Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today, we're tackling
a challenge that, well, it's becoming increasingly
common and certainly has a huge impact in orthopedic
practice. We're talking about managing patients
with advanced cancer, where bone pain and the
risk of pathological fractures really come to
the fore. And it's more than just treating a
symptom, isn't it? It's about navigating this
really complex sort of evolving landscape. Precision
in diagnosis, in management, it's absolutely
critical for us as mid -senior medical professionals.
So our mission today is to really unpack the
intricacies of metastatic bone disease, focusing
on how it affects the limbs. We want to pull
out those essential insights that directly shape
patient care and, crucially, their quality of
life. And guiding us through this challenging
clinical terrain, we're incredibly fortunate
to have Professor Mor Imam with us today. His
expertise will really help eliminate these often
quite daunting scenarios. Hashtag, tag, tag,
understanding the landscape of bone metastasis.
So just to set the scene, could you start by
clarifying what exactly we mean by metastatic
bone disease? How does it really differ from
primary bone cancer? And why is that distinction
just so important in clinical oncology today?
Yes, absolutely. It's a crucial starting point.
Metastatic bone cancer, or as we often call it,
secondary bone cancer. Well, it describes tumors
that start somewhere else in the body and other
tissues or organs, and then they spread, they
metastasize, to the bone. Right, so originating
elsewhere. Exactly. And that's the key difference
from primary bone cancer. Primary bone cancer
actually develops from cancerous bone cells within
the bone itself. It's a much, much rarer diagnosis,
comparatively speaking. Now, the significance
of metastatic bone disease really lies in its
prevalence. The skeleton is, believe it or not,
the third most common place for metastatic disease
to land right after the lung and the liver. Third
most common. Wow. Yes. And part of the reason
is the bone's very rich arterial supply. It makes
it, well, a very receptive environment for those
tumor cells circulating in the blood after breaking
off from the primary site. It's also vital to
grasp that this isn't one single disease. It's
a huge heterogeneous group. But despite the variety,
they often do respond to different treatments.
Chemotherapy, radiation, sometimes surgery. The
overall goal always is to manage the significant
clinical challenges it throws up, challenges
that directly and often quite severely impact
a patient's quality of life. That really clarifies
it, common and impactful. So digging in a bit
more, where do these secondary bone cancers typically
come from, and what do the numbers tell us about
incidence and maybe more starkly about patient
survival? Well, historically, and it still holds
true. The most common origin is carcinomas. So
we most frequently see this coming from primary
tumors in the breast, the lung, and the prostate.
Those are the big three. But we are seeing more
arising from renal cell carcinoma, that's kidney
cancer, and also thyroid cancer. And they often
have quite distinct patterns when they spread
to bone. It's also worth mentioning non -epithelial
cancers. Things like hematologic malignancies,
multiple myeloma, lymphoma, they can... definitely
involve bone, and sarcomas too, though they typically
metastasize to bone quite late in the disease
course. And the survival figures, I imagine they
vary quite a bit. They vary dramatically, and
that's critical when we're talking to patients.
For instance, someone with lung cancer that spread
to bone. Unfortunately, the median survival is
typically around six to seven months. Oh, that's
tough. It is. Compare that to breast cancer,
where median survival might be 19 to 25 months,
maybe a 20 % five -year survival. Prostate cancer
has a wider range too, perhaps 12 to 53 months
median survival, five -year survival around 25%.
Myeloma, about 20 months median, 10 % of five
years. Kidney cancer, often aggressive, maybe
six months median, 10 % of five years. Thyroid
cancer though, often slower growing, stands out
48 months median survival, 40 % of five years.
A huge difference there. Absolutely. And melanoma,
again, often aggressive, about 6 months median,
only 5 % surviving 5 years. So the variability
is striking. In terms of overall incidence, one
big U .S. study estimated about 2 .9 % cumulative
incidence at 30 days, rising to 8 .4 % by 10
years. Prostate cancer carries the highest risk,
somewhere between 18 % and 29%, then lung, renal,
breast. And clinically, how patients present
also varies. It might be just a single bone lesion
or what we call oligometastatic disease, just
a few spots, or it could be multiple bone metastases
or even metastases in bone plus other organs
like the liver or lungs. This variety really
underlines why we need a tailored approach for
each patient. Hashtag tag tag the mechanisms
of spread and bone damage. It is quite remarkable
how these cancers, starting so far away, find
their way to bone. What is it about bone specifically
that makes it such a, well, receptive spot? And
can you walk us through the actual mechanisms
of how they spread? It is remarkable, you're
right. And the process is often explained by
this concept called the seed and soil hypothesis.
Basically, successful metastasis isn't just random
chance. It depends on the specific characteristics
of the tumor cell, the seed, and a very receptive
microenvironment in the bone, the soil. The main
way they get there, overwhelmingly, it's hematogenous
spread through the bloodstream. Although, you
can also get local invasion, where a soft tissue
tumor nearby just goes directly into the adjacent
bone. Now, if we look at spinal metastasis specifically,
spread via the venous system is really dominant.
Think about lung and breast cancer. They often
go to the thoracic spine. Why? Because of their
venous drainage. Breast cancer drains via the
ozygous vein, which talks directly to Batson's
plexus in the spine, a network of veins without
valves. I have a direct route. Exactly. And similarly,
prostate cancer often goes to the lumbar sacral
spine and pelvis because its drainage is via
the pelvic plexus there. It's anatomy facilitating
the spread. Interestingly, lung and renal cancer
can sometimes spread way out to the distal extremities,
hands, feet. That's often thought to be via the
arterial tree, indicating more widespread systemic
seeding. But coming back to seed and soil, once
those tumor cells arrive in the bone marrow,
really complex interactions happen. Tumor cell
receptors Things like CXCR4 and Aran -KL, they
interact with the bone marrow stromal cells and
the bone matrix itself. And that interaction
is key. Absolutely pivotal, because it triggers
a whole cascade. It leads to the release of growth
factors, cytokines, things like interleukin 6,
interleukin 8, and factors that promote blood
vessel growth, like VEGF. So the cancer cells
are manipulating the local environment. Precisely.
This biochemical soup drives tumor growth. But
critically, it also activates osteoclasts. the
cells that break down bone leading to osteolysis,
the destruction of bone. So the cancer cells
effectively hijack the bone's own regulatory
systems to create an environment that helps them
thrive and spread. They coerce the bone into
supporting their own destructive agenda, in a
way. That's quite an insidious mechanism actively
manipulating the bone. So given this manipulation,
how do the metastatic cells actually impact the
bone structure itself? Do they manifest differently?
And what are the cellular processes driving this
destruction or maybe sometimes, surprisingly,
new bone formation? That's exactly right. They're
active players. And when we look at imaging,
we broadly classify how they affect the bone
into three main types based on appearance and
the underlying cellular chaos they cause. First,
you have osteoblastic lesions, also called sclerotic.
These are characterized by new bone formation,
although it's often disorganized. You see this
most classically in prostate cancer. About 90
% of prostate mets are blastic. Breast cancer
can also show blastic features, maybe 60 % of
the time. So they actually make bone grow. In
a way, yes. The tumor cells secrete a molecule
called endothelin 1, ET1. This binds to receptors
on osteoblasts, the bone building cells, stimulating
them, and activating pathways like the WNT pathway,
it promotes new bone formation. It's almost like
the tumor is tricking the bone into building
a scaffold around it. Second, we have osteolytic
lesions. These are all about bone destruction,
very common in breast, lung, and renal cancers.
In fact, lung, thyroid, and renal mets are predominantly
etolytic. On imaging, you see thinning of the
bone's internal structure, the trabeculae, often
with fuzzy, ill -defined margins. It looks like
the bone is being eaten away. And thirdly, you
get mixed lesions, showing features of both destruction
and new formation. You see this frequently in
breast cancer, highlighting its complex interaction
with bone. Okay. And you mentioned osteolytic
lesions destruction. What's driving that specifically?
Ah yes, this is where we get into what's called
the vicious circle of bone destruction. It's
a really key concept. It starts with tumor cells
secreting a protein called PTHRP, parathyroid
hormone related protein. This PTHRP stimulates
osteoblasts to release another key molecule,
NKL. NKL then binds to its receptor, rank, which
sits on osteoclast precursors. This binding signals
these precursors to mature into active osteoclasts,
the bone destroyers. Right, the cells that break
down bones. Exactly. So these activated osteoclasts
get to work, causing significant bone resorption,
breaking down the bone matrix. But here's the
vicious part. As the bone breaks down, it releases
growth factors stored within it, things like
TGF beta, ILGF -1, and calcium. These released
factors then feed back and stimulate the tumor
cells to produce even more PTHRP. Ah, so it literally
feeds itself a cycle. Precisely. It perpetuates
and accelerates the cycle of bone destruction
and tumor growth. Plus, other pro -inflammatory
cytokines like IL -6 and IL -8 and VEGF also
contribute further fueling the fire. It's a really
destructive feedback loop. That vicious circle
sounds incredibly damaging and you can see how
it leads to so much pathology. So with this destructive
process happening at the cellular level, how
does it actually show up in a patient's life?
What are the key clinical signs, those red flags,
that should really make us think about metastatic
bone disease? And what are the critical skeletal
-related events, SREs, that we absolutely need
to be watching out for? Well, the most common
way patients present is almost always with progressive
pain or the development of one of these skeletal
-related events, SREs for short. It's actually
quite common for patients, especially if they're
still active, to initially blame the symptoms
on some unrelated knock or a low energy injury.
Oh, I must have just pulled something. Irrationalize
it. Exactly. But a classic red flag for us is
pain that just doesn't go away, maybe even gets
worse, despite standard painkillers. That suggests
something more serious is going on. A thorough
history and physical exam are absolutely vital
for spotting specific red flags. We're looking
for things like night pain, often described as
this dull, boring ache, comes on gradually, characteristically
worse at night, sometimes waking them up. It
is. Unintentional weight loss is another big
one. Pain, specifically with weight bearing,
especially if it's new or worsening, is very
concerning for mechanical instability. And of
course, finding and enlarging mass in the area
is a direct sign needing urgent investigation.
Clinicians should look carefully at the skin
over the area any sweating, tenderness on palpation,
open wounds, even dimpling. And if you suspect
an impending fracture or they've had an injury,
initial immobilization with a simple splint can
be crucial to stop a fracture propagating. Where
does it usually happen? The vertebrae are by
far the most common site. After that, the femur,
pelvis, ribs, sternum, the top of the humerus,
and the skull. This distribution often dictates
the kind of SREs we see. Right, so what are those
key SREs? Right, the skeletal -related events.
These are the major problems that arise directly
from the bone architecture being destroyed. First,
as I said, bone pain, most frequent symptom.
It can be mechanical pain from weakened bone
moving or tuberogenic pain from the tumor itself,
irritating nerves or stretching the periosteum.
Next, and this is a huge concern due to a potential
permanent disability, is nerve root or spinal
cord compression. Because the spine is the most
common site, this is a really serious complication.
It's an orthopedic emergency. An emergency. Absolutely.
Yeah. Nerve root compression might just cause
a ridiculous pain, that sharp shooting pain down
an arm or leg. But spinal cord compression. that
often starts with back pain, then progresses
to ling weakness, the second most common symptom.
You can get sensory changes too, numbness, tingling
below the level. Late signs are autonomic dysfunction,
bowel, bladder problems, impotence, that's critical.
Early recognition, quick workup, urgent surgical
consultation, they're vital to prevent potentially
devastating permanent neurological damage like
paralysis. Then there's hypercalitemia, high
calcium levels in the blood. occurs in maybe
10 -30 % of cases with osteolectic mats. And
unfortunately, it usually signals a poor prognosis
overall. It's mainly driven by that excessive
osteoclast activity stimulated by PTHRP releasing
too much calcium from the bone. And how does
that present? Symptoms can be vague nausea, poor
appetite, abdominal pain, constipation, changes
in mental state like confusion or lethargy, even
coma. It needs immediate hospital admission and
IV fluids to bring the calcium down. Pathological
fractures are another major SRE. The weakened
bone breaks with minimal or no trauma. Constant
pain is typical beforehand. Spinal fractures
are often worse sitting or standing. These fractures
cause huge problems, severe pain, nerve issues
like sciatica, the pelvis fractures, deformities,
immobility. They happen at presentation in maybe
8 -30 % of patients and crucially, 90 % of them
need surgery. They almost never heal on their
own. They don't heal. That's critical for planning.
Absolutely. We can't rely on biology to fix it.
And finally, myelophysis. That's symptomatic
anemia because the metastatic cells infiltrate
the bone marrow and crowd out the normal blood
-forming cells. In late stages, you can get pancetopenia
low levels of all blood cells. All these SREs
just devastate a patient's quality of life and
independence, which is why catching things early
and intervening thoughtfully is so incredibly
important. That's a really clear picture of the
clinical impact and just how devastating SREs
can be. So given all these symptoms and potential
complications, how crucial is getting an early
diagnosis? And what are the sort of standard
pathways and tools we use to confirm metastatic
bone disease, especially if we don't know where
the primary cancer is? Early identification is
absolutely paramount. It's not just for accurate
staging or predicting prognosis, though that's
important. It's mainly for getting timely prophylactic
measures and treatments in place. Doing that
early can significantly reduce morbidity, prevent
those awful SREs, and often extend a patient's
functional life, their quality time. The approach
really demands a complete workup before any major
intervention, especially if someone presents
with a pathological fracture. Because remember,
that bone metastasis might be the very first
sign of an unknown primary cancer. We see that
quite often. Or it could be in someone with a
known cancer history. So if the primary is unknown,
or if the patient has a history of multiple different
cancers, a biopsy is essential. Absolutely essential.
Before we even think about planning surgery,
it's a fundamental rule. Don't operate on a bone
lesion without knowing what it is through a tissue
diagnosis. That makes perfect sense, biopsy first.
So once we suspect metastatic disease, what are
the main imaging tools we reach for? Can you
walk us through the strengths and weaknesses
of each one, from simple x -rays up to the more
advanced nuclear medicine scans? Certainly. Each
one gives us a different piece of the puzzle,
and we often use them together to build the full
picture. Plane radiographs' x -rays are usually
the first step for someone with focal bone pain.
We use them to check out suspicious areas seen
on a bone scan or to look for obvious fractures.
They're best at seeing osteolytic lesions, the
destructive ones. But here's the catch. A lesion
often needs to be quite large, maybe over a centimeter
or two, and have destroyed over 50 % of the bone
mineral content before it even shows up clearly
on an x -ray. So a normal x -ray doesn't rule
it out then? Not at all. Lytic lesions look like
areas of decreased density, maybe fuzzy edges.
Slerotic lesions look denser. more nodular. X
-rays can help monitor progression or healing.
Seeing sclerosis increase can be a sign of response
to treatment, but their main weakness is poor
sensitivity for early or subtle disease. Computed
tomography, or CT, is much more sensitive than
x -ray, maybe around 74%. It gives excellent
detail of both the cortical shell and the internal
trabecular bone. Great for seeing both inoculitic
and blastic lesions. What are the advantages
of CT? Several. It can help with staging cancer
elsewhere in the body at the same time. It lets
us objectively measure bone density changes using
Houndsfield units, which helps assess response.
Ribs are much better seen on CT. And it's incredibly
useful for preoperative planning, especially
in tricky areas like the shoulder or pelvis.
We can get 3D reconstructions to guide surgery.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI, is really the
gold standard for looking at soft tissues in
bone marrow. It has very high sensitivity, around
95%, and specificity, maybe 90%, for detecting
bone myths. Better than a bone scan for early
detection. Yes. A key advantage is it can detect
marrow involvement before the bone structure
itself changes enough to be seen as a blastic
lesion. So it picks up disease earlier. It's
also safe in pregnancy and absolutely crucial
for assessing suspected spinal cord compression.
It shows the relationship between the tumor and
the nerves perfectly. Metastases typically look
dark on T1 -weighted images, replacing the bright
fatty marrow and bright on T2 -weighted images,
indicating water content like oedema or tumor
cells. Whole -body MRI is also becoming more
common, highly accurate for early detection,
especially in areas rich in red marrow like the
spine and pelvis. Then we move to nuclear medicine
scans. These use radioactive tracers that are
taken up by bone. The skeletal scintigraphy,
or bone scan, using Technetium 99 -meter MDP,
is the workhorse. Scans the whole skeleton, very
sensitive, maybe 78 % for early diagnosis. It's
great at detecting osteoblastic activity areas
of increased bone turnover show up as hot spots.
But it has downsides. Big ones. Low specificity.
A hot spot could be arthritis, infection, a healing
fracture, anything causing bone turnover. I can't
reliably distinguish benign from malignant. And
it's notoriously poor for purely lytic lesions,
because there's no increased bone formation to
pick up the tracer. Myeloma lesions, for example,
are often cold on a bone scan. Spect imaging,
also using TC99 -medin -MDP, gives us cross -sectional
images, like CT. This provides better anatomical
localization and improves specificity to around
91 % compared to the planar bone scan. PE scans,
using tracers like 18F -FDG, glucose analog,
or 18F -sodium fluorine, NAF, reflex bone production,
identify METs based on metabolic activity. PD
generally has better spatial resolution than
bone scans or SPECT. 18F -NAF -PET, in particular,
has shown substantially better sensitivity and
specificity than bone scan and SPECT. It's a
very powerful tool. And finally, we have hybrid
imaging. Combining modalities is key. For example,
18F -NAF -PET -CT fuses the metabolic information
from PD with the anatomical detail from CT. It
gives fantastic sensitivity close to 100 % and
specificity around 97%. You see exactly where
the metabolic activity is located. Other useful
hybrids include Spexiti, Petziti, and even PDMRI.
They all help give us the most complete picture
to guide diagnosis and treatment. That's a fantastic
run -through of the imaging toolkit. It really
shows how layering these techniques gives us
a clearer picture. Beyond the scans, what about
lab tests? What blood work helps in the diagnosis?
And crucially, when is that biopsy absolutely
essential, especially when the primary cancer
isn't known? Lab investigations definitely play
a valuable supporting role, giving us systemic
clues. Routine bloods like a complete blood count,
CBC, and a comprehensive metabolic panel are
standard. The CBC might show anemia, low platelets,
or even pancytopenia in late -stage disease,
indicating significant marrow involvement, often
a poor sign. Serum calcium and alkaline phosphatase
can be elevated because of the bone destruction,
the osteolysis. While specific bone turnover
markers are still researched, things like tartrate
-resistant acid phosphatase can be high in breast
and prostate cancer mats. Are there specific
tumor markers, too? Yes, depending on what primary
we suspect. Reject PSA for prostate, CA125 for
ovarian, CA19 .9 for pancreatic biliary, calcitonin
for medullary thyroid cancer, CEA for colorectal
or breast, plus thyroid function tests. And it's
really important to screen for multiple myeloma,
which can look very similar. So we do serum and
urine protein electrophoresis, SBEP, UPEP, beta
-2 microglobulin, C -reactive protein. Even simple
urinalysis might show blood pointing towards
the kidney primary. Now, the biopsy. This is
often where we get the definitive answer, and
it's absolutely critical. You must get tissue
confirmation if the patient has an unknown primary
cancer or if they have a known cancer history
but haven't had bone meds before. We also strongly
consider it if someone has a history of multiple
different cancers. We need to know which cancer
has spread to the bone to guide the right systemic
treatment. And what does the biopsy tell us?
The histopathology. Under the microscope might
show characteristic features like epithelial
cells clumped together. Then we use immunostaining
special stains like keratin, CK7 for breast lung,
TTF1 for lung to help pinpoint the origin. For
breast cancer, checking the hormone receptor
status ER, PR, retinue is essential for guiding
medical therapy. Imaging, as we discussed, helps
us pick the best, safest spot for the biopsy
or guides a needle biopsy accurately. But the
bottom line, I can't stress it enough, is you
should not proceed with major surgery on a bone
lesion without a tissue diagnosis first. It prevents
mismanaging something else entirely. Such a crucial
point, tissue, is the issue. So with all these
diagnostic tools, what other conditions might
look like bone metastasis? What's the thought
process for telling them apart, especially when
things aren't straightforward? That's a really
important question because the differential diagnosis
can be quite wide, and it often depends on the
specific bone involved and the patient's history.
But the main things we need to rule out include
primary bone sarcoma, totally different treatment,
multiple myeloma of the blood cancer causing
lytic lesions, primary malignant lymphoma bone.
even secondary sarcoma that can arise after radiation
treatment years later. And non -cancerous things.
Absolutely. Osteomyelitis bone infection can
look very similar with pain and imaging changes.
Then there are non -tumor conditions like myositis
ossificans, certain metabolic bone diseases,
osteonecrosis, especially around the hip, or
synovial proliferative diseases. So how do you
differentiate, say, an osteoporotic fracture
from a metastatic one? That's a common dilemma.
On imaging, a key difference can be the cortical
bone. In osteoporosis, the cortex might be thin,
but is usually intact. With metastatic cancer
causing a fracture, you often see destruction
of the cortex itself, a moth -eaten or permeative
look. But clinically, a low energy injury combined
with any of those SREs we talked about especially,
that persistent night pain, weight loss, pain
on weight bearing that should heavily point you
towards metastatic disease over a simple osteoporotic
fracture. The presence of those red flag symptoms
is really key in steering the diagnosis away
from benign causes. It's about integrating the
imaging, the labs, and that detailed patient
history. Hashtag, hashtag prognosis and risk
assessment. Understanding the likely prognosis
is just so vital, isn't it? Not just for our
planning, but for having honest conversations
with patients. What are the main factors that
influence survival when cancer has spread to
the bone? And how do we actually assess that
critical risk of an impending fracture? Predicting
outcomes is indeed a crucial part of management.
It guides everything we do and how we counsel
patients. Several things strongly influence survival.
Simply having skeletal metastases is generally
a poor sign, but having visceral metastases spread
to organs like the lung, liver, or brain is even
worse. The number of metastatic sites also matters.
More sites mean poorer prognosis. Visceral mets
are often seen as indicating an irreversible
stage, shifting our focus much more towards palliation.
The primary tumor type is a massive factor. As
we saw with those survival stats earlier, lung
cancer meds might mean months, thyroid cancer
meds could mean years. That difference drastically
changes our treatment intensity. Are there specific
factors within each cancer type? Yes. For breast
cancer, things like other non -bone meds, the
time since initial diagnosis, disease -free interval,
performance status, hormone receptor status,
age, and tumor grade all play a role. For prostate
cancer, performance status, non -bone mets, and
how markers like alkaline phosphatase and PSA
respond to treatment are key predictors. In multiple
myeloma, levels of beta -2 microlobulin and C
-reactive protein are major independent factors.
High levels mean much shorter survival than low
levels. Other tumor characteristics matter, too.
A very large tumor, say over 12 centimeters,
or a poor response to initial treatment, meaning
lots of viable tumor left after chemo, predict
worse survival. Are there tools to help estimate
survival? Yes. We use predictive models, like
the Bayesian Belief Network. These take clinical
data and calculate survival probabilities, often
at 3 months and 12 months. This is incredibly
helpful, particularly for surgical decisions.
If predicted survival is less than 3 months,
major surgery is generally off the table. The
focus shifts entirely to comfort care, often
hospice. If survival is predicted between 3 and
12 months, we might favor less invasive procedures
with quicker recovery. But if predicted survival
is over 12 months, we can consider more durable,
complex reconstructions aiming for longer -term
function. One study by Bauer found survival after
fixing a pathological fracture was often less
than six months, similar to just getting radiotherapy
for pain, highlighting how advanced the disease
often is by then. It's also true that a single
solitary metastasis generally carries a better
prognosis than multiple METs, sometimes even
allowing for treatment with curative intent.
That's a very practical way to use prognosis
in decision -making. And preventing those fractures
is such a key goal, what tools or scoring systems
do we actually use to predict the bone's mechanical
strength and fracture risk? And importantly,
how reliable are they in the real world? Preventing
pathological fractures is definitely a major
objective. The most widely used tool for long
bones is Mural Scoring System. It scores four
things. The site, upper limb, lower limb, or
the high -risk peritrochanteric hip region. The
pain, mild, moderate, or functional weight -bearing
pain. The lesion type, elastic, mixed, or lytic
being weaker. And the size related to the bone's
diameter, less than 13, 1323, or over 23 cortical
destruction. And how does the score translate
to risk? A total score of nine suggests a 33
% fracture risk. A score of 8 suggests 15%, and
7 or below is about 4%. Generally, a score of
8 or 9 often triggers a discussion about prophylactic
fixation surgery to prevent the fracture. However,
Muriel's score, while common, has significant
limitations. Its sensitivity is okay, maybe 80
-90%, but its specificity is often quite poor,
only 30 -35%. That means it can miss some high
-risk lesions, but more often it might overpredict
risk, potentially leading to surgery that wasn't
strictly necessary. It doesn't fully capture
the nuances of mechanical stress or overall bone
quality. So clinical signs are still important?
Absolutely paramount, often more important than
the score. Excessive pain, especially pain that
gets worse with weight bearing or comes on suddenly,
is a huge red flag for an impending fracture.
And a classic sign for an impending hip fracture
is seeing an evulsion of the lesser trochanter
on x -ray. That little piece of bone pulls off
because the underlying bone is so weak. We also
have to remember x -rays aren't sensitive enough
early on. You need significant bone loss to see
it. The patient's symptoms are key. There's a
newer and importantly more accurate method called
CT rigidity analysis, or CTRA. It uses CT scan
data to directly measure bone density and geometry
at the weakest point. It estimates the bone's
resistance to bending, twisting, and axial loading.
How does that compare? It compares the results
to normal bone data, matched for gender and size.
If the calculated rigidity is reduced by more
than 35%, that indicates a significant fracture
risk. Studies show CTRA has better sensitivity,
specificity, positive and negative predictive
value than Merrill's score. It's a more objective
and reliable tool, though it does need specialized
software and expertise to perform. Hashtag comprehensive
management strategies. It's so clear that managing
this is incredibly complex, needing careful coordination.
How do we structure the overall therapeutic approach?
And why is that multidisciplinary team, the MDT,
just so fundamental to getting the best outcomes,
especially when balancing survival and quality
of life? You've hit the absolute core principle.
Managing bone metastasis demands an interprofessional,
multidisciplinary approach. It's just too complex
for one specialist alone. The team usually involves
the orthopedic surgeon, often an orthopedic oncologist,
radiologists interpreting the scans, radiation
oncologists, medical oncologists managing the
systemic cancer treatment. But crucially, it
also includes pain management specialists, social
workers, and often hospice nurses, especially
thinking about the patient's whole journey and
quality of life. So what are the main goals of
this team? The overarching goals are really focused
on preserving the patient's quality of life,
controlling their pain effectively, minimizing
those skeletal related events, and achieving
local tumor control where we can. Every decision
weighs up multiple factors. How widespread is
the disease? What's the patient's overall fitness,
their performance status? What's the assessed
fracture risk? And what are the potential side
effects of any treatment we propose? The focus
has to be ensuring the patient has a decent quality
of life. Many are frail, many have a terminal
diagnosis. So we have to be careful to avoid
unnecessary tests of procedures that just add
burden. For many, comfort care or hospice becomes
the most appropriate and compassionate path,
especially given that the prognosis for widespread
bone mets is often limited historically four
to 12 months. Although, as we've touched on,
new systemic treatments are starting to push
that time frame out for some people, which brings
its own set of challenges for longer term management.
That collaborative approach sounds essential.
Let's break down the non -surgical options within
that MDT framework. What are the main medical
therapies and radiation techniques we use? How
do they fit into the strategy for pain relief
and controlling the disease? Non -surgical management
is a huge part of the picture, especially as
palliation and quality of life are often the
primary goals. Pain control analgesia is obviously
a major focus. We usually start with NSAIDs,
then titrate up or add narcotics like opioids
as needed to keep the patient comfortable. Glucocorticoids,
steroids can sometimes help with pain, maybe
by reducing swelling around the tumor, but their
use needs careful MDT discussion due to potential
side effects or impact on biopsy results. Bone
modifying agents are crucial. These are the osteoclast
inhibitors. They significantly reduce SREs and
help with bone pain, decreasing overall morbidity.
The two main classes are bisphosphonates like
pomidrinate, zolderonic acid, and dinosunab.
How they work differently. Bisphosphonates reduce
bone breakdown and associated hypercalcemia.
They cut SRE risk by about 30 -40%. A key potential
side effect is osteonecrosis of the jaw, so dental
checks are important. Some also have direct anti
-tumor effects. Dinosumab is a monoclonal antibody
targeting Aran -KL, that key signaling protein.
It's actually been shown to be superior to zoledronic
acid in preventing SREs. It directly blocks osteoclast
formation. A big advantage is it's given subcutaneously
and isn't cleared by the kidneys, making it a
good option for patients with kidney problems.
Radiation therapy, RT, is a cornerstone, especially
for paneliation. Local field radiation is standard
for painful spots. It reduces pain in 50 -80
% of patients, complete relief in maybe 30%.
We also use it after surgery sometimes to consolidate
healing. Studies show a single dose, like eight
gray, is often just as good for pain relief as
longer courses, say 30 gray and 10 fractions,
though the single dose might need repeating more
often. Are there more targeted radiation options?
Yes. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, SBRT,
delivers a very high -focused dose while sparing
surrounding tissues. It might be used for specific
spinal meds, from tumors usually resistant to
standard radiation, or sometimes for oligometastatic
disease. For very widespread disease, hemi -body
irradiation, treating half the body, is an option,
but used less now. And then there's bone -targeted
radiopharmaceutical therapy. These are radioactive
drugs like Strontium -89 or Radium -223 that
specifically target bone, delivering radiation
diffusely. Good for widespread pain, especially
from plastic meds like in prostate or breast
cancer, or if other treatments fail. Systemic
chemotherapy, of course, plays a role if the
primary cancer is responsive. Shrinking the primary
and other meds can reduce overall disease burden
and help with pain indirectly. And finally, local
ablation techniques. These are for persistent
or recurrent pain after radiation. Things like
radiofrequency ablation, RFA, using heat, or
cryoablation using freezing. Focused ultrasound,
FUS, is newer. Cementoplasty injecting bone cement.
Often PMMA is vital, especially for pelvic lesions
or other lytic defects. It provides immediate
stability. relieving pain and improving function
in about 80 % of cases. And for very vascular
tumors like kidney or thyroid meds, preoperative
angiomyelization can block blood supply, reducing
bleeding during surgery and potentially enhancing
pain relief. That's a really comprehensive non
-surgical toolkit. Now, for us in orthopedics,
surgery is often critical, but the goals are
different from standard trauma surgery. What
are the main aims of surgery here? What principles
guide these operations? And how do the approaches
vary depending on which limb or part of the limb
is affected? Surgery is indeed a vital component,
and you're right, the mindset is different. The
main goals are quite clear. treat or ideally
prevent broken bones, relieve severe pain, reduce
reliance on heavy pain meds, restore skeletal
strength and stability, and ultimately help the
patient regain function and independence for
daily activities. A really key principle is that
prophylactic stabilization, fixing the bone before
it breaks, leads to significantly better outcomes
than operating after a fracture. Patients have
shorter hospital stays or more likely to go home,
get back to activity faster, have fewer complications,
and may even live longer because they avoid the
major physiological hit of a fracture. It allows
us to coordinate surgery better with their systemic
treatment, too. What are the core surgical principles,
then? First, that golden rule again, biopsy first.
Complete workup before surgery, especially for
pathological fractures. Know what you're treating.
Second, our fixation doesn't rely on bone healing.
These lesions rarely heal. So we use strong hardware
plates, rods, nails, screws, often combined with
bone cement, PMMA, for immediate stability and
strength. PMMA lets patients bear weight sooner
and approves pain relief by filling the defect.
Third, a general rule is to protect the entire
bone. If you fix just the lesion, it might fail
above or below due to disease progression. So
we often use long, intramedullary nails that
span the whole bone. Fourth, post -operative
radiation is recommended for almost all patients
starting two, three weeks after surgery, covering
a whole surgical field and implant. It helps
mop up any remaining microscopic disease, unless,
of course, the patient is very near end of life
or had previous radiation there. And finally,
for solitary lesions, if the patient's prognosis
allows, we might consider more aggressive surgery
like wide excision aiming for local cure, though
that's less common than palliative stabilization.
That framework makes a lot of sense. Now, the
limbs have very different anatomy. Can you walk
us through the tailored surgical strategies for
different areas, the pelvis, the lower limb,
the upper limb, and maybe touch on the spine?
Absolutely. The approach has to be adapted to
the specific site, the extent of bone loss, and
the patient's prognosis and functional needs.
Let's start with the pelvis. We often use the
Anakin classification zones 1, 2, and 3. Zones
1 and 3 are generally non -weight -bearing, but
zone 2, the acetopelomyscium area, is critical
for weight -bearing. Lesions here, or involving
adjacent zones, are problematic. Treatment might
range from curatage and cementing for contained
lesions to major reconstructions for large defects
using custom implants, saddle processes, or even
total hip replacements reinforced with pins and
cement the Harrington technique if bone stock
is poor. The goal is always to restore stability
for sitting and potentially walking. Moving to
the lower limb, the most common site, femur accounts
for 75%. Pain and ability to walk are the main
concerns. In the proximal femur, hip area, impending
or actual fractures almost never heal. The standard
treatment is usually a bipolar hemiarthroplasty,
replacing the ball part of the joint, often with
a long stem to bypass a lesion. If the socket,
as a tabulum, is also involved, then a total
hip replacement. For very large lesions here,
sometimes an endoprosthesis, replacing a whole
segment of bone, gives the best stability and
allows early weight -bearing. For the femoral
shaft, the best option is usually a load -sharing
intramedullary nail, locked in place, often with
cement augmentation to fill defects. It provides
strong internal support. Distal fever near the
knee lesions are tricky, often poor bone quality,
multiple fragments. For smaller lesions, maybe
plate fixation with cement. But for extensive
destruction, especially involving the joint,
a composite total knee replacement, essentially
a large tumor prosthesis might be needed. The
tibia, shin bone, is less common. Upper tibia
is managed similarly to distal femur cement.
Plates may be replacement. Tivial shaft usually
gets a metal rod. Distal tibia often plates and
screws with cement. The foot is very rare, less
than 1%. Usually from lung, kidney, colon. Treatment
is very individual radiation, orthotics, maybe
limited surgery, sometimes even amputation of
a toe for pain control. And the upper limb? The
upper limb accounts for maybe 20 % of cases,
half of those in the humerus. It's less mechanically
stressed than the leg, so sometimes humeral mets
can be managed non -operatively with just radiation
if retracture risk is low. But they can severely
impair function. For the upper humerus, large
tumors might need a prosthetic replacement of
the top part of the bone. These are complex ops
and function can be limited because the rotator
cuff often needs to be detached and reattached.
Humeral shaft tumors are usually best treated
with intermedullary rods, often with cement,
spanning the whole bone for stability. Plates
are an option, but left common for the shaft.
Near the elbow, flexible nails can work while
preserving the joint. If the tumor goes into
the joint, an elbow replacement might be needed.
Forearm and hand mets are rare. Lung, breast,
renal are common primaries, usually treated with
rods, plates, or bracing. And the scapula, shoulder
blade, depending on extent, might need partial
or total scapulaectomy. And briefly, the spine.
The spine is the most common site overall, but
surgery is actually less common than you might
think. Radiation is preferred if there's pain
but no nerve damage or major instability. Surgeries
mainly for neurological deficits like cord compression,
ongoing pain after RT, or instability. Minimally
invasive techniques like vertebroplasty, cement
injection, and kyphoplasty, balloon inflation,
then cement, are widely used now, often off -label,
at major centers to stabilize fractures and relieve
pain effectively in selected patients. That's
incredibly detailed, thank you. It really highlights
the bespoke nature of these surgeries. But with
such complex operations, often in patients who
are already quite unwell, what are the potential
computations? And how much does the patient's
overall health weigh into the decision to even
proceed with surgery? That's a critical consideration.
Surgical treatment for metastatic bone disease
is definitely complex, and it inherently carries
higher risks than routine orthopedic surgery.
This is largely because the patients themselves
are often less healthy. They might have multiple
other health issues, be weakened by cancer treatments,
may be immunocompromised, generally more frail.
So standard risks are magnified. Exactly. They're
at increased risk of common surgical complications,
which can be much more serious for them. Things
like persistent pain, significant bleeding during
or after surgery, infection, which is particularly
dangerous if they're immunocompromised and damage
to nearby nerves or blood vessels, potentially
causing numbness or even paralysis. Beyond those
immediate risks, there's always the chance of
the tumor recurring locally or the underlying
cancer progressing elsewhere. And tragically,
sometimes patients can die from surgical complications
or simply due to the rapid progression of their
advanced cancer. Given all these potential downsides,
the decision to operate is never taken lightly.
It absolutely has to be a very careful, very
informed cooperative discussion. It involves
the patient, their family, the surgeon, the oncologist,
the whole team. We have to meticulously weigh
the potential benefits, pain relief, improved
function, better quality of life against these
very real and significant risks. The final decision
must align with the patient's overall goals,
their wishes and their prognosis, focusing on
what truly matters most to them. Hashtag tag
tag enhancing health care team outcome. So pulling
it all together, then, what are the key principles
for really enhancing health care team outcomes
when managing metastatic bone disease, especially
thinking about the patient's quality of life
across their entire journey from the initial
diagnosis right through to end of life care?
To really optimize outcomes, the absolute bedrock
principle, as we've said throughout. is that
interprofessional, multidisciplinary approach.
It's got to be a team effort focused consistently
on preserving quality of life, controlling pain,
minimizing those SREs, and achieving local tumor
control where appropriate and feasible. It's
about pooling expertise for the patient's benefit.
When we devise that initial treatment plan, it's
critical to consider the whole picture, all those
holistic patient factors. How far has the disease
spread? What's their functional capacity, their
performance status? What's the real risk of fracture?
And what are the potential burdens and side effects
of different treatments? We're constantly balancing
aggressive intervention against purely palliative
goals, and that balance can shift as the patient's
condition changes or their priorities evolve.
Pain management is a continuous thread throughout,
starting with simpler analgesics, titrating up,
adding opioids, maybe using adjuvant drugs or
referring to pain specialists for nerve blocks
or other interventions. Keeping the patient comfortable
is paramount. And crucially, we always need to
practice compassionate care. Recognize that many
patients are frail. Many are facing the end of
their life. Unnecessary tests, burdens of procedures,
these should be avoided. The focus might need
to shift entirely towards maximizing comfort,
dignity, and quality time. That's where key support
roles become so important. Having a dedicated
pain specialist involved, a social worker to
help navigate practical and emotional challenges,
and ideally, hospice or palliative care nurses
integrated early on. They are all essential to
ensure the patient maintains the best possible
quality of life throughout their illness, providing
both medical and vital psychosocial support.
And while historically prognosis was often limited,
we do need to remember that for some patients,
thanks to better systemic therapies, we are looking
at longer timeframes now. So, while quality of
life remains central, planning for durable solutions
and longer -term function is becoming increasingly
relevant for a subset of these patients. Hashtags,
hashtags, outro, what? Okay, let's just try and
unpack all of that. What an incredibly insightful
deep dive into the very complex world of extremity,
skeletal, and metastasis. We've really covered
the whole spectrum, haven't we, from the, well,
the insidious ways it spreads and those awful
SREs through the complex diagnostic pathways
right up to the highly individual. but always
patient -focused treatment strategies. And what's
really striking, I think, for us as clinicians
is seeing how things are constantly evolving.
The advancements in both medical and surgical
approaches mean we genuinely have better options
now for pain control and for maintaining function
for longer. But as you stressed, it all comes
back to that collaborative, multidisciplinary
teamwork, tailoring everything to the individual
patient, their unique prognosis, their needs,
their goals. So what does this mean for you,
our listeners in the medical profession? I think
it really highlights just how vital it is to
understand these nuances. It allows for more
precise interventions, more realistic conversations
with patients, and ultimately, truly patient
-centered care. Because the goal always, at every
single stage, has got to be maximizing that precious
quality of life. And it does raise a really important
question. for the future. As our systemic therapies
get better and better, extending life for patients
with metastatic disease, sometimes turning it
into more of a chronic condition, how will we
in orthopedics need to adapt our management?
How do we provide even more durable, functionally
robust, and perhaps less burdensome solutions
for people living longer, sometimes for years,
with bone metastasis? That's a challenge, I think,
that will really shape our practice going forward.
If you found this deep dive valuable today, please
do take just a moment to rate and share it with
a colleague who you think might also benefit
from these insights.