine tumor origin through laboratory examination. Imaging evaluation: inspection methods include X-ray, type-B ultrasound and CT, which should mainly focus on the location of thoracic and abdominal viscera, while radionuclide bone scan, PET and whole body MR scan should be applied for the diagnosis of bony metastases. Pathological diagnosis: in addition to the above investigations, a definitive diagnosis can usually be made by pathology, immunohistochemistry providing more information about the primary tumor. The source of tumor cells can be identified in up to 72% patients by a combination of pathological examination and other clinical investigations. Preoperative biopsy must be performed in those patients without a history of cancer who are suspected to have bony metastases. After the diagnosis of bony metastasis, a search for the primary tumor guided by the pathology findings should be undertaken. Preoperative biopsy is unnecessary for patients with a definite history of cancer who present with multiple bony destruction, including long bones, vertebral body and pelvis. For the patient with a history of cancer who presents with a solitary site of bony destruction, biopsy should be considered in preoperative planning to confirm the diagnosis. According to reports in the literature, in long-term surviving patients with malignant tumor, almost 15% of new tissue growth in bony foci were non-carcinoma disease or tumors which were not metastases from the known original primary tumor5. The goal of treatment of metastatic carcinoma is to extend life, alleviate symptoms, improve the quality of life, prevent or manage pathological fracture and decompress nerves. Comprehensive treatment should be adopted, including surgery, radiotherapy, utilization of bisphosphonates, systemic therapy for the primary tumor (systemic chemotherapy and molecular-targeting therapy), management of pain and nutritional supporting therapy. It is still relatively difficult for the orthopaedic surgeon to decide which types of patients with bony metastases are suitable for surgical intervention, especially when it comes to preventive surgery. Some scoring systems, such as the Mirels' scoring system for long bone8 and the Tomita scoring system for the spine9, have been used in the clinic. Although the use of these scoring systems may provide better guidance for surgery on bony metastases, factors such as the differential diagnosis, quality of normal bone surrounding the lesions, degree of activity, survival expectation, sensitivity to radiotherapy, and differences in comprehensive analysis of the radiological findings all influence prediction of fracture risk. The orthopaedic surgeon should be familiar with the indications for surgical intervention for bony metastases, master every type of rigid internal fixation for every part of the body, and select as appropriate either internal fixation, reconstruction after tumor resection or new minimally invasive treatments. Where a lesion has eroded adjacent joints, or internal fixation cannot provide early and full weight bearing, tumor resection followed by reconstruction by arthroplasty should be adopted. Prostheses should be fixed by bone cement in order to facilitate early recovery. The use of biological reconstruction should be minimized because patients need to wait for bone healing and undergo radiotherapy. With improvement in internal fixation of limbs and spine and the development of tumor prostheses, reconstruction has become more simple and durable and the scope of surgical management of bony metastases has widened. Minimally invasive surgery has the advantages of shorter operating time, less trauma, and low cost and often can be carried out under local anesthesia, which is especially suitable for patients with multiple bony metastases or in poor general condition. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty have been used in the treatment of spinal metastases10 with the purpose of maintaining or recovering the height of compressed vertebrae so as to alleviate pain and prevent fractures, and have also been combined with posterior-instrumentation surgery to consolidate the strength of the vertebral bodies. Osteoplasty with percutaneous injection of bone cement has been applied to osteolytic lesions in other parts of the body such as the acetabulum, plugging the bone defects caused by osteolytic lesions, maintaining the stability of the skeleton and delaying the occurrence of pathological fracture. After injection of bone cement, heat, which partially kills tumor cells, is released in the process of bone cement polymerization. Osteoplasty is not recommended for patients with large cortical bone defects and tumor extending into adjacent soft tissue to an extent three or more times greater than that of the bone disease. Bone cement serves not only to strengthen the sclerotin but also to inhibit the development of local metastases when used in combination with anti-neoplastic and anti-bone destruction drugs. Microwave ablation, high intensity ultrasound, laser beam and radiofrequency ablation (AFA) all possess anti-tumor effects11 and can help to relieve symptoms when used in appropriate patients with bone metastases. Combining these modalities with other treatment approaches can effectively provide pain relief and restore ambulatory function, and is suitable for some patients with radio-resistant tumors. There are also reports in the literature concerning cryoablation for treatment of bone metastases. As an effective palliative treatment modality for patients with bony metastases, local radiotherapy can provide significant pain relief for 70% of patients, 40%–60% gaining complete pain relief. Symptoms can improve as soon as 48 h after radiotherapy12. In one study, the complete remission rate was 81% in a conventional fraction group, 65% (P = 0.03) in a short course fraction group and 46% (P = 0.0001) in a fast course fraction group, an overall pain relief rate of 76% being achieved in the three groups13. The mechanism of action of radiotherapy is to inhibit or destroy tumor cells, prevent the invasion and destruction of bone, promote the activity of osteoblasts and accelerate collagen synthesis for new bone formation. Radiotherapy often needs to be combined with other modalities such as surgery. The application of radiotherapy alone is indicated under the following five conditions: (i) inability to tolerate surgery and a predicted survival of less than 6 months; (ii) low risk of pathological fracture; (iii) no pre-existing obvious spinal instability or neurologic impairment; (iv) no complaints of dysfunction in patients with pelvic tumor not involving the acetabulum; and (v) radiation-sensitive tumor. It should be noted that radiotherapy for bony metastases cannot achieve long-term control. A retrospective analysis of 12 randomized trials showed that the duration of pain relief is much less than the period of survival after treatment14. As strong and effective inhibitors of bone resorption, bisphosphonates are used to treat tumor-associated osteolysis and hypercalcemia and thus to reduce the incidence of skeleton-related events15. These agents accelerate apoptosis and inhibit the proliferation of both tumor cells and osteoclasts. At the same time, they also help to stimulate T cells in the immune system resulting in anti-tumor effects. Bisphosphonates can provide pain relief, prevent pathologic fracture and prolong survival time in most patients with bone metastases from breast, prostate cancer and multiple myeloma. The third generation of bisphosphonates, such as zoledronic acid, can be effective in patients in whom other bisphosphonates have failed and strengthen anti-bone resorption almost 1000-fold with less adverse effect by aminating the R2 side-chains of bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates are suitable for patients with radiographic evidence of bone metastases (Table 2). An analysis of bisphosphonates compared with placebo for bone metastases showed that they significantly reduced the risk of fractures and hypercalcemia but not of orthopaedic surgery or spinal cord compression in studies that lasted ≥6 months16. Intravenous bisphosphonates significantly delayed the initial appearance of skeletal related events but did not prolong the survival time. Therefore, once bony metastases have been diagnosed, treatment with bisphosphonates should be instituted until clinical related events disappear. Bone metastases are a category of advanced malignant tumor. Eighty percent of patients with bone metastases complain of pain, 50% of which is severe and 30% of which is unbearable. Management of pain in patients with bony metastases includes radiotherapy, chemotherapy, palliative surgery and treatment using the three-step analgesic ladder. Radiopharmaceutical therapy has been applied for systemic pain in recent years17, for example with 186Re-HEDP (rhenium), 153Sm-EDTMP (samarium) and 89Sr-chloride (strontium). These drugs accumulate in the location of bony metastases in a concentration 2–25 times that of normal bone, commonly start to work within the first week and maintain effectiveness for 1–12 months. The spinal column is the most frequent site of bony metastases, 70% of which are found at the thoracic level, 20% in the lumbar region, and 10% in the cervical region. Vertebral destruction caused by metastases can cause severe pain and compression of the spinal cord. In the past, radiation therapy was the primary therapeutic modality for spinal metastases, but a prospective randomized clinical study has shown that decompression of the spinal cord and rigid internal fixation combined with postoperative radiotherapy result in a higher ambulatory rate, better sphincter function and muscular strength and longer survival time than occurs with radiation therapy alone18. The addition of surgery before radiotherapy for patients with malignant spinal-cord compression improves ambulatory function. The histologic type of the primary tumor is the strongest prognostic factor, breast cancer, prostate cancer, myeloma, thyroid cancer and renal cell cancer having better prognoses19. As reported in published articles, surgical treatment for spinal metastasis has proven beneficial for more than 80% of patients20. Thus surgery should be considered when dealing with patients with better prognoses. The principle of treatment of spinal metastases is palliative therapy. Thus the goal of treatment of metastatic carcinoma of the spine is to provide pain relief, maintain neurologic function and restore the structural integrity of the spinal column. A small number of cancer patients may also be cured by wide excision. Tokuhashi et al. have reported a scoring system consisting of six factors which are thought to affect the duration of survival for preoperative evaluation of the prognosis of metastatic spinal tumor, the maximum possible score being 1221. The six factors include the patient's general condition, the number of extraspinal bony metastatic foci, the number of metastases in the vertebrae, metastases in the major internal organs, the primary site of the cancer, and the degree of paralysis. Using these criteria, the authors recommend excisional surgical treatment for patients with a total score of 9 or higher and palliative surgical treatment for patients who have a total score of 5 or less. Tomita and his colleagues revised the Tokuhashi score system and devised a new scoring system consisting of three items including grade of the primary tumor, visceral metastases to vital organs, and number of bone metastases9 (Fig. 2). For patients with a prognostic score of 2–3 points a wide or marginal excision is suggested for long-term local control; with 4–5 points marginal or intralesional excision is indicated for middle-term local control; with 6–7 points palliative surgery for short-term palliation is justified; and with 8–10 points nonsurgical supportive care is indicated. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases according to the Tomita scoring system. ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; exc, excision; m, months; met, metastasis; mets, metastases; P, prognostic; y, years. At present, the Tomita score system is widely accepted as an approach to assessing the prognosis and devising a treatment strategy for patients with spinal metastases. According to most published articles and the expert consensus22-24, the following factors should also be taken into account when evaluating the prognosis of spinal metastases by the Tomita scoring system: (i) neurologic compression caused by radioresistant cancer will result in progressive impairment of neurologic function; (ii) existing or occurring spinal instability; (iii) existing severe intractable pain indicating that conservative treatment is ineffective; (iv) tumors may continue to increase in size after radiotherapy; (v) a need to confirm the pathological diagnosis; (vi) patients' survival expectancy is 3 to 6 months or longer, and their general condition is good; and (vii) bone inadequacy, compression of multiple segments of the spinal cord by tumor or a life expectancy of less than 3 months should be regarded as indications for conservative treatment. Neurologic compression and spinal instability are relatively important indications for surgery. Assessment of a combination of the Tomita scoring system with these factors can play a guiding role in choosing normative treatment for patients with spinal metastases (Fig. 3). Treatment of severe pain caused by spinal metastases is equally important and appropriate treatments depending on the pathogenesis of pain should be given (Table 3). Algorithm for management of spinal metastases. Patients with disease affecting multiple segments, in poor medical condition and unable to tolerate major surgery may require laminectomy and decompression of the spinal canal. However, simple laminectomy cannot expose the lesion adequately and may aggravate spinal instability, and the outcome is not as good as with corpectomy. The rate of improvement in neural function is about 30%25. Thus rigid internal fixation is necessary to reduce the incidence of neural dysfunction and pain caused by spinal instability. From reviewing published articles about treatment for metastatic spinal cord compression, it has been concluded that anterior decompression provides the best results26. Other researchers also agree that the location of the tumor determines the decompression approach. Because spinal metastases mainly corrode the vertebral body, anterior decompression can provide better results in patients who are in good medical condition, have a relatively long life expectancy, and whose disease is confined to one or two contiguous levels. Wide exposure of the anterior aspect of the spine facilitates complete resection of the tumor and decompression of the spinal cord. This must be followed by spinal reconstruction and rigid internal fixation. Using bone cement and an artificial vertebral body for vertebral reconstruction after radical tumor resection can stabilize the anterior column. Spinal fixation is limited to the levels adjacent to the affected vertebrae when using a screw and plate for surgical internal fixation. Isolated spinal metastases with a favorable prognosis and total score of 3 or less in the Tomita scoring system should be treated like primary tumors. An anteroposterior double approach for complete resection of the tumor is commonly adopted. Complete resection of the tumor, spinal decompression, and pedicle screw fixation through a posterior approach is followed by corpectomy and internal fixation through an anterior approach. The anteroposterior double approach can be completed simultaneously or in different stages depending on the degree of trauma and amount of bleeding. Total en bloc spondylectomy through a single posterior approach is also available and may result in better local control of the tumor. Tomita et al. reported a retrospective study of 198 spinal metastases patients from 1989 to 2003, 64 of whom underwent total en bloc spondylectomy27. The two- and five-year survival rates of patients undergoing total en bloc spondylectomy were 66.6%and 46.6%, respectively. Indications for these procedures include: (i) osteolytic lesions; (ii) an intact posterior vertebral body cortex; (iii) patients with severe pain caused by vertebral deformation who cannot tolerate general anesthesia and surgery; and (iv) no definite symptoms and signs of radiculopathy. Retrospective and prospective studies have all reported significant improvement in pain scores in 90% of patients undergoing percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, and the improvements were sustained at 1 year or longer28. The incidence of complications for this type of operation is 5%–10% for patients with spinal metastases, which is greater than that of patients with osteoporosis and hemangioma. The major complication is cement leakage, while serious complications such as spinal cord compression and pulmonary embolism are rare29. The long bones of the extremities are very common locations for metastatic tumors. Affected sites include the proximal femur, followed by the proximal humerus, and much less frequently, by bones distal to the knee and elbow. Of patients with bone metastases, about 10% develop pathologic fractures30. The pathologic fracture is an important cause of death in patients with bone metastases, and orthopaedic specialists should consider both the risk of pathological fracture and expected survival time of patients when optimizing treatment measures for preventing pathologic fractures. Detailed preoperative evaluation is required to assess the risk of fractures, including type of primary tumor, previous therapy, duration of disease, size, site and type of lesion (lytic or blastic nature), and presence of symptoms attributable to the lesion. In 1989, Mirels reviewed 38 patients with 78 metastatic lesions of long bones and published a rating system based on four variables (Table 4): site of lesion (upper limb, lower limb, and peritrochanteric); grade of pain (mild, moderate, and functional); type of lesion (lytic, blastic, and mixed); and size of lesion as a proportion of the long bone diameter (<1/3, 1/3–1/2, >2/3)8. In this system the maximum obtainable score is 12 points. The probability of fracture with a score of <7 is very small (4%). For a lesion with a score of 8, the chance of fracture is 15%. When the score reaches 9, the probability of fracture is 33%. Therefore, if a score of 9 or more is obtained, the risk of fracture warrants prophylactic fixation of the bone. The results of a study on the reproducibility, validity, and applicability among examiners of various experience levels and training backgrounds showed that the Mirels' rating system had strong reproducibility and was suitable for different categories of physicians. The individual Mirels' score component with the greatest variability was pain, followed by size, type of lesion, and site, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the applied Mirels' system were 91% and 35%, respectively, which meant that 2/3 of patients underwent unnecessary procedures to prevent fractures31. While strict application of the Mirels' rating system may lead to a certain degree of over-treatment, once a pathologic fracture has occurred, the consequences are even more serious. In addition to the Mirels' rating system, other factors which should be comprehensively considered include: (i) whether the overall condition of the patient is good enough, and the length of expected survival is more than 12 weeks; (ii) whether the patient can benefit from surgical treatment (the procedure should allow for early mobilization and facilitation of nursing); (iii) solitary metastasis, primary tumor has been completely removed or can be cured; (iv) patients with actual or high risk of pathological fractures, Mirels' score > 9 points, X-ray films showing that the lesion occupies 50% of the bone diameter, measures at least 2.5 cm, and is accompanied by destruction of the lesser trochanter of the femur; and (v) patients for whom radiation therapy has failed and who have persistent pain without relief. The goal of surgical management is to prevent pathologic fracture or reconstruct continuity of fractured bone. Much attention should be paid to minimizing damage to soft tissue around the bone; providing the most effective fixation methods enables the patient to derive the most benefit in terms of rapid postoperative recovery of limb function. Where destruction is not serious, the use of a closed intramedullary nail could be considered; whereas when destruction is extensive, the lesion should be removed, followed by application of cement filling and internal fixation. A replacement prosthesis should be reserved for cases where bone destruction caused by a metastatic lesion is severe and may result in functional impairment. Before surgical intervention is undertaken on highly vascular lesions, preoperative vascular embolization is recommended; much attention should be paid to reducing the trauma and mortality of surgery. 20% of bone metastases are upper extremity and scapula lesions, the humerus being involved in 50% of these cases. The classic criterion for an impending pathologic fracture in the upper limbs is commonly cited as a lesion that occupies more than 75% of the bone diameter, but we suggest that the criteria should be much stricter. Proximal humerus: Bone cement filling and plating, or partial shoulder replacement, can be considered according to the size of the lesion. Patients with a longer expected survival time are possible candidates for allograft prosthetic composite (APC). Attention should be paid to immobilizing the limb to prevent migration or dislocation of the prosthesis after surgical management; to salvaging the deltoid, axillary nerve and rotator cuff; and to cementing the prosthesis into the proper position. Postoperatively, patients should be prevented from moving the affected limb by keeping a triangular bandage sling in place for 6–8weeks. Humeral diaphysis: The suggested treatment of diaphyseal metastatic lesions is with open or closed locked intramedullary nails. The extent of fixation is from the surgical neck to 5–6 cm above the humeral condyle and this can be augmented with cement. The internal fixation should be sufficiently stable. If humeral fracture has already occurred or fixation with a locked nail is not firm, external fixators or aids can be used to support the stabilization postoperatively. During the procedure of closed intramedullary nailing, a biopsy specimen from the bone metastasis can be obtained through the nailing hole for histopathologic examination. Another option available for humeral fixation is cementing and plating. There is no significant difference between intramedullary nailing and plating in outcome, but fixation by plating requires better bone quality, a more extensive surgical approach, and is accompanied by greater trauma to the patients32. Where bone destruction has resulted in a defect of 3–4 cm or less, the surgeon can shorten the humerus after resecting a middle segmental lesion. Where bone destruction is too extensive and has resulted in an incomplete cortex, an intercalary prosthesis can be used for the treatment of segmental defects of the humeral diaphysis, allowing preservation of the proximal and distal humeral articular surface33, 34. Distal humerus and the region near the elbow: Lesions of the distal humerus may preclude the use of intramedullary nailing. In such cases, plating and cement fixation are more appropriate alternatives. Much attention should be paid to avoiding destruction of the olecranon during the operation as postoperative radiotherapy can easily lead to occurrence of bony nonunion. Where the lesion is extensive and/or needs to be resected completely, elbow arthroplasty should be performed after resection35. Total elbow arthroplasty can be used to reconstruct the articular surface of the distal humerus and the bone defect. It is uncommon to perform joint replacement when dealing with patients who have a distal humeral lesion. The operation is usually performed through a posterior longitudinal approach. Much attention should be paid to retaining the medial and lateral condyles of the humerus in order to restore the functions of extension and flexion. Ulna and radius: Metastases to the ulna and radius are very rare, but most cases require surgical treatment because the ulna and radius are always under a torque load during the movements of pronation and supination, which can easily result in pathologic fracture. We therefore recommend internal fixation to prevent fracture in patients with ulnar and radial metastases. Internal fixation mainly involves plating combined with packing of the defect with bone cement. When bone destruction is very serious, the surgeon can perform a tumor segment resection. Total elbow arthroplasty is the treatment for elbow surface destruction caused