Ten-year retrospect of the investigation of proximal limbs metastasis in cancer: a multi-center study on survival outcome, limb function status and surgical procedures analysis.

Introduction

Due to the advances in treatment strategies and improvement in diagnosis, the prevalence of bone metastasis (BM) has been increasing in recent years [ 1 , 2 ]. It was reported that BM occurred in approximately 70% of cancer patients with metastatic disease [ 3 , 4 ]. As most tumors predominantly metastasize to axial skeleton, literatures on spinal metastasis were widely reported [ 5 – 8 ]. Limbs metastasis accounted for 10% of patients with BM, the study addressing on patients with limbs metastasis was limited [ 9 ]. However, limbs metastasis can significantly reduce the patients’ quality of life.

Breast cancer, prostate cancer, renal cell carcinoma and lung cancer are common primary tumors resulting in limbs metastasis [ 1 , 10 – 13 ]. Previous literatures reported that limbs metastasis can be found in some unusual cancers such as endometrial carcinoma and Merkel cell carcinoma [ 14 , 15 ]. The proximal long bone including humerus and femur was the most common site in limbs metastasis [ 16 ]. Other uncommon metastatic sites such as tibia were also reported [ 17 ]. The 5-year survival rates of patients with limbs metastasis ranged from 8.0 to 64.3% due to different cohort selection [ 18 ]. The survival rate of breast cancer was up to more than 50% while that of lung cancer was less than 25% [ 19 ]. A retrospective study included 114 cancer patients with limbs metastasis and concluded that primary tumor, visceral metastasis and surgical procedure were associated with survival outcome [ 20 ]. Limited clinical variables were involved in the study, which restricted the finding of the study [ 20 ]. The survival estimation of cancer patients usually determined the choice of the individual treatment [ 21 – 23 ]. Thus, further study is warrant.

With the development of bone target therapy and comprehensive treatment on primary cancer, the aim of the treatment in cancer patients with limbs metastasis has been turning into the integration of symptom palliation and function improvement [ 24 ]. Patients with limbs metastasis usually suffered from refractory pain, pathological fracture, limited mobility and emotion damage, which significantly reduced patients’ quality of life and increased patients’ medical costs [ 25 ]. Limb function has been receiving attention from both patients and physicians. Several scoring systems were reported on evaluating limb function, including Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) [ 26 , 27 ].

For cancer patients with limbs metastasis, systematic chemotherapy on primary tumor was cornerstone and radiation therapy was usually recommended to relief pain [ 4 ]. Surgical intervention was encouraged for patients with high risk of bone fracture and clear pathological fracture. Prosthesis and intramedullary nailing have been accepted to be two main strategies on bone structure reconstruction [ 28 ]. Based on minimally invasive surgical techniques, percutaneous treatments such as ablation (thermal ablation, cryoablation and high intensity radiofrequency ablation) and cementoplasty were also performed in selected patients for palliative purposes [ 29 ]. The choice of the surgical method is still in controversial.

Based on data from multi-centers, the present study conducted a comprehensive analysis aiming to assess the survival outcome of cancer patients with limbs metastasis. Moreover, limb function was evaluated and compared among different subgroups. Our study can potentially help physicians estimate the prognosis and limb function of cancer patients with limbs metastasis, and tailor targeted treatment regimens.

Materials and methods

Data sources and study population

Conducting based on The Sino-Russian Joint Research Center for Bone Metastasis in Malignant Tumor, Tianjin, China , the data of initial included patients were derived from five centers from China and Russia as following: (1) Cangzhou Central Hospital, Cangzhou, Hebei Province, China; (2) Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China; (3) P.A. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute, Branch, National Medical Radiology Research Center, Ministry of Health Russia, Moscow, Russia; (4) MRNC named after A.F. Tsyba - a branch of the FSBI National Medical Research Center for Radiology of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Obninsk, Russia; (5) Institute of Medicine, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; Moscow, Russia. This retrospective, multi-centers study was conducted in accordance with the 1975 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards and was approved by the Ethics Board of the P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Center (CT3772Y4J).

The present study preliminarily included patients who were diagnosed with bone metastasis to proximal limbs (humerus or femur). The diagnosis of limb metastasis was confirmed by image examinations including X-ray, computed tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), bone scintigraphy and positron emission tomography (PET) or confirmed by pathology examinations. The exclusion criteria were as following: (1) patients younger than eighteen; (2) patients diagnosed with secondary primary cancer or multiple primary cancers; (3) patients without detailed medical records; (4) patients without clear follow-up status. The flowchart of the patient selection was shown in Fig. 1 .

Fig. 1 The flowchart of the patient selection in the study

Study variables

The following medical records were collected and evaluated: age of diagnosis, gender (male or female), preoperative BMI, smoking or alcohol consumption (no or yes), ABO blood type (A type, B type, AB type or O type), T-stage for primary cancer (T1, T2, T3 or T4), lymph metastasis (no or yes), visceral metastasis (no or yes), bone metastasis (solitary or multiple), pathological fracture (no or yes), surgical anatomic location (humerus or femur), type of surgery (prosthesis or intramedullary nailing), days from diagnosis of limb metastasis to surgery, hospitalization days after surgery, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion (no or yes), adjuvant chemotherapy (no or yes), adjuvant radiotherapy (no or yes), Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. Primary tumor type was defined by pathology and classified into three groups according to tumor malignancy [ 20 , 30 ].

Statistical analysis

Quantitative data were described as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) and independent sample t test or analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to find the difference among subgroups. Categorical variables were presented as number and percentage (N, %). Pearson chi-square (χ2) test or Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate the difference. The primary outcome in the present study was overall survival (OS), which was defined as the interval between the diagnosis of limb metastasis and all causes of death. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to analyze survival difference. The Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to identify the independent prognostic factors. The IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26.0, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided, and P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Baseline characteristics of the patients

A total of 316 cancer patients with proximal limbs metastasis were retrospectively included. The mean age at initial diagnosis was 61.0 ± 0.6 years with a slightly female predominance (N = 194, 61.4%). 53.8% (N = 170) of patients presented solitary bone metastasis while others (N = 146, 46.2%) presented multiple bone metastasis. Pathological fracture occurred in 212 patients (67.1%). Adjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant radiotherapy was performed in 203 (64.2%) and 122 (38.6%) cases, respectively. In the total cohort, 103 patients (32.6%) underwent surgery on humerus while 213 cases (67.4%) underwent surgery on femur. More information about baseline characteristics of patients with limb metastasis was shown in Table 1 .

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients with proximal limb metastasis in the present study Characteristic Surgical anatomic location Total cohort (N = 316) Humerus (N = 103) Femur (N = 213) Age (years) 61.4 ± 1.1 60.8 ± 0.7 61.0 ± 0.6 BMI (kg/m 2 ) 25.4 ± 0.4 25.7 ± 0.3 25.6 ± 0.2 Gender Male 46 (44.7%) 76 (35.7%) 122 (38.6%) Female 57 (55.3%) 137 (64.3%) 194 (61.4%) Primary tumor Slow growth 45 (43.7%) 103 (48.4%) 148 (46.8%) Moderate growth 25 (24.3%) 56 (26.3%) 81 (25.6%) Rapid growth 33 (32.0%) 54 (25.4%) 87 (27.5%) Smoking or alcohol consumption No 73 (70.9%) 154 (72.3%) 227 (71.8%) Yes 20 (19.4%) 51 (23.9%) 71 (22.5%) Unknown 10 (9.7%) 8 (3.8%) 18 (5.7%) ABO blood type A type 38 (36.9%) 63 (29.6%) 101 (32.0%) B type 24 (23.3%) 67 (31.5%) 91 (28.8%) AB type 13 (12.6%) 24 (11.3%) 37 (11.7%) O type 28 (27.2%) 59 (27.7%) 87 (27.5%) T stage for primary tumor T1 12 (11.7%) 21 (9.9%) 33 (10.4%) T2 42 (40.8%) 114 (53.5%) 156 (49.4%) T3 37 (35.9%) 52 (24.4%) 89 (28.2%) T4 12 (11.7%) 26 (12.2%) 38 (12.0%) Lymph metastasis No 46 (44.7%) 110 (51.6%) 156 (49.4%) Yes 57 (55.3%) 103 (48.4%) 160 (50.6%) Visceral metastasis No 76 (73.8%) 153 (71.8%) 229 (72.5%) Yes 27 (26.2%) 60 (28.2%) 87 (27.5%) Bone metastasis Solitary 59 (57.3%) 111 (52.1%) 170 (53.8%) Multiple 44 (42.7%) 102 (47.9%) 146 (46.2%) Pathological fracture No 34 (33.0%) 70 (32.9%) 104 (32.9%) Yes 69 (67.0%) 143 (67.1%) 212 (67.1%) Type of surgery Prosthesis 74 (71.8%) 149 (70.0%) 223 (70.6%) Intramedullary Nailing 29 (28.2%) 64 (30.0%) 93 (29.4%) Blood transfusion No 83 (80.6%) 169 (79.3%) 252 (79.7%) Yes 20 (19.4%) 44 (20.7%) 64 (20.3%) Days from diagnosis to surgery (d) 5.7 ± 0.3 8.0 ± 0.3 7.3 ± 0.2 Hospitalization days after surgery (d) 11.4 ± 0.3 11.2 ± 0.2 11.3 ± 0.2 Duration of surgery (min) 155.7 ± 4.3 177.8 ± 4.2 170.6 ± 3.2 Intraoperative blood loss (ml) 508.7 ± 58.0 623.1 ± 52.3 585.4 ± 39.9 Adjuvant chemotherapy No 36 (35.0%) 77 (36.2%) 113 (35.8%) Yes 67 (65.0%) 136 (63.8%) 203 (64.2%) Adjuvant radiotherapy No 65 (63.1%) 129 (60.6%) 194 (61.4%) Yes 38 (36.9%) 84 (39.4%) 122 (38.6%)

Primary tumor type was classified into three subgroups according to tumor malignancy: slow growth, moderate growth and rapid growth. Slow growth subgroups included breast cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and colorectal cancer. Moderate growth included renal cancer, thymic carcinoma, cervical cancer, pheochromocytoma and hematological malignant tumor (three for multiple myeloma, three for lymphoma and one for plasmacytoma). Rapid growth included hepatocellular carcinoma, lung cancer, gastric cancer, bladder cancer and pancreatic cancer. Breast cancer (N = 112), renal cancer (N = 70) and lung cancer (N = 51) were the major primary cancer types in the total cohort and were the most common type in subgroup of slow growth, moderate growth and rapid growth, respectively. The number of cases in each center were listed as following: 42 of Cangzhou Central Hospital; 26 of Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital; 87 of P.A. Herzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute; 78 of National Medical Research Center for Radiology and 83 of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. The number of cases and percentage of primary tumor in each center were shown in Fig. 2 .

Fig. 2 The number of cases and percentage of primary tumor in each clinical center

Survival outcome and prognostic factors

A total of 211 patients deceased at the last follow-up and the median OS was 24.0 (95% CI: 21.6–26.4) months. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 86.9%, 34.7% and 6.8%, respectively. The survival outcome in each clinical center was described in Supplementary Table 1. As shown in Table 2 , gender, primary tumor, T stage, visceral metastasis, hospitalization days and adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with survival in univariate Cox regression analysis. After adjusting these characteristics in multivariate analysis, rapid growth tumor (versus slow growth tumor, HR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.15–2.42, P = 0.007 ), presenting visceral metastasis (versus no visceral metastasis, HR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.08–1.94, P = 0.014 ) and no performance of adjuvant chemotherapy (versus adjuvant chemotherapy, HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51–0.93, P = 0.013 ) were three independent prognostic factors for worse survival. More details about Cox proportional hazards regression analysis and survival curves in subgroups analyses were presented in Fig. 3 .

Table 2 Cox proportional hazard regression model for analyzing the prognostic factors for malignant cancer patients with proximal limb metastasis Subject characteristics Univariate Multivariate HR (95% CI) P-value HR (95% CI) P-value Age 1.01 (1.00-1.02) 0.118 - - BMI 0.99 (0.95–1.04) 0.703 - - Gender Male 1 (reference) 1.00 1 (reference) 1.00 Female 0.70 (0.53–0.92) 0.010 0.90 (0.66–1.22) 0.483 Primary tumor Slow growth 1 (reference) 1.00 1 (reference) 1.00 Moderate growth 1.38 (0.99–1.94) 0.061 1.26 (0.88–1.80) 0.205 Rapid growth 2.08 (1.51–2.87) < 0.001 1.67 (1.15–2.42) 0.007 Smoking or alcohol consumption No 1 (reference) 1.00 - Yes 1.23 (0.88–1.73) 0.224 - - Unknown 1.01 (0.57–1.78) 0.973 - - ABO blood type A type 1 (reference) 1.00 - B type 1.11 (0.79–1.56) 0.565 - - AB type 1.43 (0.90–2.26) 0.130 - - O type 0.96 (0.67–1.38) 0.831 - - T stage for primary tumor T1 1 (reference) 1.00 1 (reference) 1.00 T2 1.12 (0.67–1.86) 0.661 1.04 (0.62–1.74) 0.892 T3 1.96 (1.17–3.29) 0.010 1.42 (0.83–2.43) 0.199 T4 1.29 (0.71–2.33) 0.406 1.04 (0.56–1.91) 0.913 Lymph metastasis No 1 (reference) 1.00 - Yes 0.90 (0.69–1.18) 0.451 - - Visceral metastasis No 1 (reference) 1.00 1 (reference) 1.00 Yes 1.58 (1.19–2.09) 0.002 1.44 (1.08–1.94) 0.014 Bone metastasis Solitary 1 (reference) 1.00 - Multiple 0.84 (0.64–1.10) 0.211 - - Pathological fracture No 1 (reference) 1.00 - Yes 0.97 (0.73–1.30) 0.857 - - Surgical anatomic location Humerus 1 (reference) 1.00 - Femur 0.89 (0.67–1.18) 0.420 - - Type of surgery Prosthesis 1 (reference) 1.00 - Intramedullary Nailing 0.79 (0.58–1.08) 0.143 - - Blood transfusion No 1 (reference) 1.00 - Yes 0.92 (0.65–1.31) 0.651 - - Days from diagnosis to surgery 0.99 (0.96–1.03) 0.721 - - Hospitalization days after surgery 1.04 (1.00-1.09) 0.036 1.01 (0.97–1.06) 0.566 Duration of surgery 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 0.432 - - Intraoperative blood loss - 0.117 - - Adjuvant chemotherapy No 1 (reference) 1.00 1 (reference) 1.00 Yes 0.62 (0.47–0.82) 0.001 0.69 (0.51–0.93) 0.013 Adjuvant radiotherapy No 1 (reference) 1.00 - Yes 0.87 (0.65–1.16) 0.338 - - MSTS score 1.00 (0.93–1.07) 0.891 - -

Fig. 3 The forest plot of Cox proportional hazards regression analysis and survival curves in subgroups analyses

Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and limb function evaluation

The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 20.50 ± 0.111. As shown in Table 3 , the MSTS score of solitary bone metastatic patients (20.91 ± 0.137) was significantly higher than that of multiple bone metastatic patients (19.96 ± 0.169, P < 0.001 ). Patients presenting pathological fracture showed lower MSTS score (20.26 ± 0.129) than those without pathological fracture (20.88 ± 0.204, P = 0.008 ). Compared with patients underwent intramedullary nailing surgery (19.41 ± 0.195), patients who underwent prosthesis surgery presented higher MSTS score (20.91 ± 0.123, P < 0.001 ). Meanwhile, the baseline characteristics of patients grouped by type of surgery were listed in Supplementary Table 2.

Table 3 Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score in patients with proximal limb metastasis Subject characteristics Mean SEM F/t P-value Total cohort 20.50 0.111 - - Gender Male 20.29 0.179 -1.302 0.194 Female 20.58 0.141 Primary tumor Slow growth 20.53 0.166 3.379 0.035 Moderate growth 20.81 0.222 Rapid growth 20.05 0.191 Smoking or alcohol consumption No 20.59 0.128 1.687 0.187 Yes 20.13 0.237 Unknown 20.22 0.515 ABO blood type A type 20.64 0.198 0.415 0.742 B type 20.37 0.218 AB type 20.32 0.333 O type 20.43 0.194 T stage for primary tumor T1 20.36 0.350 0.922 0.431 T2 20.47 0.168 T3 20.67 0.196 T4 20.05 0.258 Lymph metastasis No 20.44 0.158 -0.232 0.817 Yes 20.49 0.155 Visceral metastasis No 20.47 0.123 -0.015 0.988 Yes 20.47 0.241 Bone metastasis Solitary 20.91 0.137 4.389 < 0.001 Multiple 19.96 0.169 Pathological fracture No 20.88 0.204 2.660 0.008 Yes 20.26 0.129 Surgical anatomic location Humerus 20.64 0.191 1.084 0.279 Femur 20.38 0.136 Type of surgery Prosthesis 20.91 0.123 6.588 < 0.001 Intramedullary Nailing 19.41 0.195

Discussion

As retrospective study reported, a total of 539 patients diagnosed with BM in the University of Tokyo Hospital were categorized into four groups according to bone metastatic sites [ 31 ]. Patients with metastasis to humerus or femur were defined as ‘rhizometastasis’. The study concluded that the patients with rhizometastasis accounted for 22.5% with the median survival of 16.0 months [ 31 ]. As a note, there were several differences between humerus metastasis and femur metastasis despite of their similarities. Femur metastasis was much more common in clinic while humerus metastasis was relatively rare, especially as isolated or initial metastatic site [ 32 , 33 ]. In a retrospectively study focusing on metastasis in long bones, the proportion of patients suffered from femur metastasis was up to 73.7% (84 cases) while the proportion was 22.8% in humerus metastasis [ 34 ]. Considering the weight-bearing role of femur, compared with humerus metastasis, the quality of life can be more determined by femur metastasis. Thus, among the bone metastasis patients with limited survival, the active skeletal reconstruction was usually suggested to the patients with femur pathological fracture, while the palliative fixation brace can be given to the patients with humerus pathological fracture. As for primary tumor types, another study included 164 patients with limb metastasis and the top five common primary tumor lesions were, in descending order, breast, lung, renal, prostate and myeloma [ 35 ]. Being different from the above-mentioned studies with single center data, we performed an international investigation and reported 316 patients derived from five cohorts in China and Russia. The baseline characteristics of patients were summarized and described in humerus and femur respectively (shown in Table 1 ), and survival outcome and limb function were evaluated. Breast cancer, renal cancer and lung cancer were proved to be the most common primary tumors while different survival outcomes were confirmed between subgroups.

As for patients with spinal metastasis, primary tumor was identified as the fundamental prognostic predictor in several well-established score models including Tomita score, Tokuhashi score and Linden score [ 30 ]. Similarly, multiple studies confirmed the impact of primary tumor on prognosis in patients with limbs metastasis [ 16 , 20 ]. A study, including a total of 301 limbs metastatic patients, concluded that breast or prostate was associated with a better survival outcome compared with other primary lesions [ 16 ]. The postoperative survival was up to 16.0 months and 17.0 months in breast cancer and prostate cancer, respectively. The survival ranged from 4.0 to 9.0 months in more aggressive tumors such as lung cancer, bladder cancer and renal cell carcinoma [ 16 ]. Based on the analysis of 102 patients with upper extremity metastasis, another study demonstrated that there was a 4.4-fold increased risk of death in patients with rapid growth primary tumor [ 36 ]. It was reported that primary tumor was a risk factor for 30-day postoperative complications in patients with limb metastasis, and the complication rate was associated with 1-year mortality after surgery [ 37 ].

Compared to bone metastasis, visceral metastasis was generally accepted to be associated with overall cancer mortality in patients with advanced-stage cancer. The current medical therapies for visceral metastasis were inconsistent and limited despite of the recent therapeutic advances, and this metastatic disease was thought to be irreversible and incurable [ 38 , 39 ]. Lung, liver and brain were regarded as the major target sites of visceral metastasis and patients with these metastatic organs always suffered from malignant pleural effusion, dysfunction of liver, headache and focal neurological deficits [ 40 ]. Based on SEER database, a total of 12,794 prostate cancer patients with BM were included and prognostic factors were identified [ 41 ]. The presence of lung, liver and brain metastasis were three predictive factors for worse survival outcome in bone metastatic prostate cancer [ 41 ]. There were significant differences of median survival between patients with or without visceral metastasis [ 41 ]. In the current study, visceral metastasis was retrospectively analyzed and there was a 1.48-fold increased risk of death for patients with visceral metastasis, which was consistent with previous studies [ 40 – 43 ]. Besides, the total cohort benefited on survival from the performance of chemotherapy with a 0.7-fold increased risk of death in our study. Except for anti-tumor role of chemotherapy, the potential cause could be better performance status, more family supports and higher economic possess in patients received systematic chemotherapy.

Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system was widely accepted to measure limb function after surgery in oncological surgeon. The scoring system was originally developed in 1985 and subsequently adopted in 1993 [ 26 ]. MSTS scoring system comprised six categories (0–5 points for each category) and higher total points indicated better limb function[ 26 ]. Three categories were fitted for both upper and lower extremities: pain, function, emotional acceptance. While supports, walking ability and gait were for the lower extremity; and hand positioning, dexterity and lifting ability were used for the upper extremity. Our study concluded that patients with multiple bone metastatic sites and pathological fracture presented lower total points, which could be on account of impaired mobility and emotional distress. In the current study, patients who underwent surgery of intramedullary nailing presented lower MSTS score than patients with prosthesis surgery. Usually, these two surgical procedures were selected according to the metastatic tumor site. Prosthesis surgery was used on patients with tumor adjacent to the joint while intramedullary nailing on patients with fracture located in the backbone [ 9 ]. To compare the surgical outcome between intramedullary nailing and modular megaprosthesis, forty-five patients with extracapsular metastases of proximal femur were retrospectively collected [ 44 ]. The shorter operative time and more rapid functional recovery were observed in intramedullary group [ 44 ]. In addition, previous studies suggested a lower complication rate and shorter hospitalization in patients received intramedullary nailing [ 28 , 45 ]. However, our study revealed the further functional benefit from prosthesis surgery when compared with intramedullary nailing. Thus, prosthesis surgery should be encouraged on the patients with the clear indication.

The study was performed retrospectively, thus inherent selection bias was hardly avoided. Besides, only MSTS scoring system was used to evaluate limb function. Other scoring systems such as Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) could be used in future study.

Conclusions

The present study provided a perspective on survival outcome and limb function in cancer patients with limb metastasis. Primary tumor type, visceral metastasis and systematic chemotherapy treatment were the independent prognostic factors. Better limb function after surgery was seen in patients with solitary bone metastasis and those without pathological fracture. Compared with intramedullary nailing, patient’s limb function can further benefit from prosthesis surgery. As for patients with limbs metastasis, our findings can be potentially used in survival estimation and individualized treatment planning generation.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Chao Zhang and Jun Wang These authors contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author contributions

Chao Zhang and Zheng Liu contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Jun Wang, Artem V. Bukharov, Andrey D. Kaprin, Xu Guo and Zheng Liu. The analysis was performed by Haixiao Wu and Yile Lin. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Chao Zhang and revised by Vladimir P. Chekhonin and Karl Peltzer. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Data Availability

The datasets used in the current study can be accessed from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the 1975 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards and was approved by the Ethics Board of the P.A. Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Center (CT3772Y4J). Informed consent was obtained from all the participants in the current study.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declared no known competing financial interests or personal relationships in this study.

List of abbreviations

Musculoskeletal Tumor Society

Bone Metastasis

Toronto Extremity Salvage Score

Computed Tomography

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

positron emission tomography

overall survival

References

1. Coleman RE Croucher PI Padhani AR Clezardin P Chow E Fallon M Bone metastases Nat Rev Dis Primers 2020 6 1 83 10.1038/s41572-020-00216-3 33060614

2. Zhang C Mao M Guo X Cui P Zhang L Xu Y Nomogram based on homogeneous and heterogeneous associated factors for predicting bone metastases in patients with different histological types of lung cancer BMC Cancer 2019 19 1 238 10.1186/s12885-019-5445-3 30876473 PMC6420732

3. Willeumier JJ van der Linden YM Dijkstra PD Lack of clinical evidence for postoperative radiotherapy after surgical fixation of impending or actual pathologic fractures in the long bones in patients with cancer; a systematic review Radiother Oncol 2016 121 1 138 42 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.07.009 27524407

4. Pidduck W, Drost L, Yee A, Chow E, Tuazon R, Henry P. Local surgical complication rates in patients receiving surgery without immediate post-operative radiation therapy for lower extremity bone metastases. J BONE Oncol. 2020;23. 10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100289. 10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100289 PMC7262003 32489810

5. Spratt DE Beeler WH de Moraes FY Rhines LD Gemmete JJ Chaudhary N An integrated multidisciplinary algorithm for the management of spinal metastases: an International Spine Oncology Consortium report Lancet Oncol 2017 18 12 e720 30 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30612-5 29208438

6. Bollen L Dijkstra S Bartels R de Graeff A Poelma D Brouwer T Clinical management of spinal metastases-the dutch national guideline Eur J Cancer 2018 104 81 90 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.028 30336360

7. Ahangar P Aziz M Rosenzweig DH Weber MH Advances in personalized treatment of metastatic spine disease Annals of Translational Medicine 2019 7 10 223 10.21037/atm.2019.04.41 31297388 PMC6595197

8. Kumar N Malhotra R Zaw AS Maharajan K Naresh N Kumar A Evolution in treatment strategy for metastatic spine disease: presently evolving modalities Eur J Surg Oncol 2017 43 9 1784 801 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.05.006 28579359

9. Cheng D, Yang J, Hu T, Yang Q. Efficacy of limb salvage with primary tumor resection simultaneously for solitary bone metastasis in limbs. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;14(1). 10.1186/s12957-016-0786-8. 10.1186/s12957-016-0786-8 PMC4743159 26846931

10. Langerhuizen DWG Janssen SJ van der Vliet QMJ Raskin KA Ferrone ML Hornicek FJ Metastasectomy, intralesional resection, or stabilization only in the treatment of bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma J Surg Oncol 2016 114 2 237 45 10.1002/jso.24284 27156495

11. Altundag K Breast cancer subtypes and local recurrence rate after surgery for bone metastasis to the extremities J Surg Oncol 2018 117 7 1616 10.1002/jso.24987 29601640

12. Ma W Wang X Xu G Liu Z Yin Z Xu Y Distant metastasis prediction via a multi-feature fusion model in breast cancer Aging 2020 12 18 18151 62 10.18632/aging.103630 32989175 PMC7585122

13. Guo X, Ma W, Wu H, Xu Y, Wang D, Zhang S, et al. Synchronous bone metastasis in lung cancer: retrospective study of a single center of 15,716 patients from Tianjin, China. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1). 10.1186/s12885-021-08379-2. 10.1186/s12885-021-08379-2 PMC8152068 34039303

14. Jiang G Gao Y Gao M Zheng H Yan X Wang W Clinicopathological features and treatment of extremity bone metastasis in patients with endometrial carcinoma: a case report and review Chin Med J 2011 124 4 622 6 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2011.04.026 21362293

15. Kamijo A Koshino T Hirakawa K Saito T Merkel cell carcinoma with bone metastasis: a case report J Orthop Sci 2002 7 5 574 7 10.1007/s007760200102 12355133

16. Krishnan CK Kim H Yun JY Cho HS Park JW Han I Factors associated with local recurrence after surgery for bone metastasis to the extremities J Surg Oncol 2018 117 4 797 804 10.1002/jso.24880 29044578

17. Greco T Fulchignoni C Cianni L Maccauro G Perisano C Surgical management of tibial metastases: a systematic review Acta Biomed 2022 92 S3 e2021552 10.23750/abm.v92iS3.12540 35604269 PMC9437669

18. Kirkinis MN Lyne CJ Wilson MD Choong PFM Metastatic bone disease: a review of survival, prognostic factors and outcomes following surgical treatment of the appendicular skeleton EJSO 2016 42 12 1787 97 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.036 27499111

19. Hansen BH Keller J Laitinen M Berg P Skjeldal S Trovik C The scandinavian Sarcoma Group skeletal metastasis register - survival after surgery for bone metastases in the pelvis and extremities Acta Orthop Scand 2004 75311 11 5 10.1080/00016470410001708270 15188660

20. Hara H, Sakai Y, Kawamoto T, Fukase N, Kawakami Y, Takemori T, et al. Surgical outcomes of metastatic bone tumors in the extremities (Surgical outcomes of bone metastases). J BONE Oncol. 2021;27. 10.1016/j.jbo.2021.100352. 10.1016/j.jbo.2021.100352 PMC8039818 33850700

21. Ogilvie CM Fox EJ Lockman RD Current surgical management of bone metastases in the extremities and pelvis Semin Oncol 2008 35 2 118 28 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2007.11.019 18396197

22. Guo Q Zhang C Guo X Tao F Xu Y Feng G Incidence of bone metastasis and factors contributing to its development and prognosis in newly diagnosed renal cell carcinoma: a population-based study Cancer Manag Res 2018 10 2935 44 10.2147/CMAR.S170083 30214288 PMC6118275

23. Zhang J Ma W Wu H Wang J Lin Y Wang X Analysis of homogeneous and heterogeneous factors for bone metastasis in Esophageal Cancer Med Sci Monit 2019 25 9416 25 10.12659/MSM.920483 31821313 PMC6924131

24. Confavreux CB, Follet H, Mitton D, Pialat JB, Clezardin P. Fracture risk evaluation of bone metastases: a burning issue. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(22). 10.3390/cancers13225711. 10.3390/cancers13225711 PMC8616502 34830865

25. Miller BJ CORR Insights®: reliability and validity of a japanese-language and culturally adapted version of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scoring System for the Lower Extremity Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016 474 9 2053 4 10.1007/s11999-016-4962-5 27380281 PMC4965393

26. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. (1993).A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res286), 241–6. 8425352

27. Davis AM Wright JG Williams JI Bombardier C Griffin A Bell RS Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma Qual Life Res 1996 5 5 508 16 10.1007/BF00540024 8973131

28. Kirkinis MN Spelman T May D Choong PFM Metastatic bone disease of the pelvis and extremities: rationalizing orthopaedic treatment ANZ J Surg 2017 87 11 940 4 10.1111/ans.13615 27091575

29. Perisano C Greco T Fulchignoni C Maccauro G The IlluminOss(R) system: a solution in elderly patients with upper limbs bone metastases Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2022 26 1 Suppl 119 26 10.26355/eurrev_202211_30291 36448869

30. Tokuhashi Y Scoring system for prediction of metastatic spine tumor prognosis World J Orthop 2014 5 3 262 10.5312/wjo.v5.i3.262 25035829 PMC4095019

31. Tani S Morizaki Y Uehara K Sawada R Kobayashi H Shinoda Y Bone metastasis of limb segments: is mesometastasis another poor prognostic factor of cancer patients? Jpn J Clin Oncol 2020 50 6 688 92 10.1093/jjco/hyaa024 32083279 PMC7284539

32. Hou G Peng P Zhao Y Zheng R The Humeral Metastasis as the initial presentation of Lung Adenocarcinoma revealed by 18F-FDG PET/CT Clin Nucl Med 2023 48 3 280 1 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004502 36723890

33. Hou G Zhang W Zheng R The isolated Humeral Metastasis as the initial presentation of renal cell Carcinoma revealed by 18 F-FDG PET/CT Clin Nucl Med 2023 48 6 538 9 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004633 36976679

34. Madani I Sahgal A Erler D Stish BJ Olivier KR Park SS Stereotactic body Radiation Therapy for Metastases in Long Bones Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022 114 4 738 46 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.003 35850362

35. Skovlund Sørensen M Hindsø K Horstmann F Troelsen P Dalsgaard A Fog T Incidence of surgical interventions for metastatic bone disease in the extremities: a population-based cohort study Acta Oncol 2019 58 4 456 62 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1549368 30632859

36. Wisanuyotin T Sirichativapee W Sumnanoont C Paholpak P Laupattarakasem P Sukhonthamarn K Prognostic and risk factors in patients with metastatic bone disease of an upper extremity J BONE Oncol 2018 13 71 5 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.007 30591860 PMC6303409

37. Bindels BJJ Thio QCBS Raskin KA Ferrone ML Lozano Calderón SA Schwab JH Thirty-day postoperative complications after surgery for metastatic long bone Disease are Associated with higher mortality at 1 year Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020 478 2 306 18 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001036 31714410 PMC7438145

38. Ganesh K Massague J Targeting metastatic cancer Nat Med 2021 27 1 34 44 10.1038/s41591-020-01195-4 33442008 PMC7895475

39. Anderson RL Balasas T Callaghan J Coombes RC Evans J Hall JA A framework for the development of effective anti-metastatic agents Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2019 16 3 185 204 10.1038/s41571-018-0134-8 30514977 PMC7136167

40. Achrol AS Rennert RC Anders C Soffietti R Ahluwalia MS Nayak L Brain metastases Nat Rev Dis Primers 2019 5 1 5 10.1038/s41572-018-0055-y 30655533

41. Guo X Zhang C Guo Q Xu Y Feng G Li L The homogeneous and heterogeneous risk factors for the morbidity and prognosis of bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer Cancer Manag Res 2018 10 1639 46 10.2147/CMAR.S168579 29970963 PMC6021002

42. Xu Y, Wu H, Xu G, Yin Z, Wang X, Chekhonin VP et al. (2022).Survival Estimation, Prognostic Factors Evaluation, and Prognostic Prediction Nomogram Construction of Breast Cancer Patients with Bone Metastasis in the Department of Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor: A Single Center Experience of 8 Years in Tianjin, China. Breast J , 2022 (7140884. doi:10.1155/2022/7140884. 10.1155/2022/7140884 PMC9187277 35711898

43. Liu Z Xu Y Xu G Baklaushev VP Chekhonin VP Peltzer K Nomogram for predicting overall survival in colorectal cancer with distant metastasis BMC Gastroenterol 2021 21 1 103 10.1186/s12876-021-01692-x 33663400 PMC7934422

44. Vitiello R Perisano C Greco T Cianni L Polichetti C Comodo RM Intramedullary nailing vs modular megaprosthesis in extracapsular metastases of proximal femur: clinical outcomes and complication in a retrospective study BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022 22 Suppl 2 1069 10.1186/s12891-022-05728-5 36100879 PMC9472329

45. Mavrogenis AF Pala E Romagnoli C Romantini M Calabro T Ruggieri P Survival analysis of patients with femoral metastases J Surg Oncol 2012 105 2 135 41 10.1002/jso.22061 21815154