Longitudinal survival trends of patients with cancer with surgically managed appendicular metastatic bone disease: systematic review

Solitary versus multiple bone metastases in the appendicular skeleton

Aims

We first sought to compare survival for patients treated surgically for solitary and multiple metastases in the appendicular skeleton, and second, to explore the role of complete and incomplete resection (R0 and R1/R2) in patients with a solitary bony metastasis in the appendicular skeleton.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study on a population-based cohort of all adult patients treated surgically for bony metastases of the appendicular skeleton between January 2014 and December 2019. We excluded patients in whom the status of bone metastases and resection margin was unknown. Patients were followed until the end of the study or to their death. We had no loss to follow-up. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis (with log-rank test) to evaluate patient survival. We identified 506 operations in 459 patients. A total of 120 operations (in 116 patients) were for solitary metastases and 386 (in 345 patients) for multiple metastases. Of the 120 operations, 70 (in 69 patients) had no/an unknown status of visceral metastases (solitary group) and 50 (in 49 patients) had visceral metastases. In the solitary group, 45 operations (in 44 patients) were R0 (resections for cure or complete remission) and 25 (in 25 patients) were R1/R2 (resections leaving microscopic or macroscopic tumour, respectively). The most common types of cancer in the solitary group were kidney (n = 27), lung (n = 25), and breast (n = 20).

Results

The one-year patient survival was 47% (95% confidence interval (CI) 38 to 57) for the solitary bony metastases and 34% (95% CI 29 to 39) for multiple bone metastases (p < 0.001). The one-year patient survival was 64% (95% CI 52 to 75) for solitary bony metastases without/with unknown visceral metastases and 23% (95% CI 11 to 36) for solitary bony metastases with visceral metastases (p < 0.001). The one-year patient survival was 75% (95% CI 62 to 89) for a solitary bony metastasis after R0 surgery and 42% (95% CI 22 to 61) for a solitary bony metastasis with R1/R2 surgery (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that the surgical treatment of patients with a solitary bony metastasis to the appendicular skeleton results in better survival than for patients with multiple bony metastases. Furthermore, aggressive treatment of a solitary bony metastasis with R0 surgery may improve patient survival.

What are the indications and survivorship of tumor endoprosthetic reconstructions for patients with extremity metastatic bone disease?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Given advances in therapies, endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) in metastatic bone disease (MBD) may be increasingly indicated. The objectives were to review the indications, and implant and patient survivorship in patients undergoing EPR for MBD.

METHODS

A review of patients undergoing EPR for extremity MBD between 1992 and 2022 at two centers was performed. Surgical data, implant survival, patient survival, and implant failure modes were examined.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients were included with a median follow-up of 14.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.2-19.3) and survival of 19.4 months (95% CI: 13.6-26.1). The most common diagnosis was renal cell carcinoma (34/115, 29.6%) and the most common location was proximal femur (43/115, 37.4%). Indications included: actualized fracture (58/115, 50.4%), impending fracture (30/115, 26.1%), and failed fixation (27/115, 23.5%). Implant failure was uncommon (10/115, 8.7%). Patients undergoing EPR for failed fixation were more likely to have renal or lung cancer (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

EPRs were performed most frequently for renal cell carcinoma and in patients with a relatively favorable survival. EPR was indicated for failed previous fixation in 23.5% of cases, emphasizing the importance of predictive survival modeling. EPR can be a reliable and durable surgical option for patients with MBD.

The Prediction of Survival after Surgical Management of Bone Metastases of the Extremities—A Comparison of Prognostic Models

Individualized survival prognostic models for symptomatic patients with appendicular metastatic bone disease are key to guiding clinical decision-making for the orthopedic surgeon. Several prognostic models have been developed in recent years; however, most orthopedic surgeons have not incorporated these models into routine practice. This is possibly due to uncertainty concerning their accuracy and the lack of comparison publications and recommendations. Our aim was to conduct a review and quality assessment of these models. A computerized literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed up to February 2022 was done, using keywords: “Bone metastasis”, “survival”, “extremity” and “prognosis”. We evaluated each model’s performance, assessing the estimated discriminative power and calibration accuracy for the analyzed patients. We included 11 studies out of the 1779 citations initially retrieved. The 11 studies included seven different models for estimating survival. Among externally validated survival prediction scores, PATHFx 3.0, 2013-SPRING and potentially Optimodel were found to be the best models in terms of performance. Currently, it is still a challenge to recommend any of the models as the standard for predicting survival for these patients. However, some models show better performance status and other quality characteristics. We recommend future, large, multicenter, prospective studies to compare between PATHfx 3.0, SPRING 2013 and OptiModel using the same external validation dataset.

Surgical Treatment of Metastatic Bone Disease in the Appendicular Skeleton: A Population-Based Study

Background: Population-based studies of patients with bone metastases in the appendicular skeleton (aBM) requiring surgery for complete or impending fracture are rare. In this epidemiologically-based observational study we created a large population-based cohort of patients treated for aBM, aiming to: (1) monitor possible time-related changes of the incidence of surgical treatment of aBM-lesions, (2) examine differences in the population and care of patients treated at different treatment centers and (3) examine if findings from a previous pilot study regarding absence of a suitable biopsy of the lesions representing debut of cancer or a relapse has improved the awareness of aBM and hereby increased the focus on regular tumor biopsies and follow-up imaging of cancer patients. Methods: We examined a population-based cohort consisting of all patients treated for aBM 2014−2019. Procedures were performed at five secondary surgical centers (SSC) or one tertiary referral Musculoskeletal Tumor Center (MTC). Patients were followed until end of study (30 September 2021) or death. No patients were lost to follow-up. Results: Four-hundred-fifty-seven patients (493 primary aBM-lesions, 482 procedures) were included. Annual incidence of aBM-surgery was 46 aBM-lesions/million. MTC-patients had a significant better preoperative status than SSC-patients considering factors known for survival. Patients with complete fracture experienced longer surgical delay when treated at MTC compared to SSC: 4 (1−9) and 1 (1−3) days (p < 0.001), respectively. Overall survival for the entire cohort was 37% and 11% at 1 and 5 years (MTC and SSC 1 and 5 year respectively: 44% and 15% vs. 29% and 5%, p < 0.001). In patients with debut or relapse of cancer, 8% and 9% had insufficient biopsies, and 21% and 12% had no biopsy, respectively. Comparison showed no change over time. Conclusions: The current study highlights the low awareness on treating aBM at SSC and emphasizes the importance of caution in interpretation of studies not representing an entire population, thus introducing selection bias.