Current Overview of Treatment for Metastatic Bone Disease.

1. Introduction

Bone metastases are a common complication of cancer and can be caused by most types of malignancies. They occur frequently in breast cancer (65–75%), prostate cancer (65–90%), and lung cancer (17–64%), and less frequently in thyroid cancer (65%), bladder cancer (40%), melanoma (14–45%), kidney cancer (20–25%), and colorectal cancer (10%) [ 1 ]. Bone lesions are found in 70–95% of multiple myeloma cases. It is estimated that there are approximately 280,000 new cases of bone metastases annually in the United States. As cancer treatment prolongs the overall survival of patients, the number of patients with bone metastases is expected to increase further [ 2 ]. Bone metastases cause pain, pathological fractures, compression of the spinal cord or nerve roots, and life-threatening hypercalcemia, and they may require surgery, radiotherapy, or medical treatment [ 3 ].

2. Diagnosis

Because recent weight loss may indicate that a malignant tumor has spread throughout the body, physicians need to ask patients if they have this symptom [ 4 ]. Patients should be asked about the symptoms associated with a particular type of primary cancer and the factors that cause primary cancer (e.g., smoking history, alcoholism, cirrhosis, hematuria, or abdominal pain) [ 4 ]. Physical examination may provide information about primary cancers that may cause bone metastases. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the breast, thyroid gland, skin, and lymph nodes, as well as perform a digital rectal examination and a urinalysis [ 4 ].

It is also necessary to determine whether a bone lesion is metastatic or primary. Primary bone malignancies must be ruled out as these require a completely different therapeutic approach [ 4 ]. Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be useful for distinguishing between primary and metastatic bone tumors [ 5 ]. Soldatos et al. reported that compared with pathological fractures due to metastatic bone tumors, pathological fractures due to primary bone tumors more frequently had bone cortex lysis, calcification, and soft tissue mass on radiography, calcification, and soft tissue mass on CT, and periosteal reaction on MRI ( p < 0.01) [ 5 ].

There are three main situations encountered in patients with bone metastases. If the patient has a known metastatic bone tumor, the new bone lesion is most likely a metastasis [ 4 ]. If the patient has a known cancer but no bone metastases, findings suggestive of metastases may include elevated serum tumor markers and the presence of multiple skeletal lesions on bone scintigraphy or 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ( 18 F-FDG-PET/CT) [ 4 ]. Zhang et al. investigated 117 patients with a single known malignancy who underwent biopsy of a newly discovered bone lesion [ 6 ]. Of all the cases, 18% were benign lesions, and 3% were new malignancies. Patients with clinical symptoms were more likely to be diagnosed with bone metastases from known malignant tumors than patients without clinical symptoms (81% [87/107] vs. 50% [5/10]) [ 6 ]. For newly discovered bone lesions, a biopsy may be recommended in asymptomatic cases to avoid misdiagnosis; however, it should be avoided in symptomatic cases to reduce cost and risk [ 6 ]. If there is no history of active cancer or only a history of cancer in complete remission, the following tests should be performed: chest radiography, blood tests (calcium, albumin, alkaline phosphatase, blood cell counts, electrolytes, creatinine, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein [CRP], and protein electrophoresis) [ 4 ]. If the above test results are normal, a CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis may be needed [ 4 ]. In addition, upper tract endoscopy, bronchoscopy, and serum tumor marker assays may be required based on CT findings [ 4 ]. A biopsy may be needed if the nature of the lesion remains unknown after the above tests [ 4 ]. A diagnosis algorithm may be useful to determine the approach and staging in any patient with a musculoskeletal lesion ( Figure 1 ).

3. Prognosis

Physicians treating patients with bone metastases need to know the exact prognosis of the patient and weigh the benefits of surgery (improve function and control pain) against the risk of increased perioperative mortality [ 7 ]. A clinical factor-based prognostic scoring tool for patients with metastatic bone tumors has been developed to accurately predict life expectancy. Willeumier et al. created a prognostic model, the OPTModel, from the data of 1520 patients with bone metastases of long bones and who were treated with radiotherapy or surgery between 2000 and 2013 [ 8 ]. Patients were divided into four categories according to primary tumor, Karnofsky performance score, and the presence of visceral and/or brain metastases. Median survival was A: 21.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.7 to 25.1 months), B: 10.5 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 13.1 months), C: 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 5.3 months), and D: 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 2.6 months) for the 4 categories ( Table 1 and Table 2 ) [ 8 ]. Another model is PathFx, a machine-learning Bayesian belief network applicable to patients with bone metastases in the trunk and limbs. The model includes both objective quantifiable variables (age, sex, primary type, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, presence of visceral metastases, presence of multiple skeletal metastases, pathological fracture, hemoglobin, and lymphocyte count), and subjective variables (surgeon’s estimate of survival), although it has been reported that prognosis can be accurately predicted without this subjective variable [ 9 ]. PathFx has been externally validated in many different patient populations [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ] and has been recently updated to PathFx version 3.0 ( https://www.pathfx.org accessed on 10 July 2021) [ 13 ]. Meares et al. [ 14 ] compared several models, including the revised Katagiri model [ 15 ], SSG score [ 16 ], Janssen nomogram [ 17 ], and SPRING 13 nomogram [ 18 ], and reported that OPTModel demonstrated the highest accuracy at predicting 12-month (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.79) and 24-month survival (AUC = 0.77) after surgical management, while PathFx was the most accurate at predicting 3-month (AUC = 0.70) and 6-month survival (AUC = 0.70). Similarly, Thio et al. successfully developed a machine-learning model that predicts 90-day and 1-year survival in patients with bone metastases in the extremities. The final model was incorporated into a freely accessible web application available at https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/extremitymetssurvival/ accessed on 10 July 2021 [ 19 ]. Table 3 summarizes the prognosis prediction model created by machine learning [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Errani et al. analyzed 159 patients with bone metastases in the extremities who underwent surgery [ 24 ] and reported that pathological CRP (≥1.0 mg/dL) and primary tumor diagnosis were significant negative prognostic factors at 12-month survival. Breast, kidney, prostate, and thyroid cancers were classified as good prognosis, while lung, unknown primary, liver, colorectal, bladder, pancreas, gastric, esophagus, testicle, tonsil cancers, sarcoma, and melanoma were classified as poor prognosis. The probability of survival at 12 months was 89% for group A: good prognosis primary tumor and physiological CRP; 57% for group B: bad prognosis primary tumor and physiological CRP or good prognosis primary tumor and pathological CRP; and 13% for group C: bad prognosis primary tumor and pathological CRP [ 24 ].

Karhade et al. reported that the 1-year survival rate was 58% in patients with alkaline phosphatase levels below 73 IU/L and 24% in patients with levels above 140 IU/L [ 25 ]. Kim et al. reported a significant increase in mortality in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with pathological fractures of the femur due to bone metastases [ 26 ]. In addition, mortality increased when bone metastases were located at the intertrochanteric area of the femur, decreased serum albumin levels increased mortality, and proper use of chemotherapy reduced the risk of death within 3 months after surgery [ 26 ]. Reconstruction with an endoprosthesis increased the risk of death, and elevated levels of serum leukocyte and alanine aminotransferase were associated with an increased risk of death within 1 month after surgery [ 26 ]. Sarahrudi et al. reported that pathological fractures of the upper limbs had a better prognosis than those of the lower limbs [ 27 ]. The median survival time of patients with pathological fractures of the humerus was 3.7 months (range: 0.2–71.2 months), while that of patients with pathological fractures of the femur was 2.7 months (range: 0.2–46 months) [ 27 ].

The main purpose of treating bone metastases is to improve symptoms and prevent the development of skeletal-related events. Surgical and/or medical treatment may be determined according to the prognosis of patients with cancer. Patients with a poor prognosis may be treated with less invasive palliative treatments [ 24 , 28 ]. Surgical treatment should be considered if life expectancy is expected to exceed 6 weeks. Patients with a life expectancy of 3–12 months should be treated with less invasive surgical reconstruction that does not require long-term rehabilitation. Patients with a life expectancy of more than 12 months should be treated with en bloc resection of bone metastatic lesions and durable reconstruction, such as megaprosthesis reconstruction, which requires long-term rehabilitation [ 24 , 28 ]. Resection of bone metastases is likely to prolong overall survival in patients who have renal cell carcinoma and solitary bone metastases [ 29 ]. Ruatta et al. retrospectively investigated 300 patients with bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma [ 29 ]. In multivariate analysis, conformant metastases were still predictors of poor prognosis; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center risk group, radical resection, and synchronous solitary bone metastasis were predictors of better overall survival [ 29 ].

4. Bone Metastasis of the Extremities

The incidence of pathological fractures of the long bones due to bone metastases was 10% to 29% [ 30 , 31 ]. In 1989, Mirels reported a scoring system that predicted the risk of pathological fractures of the extremities [ 32 ]. It consisted of four components: the site of bone metastases, the degree of pain, radiographic findings, and lesion size. Each component was assigned a value from one to three. Therefore, total Mirels’ scores ranged from 4 to 12 ( Table 4 ). He estimated that patients with a score of 9 had a 33% risk of fracture and suggested that surgical intervention should be considered if the score was 9 or higher [ 32 ]. However, the agreement rate between examiners for the Mirels’ score was moderate, and it reportedly lacked reproducibility in predicting the risk of pathological fractures [ 33 ]. Van der Linden et al. reported that only axial cortical involvement >30 mm ( p = 0.01) and circumferential cortical involvement >50% ( p = 0.03) were predictors of fractures due to femoral metastases [ 34 ]. Shinoda et al. retrospectively analyzed 161 bone metastases on CT images and suggested that surgery should be considered if medial cortical lesions in the proximal femur affected 25–50% of the entire circumference [ 35 ]. Philipp et al. retrospectively investigated 950 patients with femoral metastases, of whom 362 (38%) underwent prophylactic stabilization of femoral lesions and 588 (62%) underwent internal fixation after the occurrence of pathological fracture [ 36 ]. After adjustment for comorbidities and cancer types, patients who received prophylactic stabilization had a lower risk of death than those who underwent internal fixation after the occurrence of a pathological fracture [ 36 ]. Ward et al. and McLynn et al. reported that patients who underwent internal fixation after the occurrence of a pathological fracture had more intraoperative bleeding than those who underwent prophylactic stabilization of femoral metastases [ 37 , 38 ]. Thus, it seems important to predict pathological fracture due to metastases using the methods described above, as well as to perform prophylactic stabilization for patients with a high risk of pathological fracture.

En bloc resection and prosthetic reconstructions may be considered for bone metastases of the proximal femur, distal femur, and proximal humerus, especially in cases involving the metaepiphysis [ 24 , 28 ]. Intramedullary nails may be used for impending fractures and pathological fractures of the diaphysis. If there is a large bone defect, intramedullary nailing with curettage of bone metastases and bone cement filling may be indicated [ 24 , 28 ]. According to a systematic review of bone metastases in the extremities, the mechanical failure rate of intramedullary nails for pathological fractures of long bones due to bone metastases ranged from 2 to 22%, while that of megaprosthesis reconstruction was approximately 3.7% [ 28 ]. Bindels et al. retrospectively investigated 1090 patients with surgically treated long bone metastases [ 39 ]; 31% of patients developed complications within 1 month after surgery. Complications within 1 month post-operation were associated with increased 1-year mortality [ 39 ]. Tanaka et al. retrospectively analyzed 148 patients who underwent surgery for femoral metastases [ 40 ]. Risk classification was performed according to the Katagiri and revised Katagiri scoring systems [ 15 , 41 ]. In general, the low-risk group underwent resection and prosthetic reconstruction, and the high-risk group underwent internal fixation and radiotherapy. The choice of surgery in the medium-risk group depended on the patient’s condition, degree of bone destruction, and radiosensitivity. The 1-year survival rate was 71% in the resection and prosthetic reconstruction group and 15% in the internal fixation group ( p < 0.001), and their 1-year local recurrence rates were 7% and 33%, respectively. The 2-year and 5-year local recurrence rates for the prosthetic reconstruction group were both 12%. Although the ambulatory rate was 99% for the prosthetic reconstruction group and 60% for the internal fixation group, the median time to ambulation was shorter in the internal fixation group (28 days vs. 23 days; p < 0.001) [ 40 ]. Erol et al. retrospectively investigated 115 patients who underwent en bloc resection, prosthetic reconstruction with or without cement fixation, and postoperative radiotherapy for long bone metastases [ 42 ]. There were 8 (6%) complications including aseptic loosening ( n = 2), femoral stem breakage ( n = 2), periprosthetic fracture ( n = 2), and infection ( n = 2). The frequency of complications was not significantly different between the cemented and non-cemented groups. The cemented group had significantly better Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional scores [ 42 ]. Gainor et al. reported that bone union of pathological fractures occurred in 67% of fractures due to multiple myeloma, 44% of fractures due to renal cell carcinoma, and 37% of fractures due to breast cancer [ 43 ]. They reported that none of the patients with pathological fractures due to lung cancer had bone union before death [ 43 ]. Previous history of radiation may further reduce bone union. This may need to be considered when assessing the durability of intramedullary nails and plates preoperatively [ 43 ]. Thus, it may be vital to select surgical methods considering the patient’s prognosis, quality of life, post-operative function, and risk of post-operative complications.

Capanna et al. stated that single bone metastatic lesions located in the rib, clavicle, and expandable bones, such as the fibula and distal ulna, can be resected without functional loss [ 44 ]. They stated that the risk of mechanical failure associated with surgery for bone metastases around the elbows, knees, and ankles was low. If less than half of the bone is affected, they recommended cementing and plate fixation after curettage [ 44 ]. They also recommended local adjuvant therapy, such as phenol and cryotherapy, and radiotherapy after curettage [ 44 ]. If more than half of the metaphyseal region is affected, they recommended intra-articular resection and reconstruction with prosthesis for the distal humerus, distal femur, and proximal tibia, or arthrodesis with an allograft for ankle lesions [ 44 ].

Willeumier et al. examined the literature on the effects of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgical fixation for impending or pathological fractures of long bones. They found that there were only two retrospective cohort studies and the quality of evidence was very low [ 45 ]. It was not possible to conclude that postoperative radiotherapy after surgical stabilization was the standard treatment [ 45 ]. For patients with a long life expectancy, the benefits of radiotherapy may outweigh the disadvantages, but for patients with short life expectancy, the adverse effects of radiotherapy on quality of life may outweigh the risk of local progression or implant failure [ 45 ].

Metastases at the distal ends of the extremities (acrometastasis) account for approximately 0.1% of bone metastases [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. This is usually due to lung cancer (>50%) or kidney cancer, followed by colon cancer, breast cancer, and genitourinary tract cancers [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. This can occur in patients of all ages and tends to be slightly more common in men [ 46 , 48 ]. Patients with acrometastases generally have a poor prognosis due to widespread disease [ 51 ]. In 10% of the cases, acrometastasis may occur as the first presentation of occult cancer [ 52 , 53 ]. It can be mistaken for other benign diseases such as inflammatory lesions, cysts, gout, ganglia, osteomyelitis, tuberculous dactylitis, pyogenic granuloma, and primary skin tumors [ 48 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ].

5. Bone Metastasis of the Spine

The spine is the most common site of metastatic bone tumors [ 59 , 60 , 61 ]. The most common site of spinal metastasis is the thoracic spine (60–70%), followed by the lumbosacral spine (20–25%) and the cervical spine (10–15%). Bone metastases to multiple spines occur in 17–30% of patients [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Metastatic spinal lesions can be osteolytic, osteoblastic, or mixed [ 63 ]. Constans et al. reported that more than 70% of spinal metastases are osteolytic lesions, 8% are osteoblastic, and 21% are mixed osteolytic and osteoblastic lesions [ 63 ]. Common primary cancers that cause osteolytic lesions are breast, lung, melanoma, renal, and thyroid cancers [ 64 ]. Primary cancers that cause osteoblastic lesions include carcinoids, medulloblastoma, nasopharyngeal cancer, prostate cancer, and urothelial cancer [ 64 ]. Breast, cervix, lung, and ovarian cancers can also cause a mixture of osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions [ 64 ].

Because at least 50% loss of mineral content and a minimum size of 1 cm on radiography are required to detect spinal metastases, it is often difficult to suspect early spinal metastases using radiography [ 65 ]. Bone scintigraphy may help detect spinal metastases due to its high sensitivity (62–100%) and specificity (78–100%) [ 66 , 67 ]. However, in the case of osteolytic or avascular lesions, bone scintigraphy may miss metastases [ 68 , 69 ]. In addition, degenerative changes may indicate an increase in tracer uptake on bone scintigraphy [ 70 ]. 18 F-FDG-PET/CT had higher sensitivity (80–100%) and specificity (99%) in detecting spinal metastases than bone scintigraphy [ 66 , 71 ]. FDG-PET/CT definitely outperforms bone scintigraphy in osteolytic lesions [ 69 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 ]. However, FDG-PET/CT may not adequately evaluate osteoblastic metastases [ 72 , 76 ]. Both CT and MRI are essential for evaluating the characteristics of spinal metastasis. CT can distinguish between osteolytic and osteoblastic lesions and accurately assess lesions that affect the cortical bone [ 66 , 67 ]. CT can also be used to assess spinal stability according to the spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) [ 77 ]. Whole-spine MRI can show detailed bone marrow findings and detect medullary metastases [ 3 ]. In addition, MRI can more clearly show the soft tissue and spinal cord [ 3 ]. Contrast enhancement can clearly show epidural extension [ 66 ]. MRI can detect spinal metastases earlier than other imaging modalities [ 78 , 79 , 80 ]. Spinal metastases often occur in the posterior vertebral body and spread to the pedicle [ 81 ]. MRI was recommended to consist of sagittal T1- and T2-weighted images of the entire spine and axial T2-weighted images of the affected spinal level [ 82 , 83 ]. Rades et al. investigated 2096 patients who received radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression to determine the factors predicting ambulatory status after radiotherapy [ 84 ]. Multivariate analysis showed that five factors were significantly correlated with ambulatory status: primary tumor type, interval between tumor diagnosis and metastatic spinal cord compression, visceral metastases, motor function before radiotherapy, and time developing motor deficits before radiotherapy [ 84 ]. Therefore, because recovery from motor deficits may depend on the duration of symptoms and maintenance of ambulatory status, immediate MRI may be recommended if there is a possibility of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression or bilateral radiculopathy [ 84 , 85 ]. If the patient has a unilateral motor deficit and/or sensory deficit that indicates radiculopathy, MRI should be performed within 2–3 days [ 3 ]. MRI should be performed within 1 week for unilateral radiculopathy and within 2 weeks for localized pain [ 3 ].

Neurological considerations primarily focus on the degree of spinal cord compression. The 6-point epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) grade may help determine the treatment of spinal cord metastases along with clinical assessment of myelopathy and/or radiculopathy [ 83 , 86 ]. ESCC grade is evaluated on axial T2-weighted images at the most severe compression sites. If the spine is stable, radiation may be considered for lesions with low-grade compression (ESCC grades 0, 1a, 1b, and 1c). For lesions with severe compression (grades 2 and 3), minimal surgical decompression of the epidural space may be considered unless the tumor is radiosensitive or the patient cannot tolerate surgery [ 86 ]. Breast and prostate cancer, lymphoma, seminoma, and myeloma are radiosensitive, while renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal tumors are radio-insensitive [ 87 ]. Surgery for spinal metastases due to radiation-sensitive tumors, such as multiple myeloma, malignant lymphoma, and leukemia should be avoided [ 88 , 89 , 90 ]. Quraishi et al. reported that Frankel grade was improved by surgical decompression in 17.5% of patients with lower-grade compression (ESCC grades 0, 1a, 1b, and 1c) and in 33% of patients with higher-grade compression grade (ESCC grades 2 and 3) [ 91 ]. Assessment of the degree of spinal cord compression may be important in determining whether separation surgery is needed to safely and effectively perform spinal stereotactic radiation therapy and radiosurgery [ 92 ]. Stereotactic radiotherapy for radio-insensitive tumors has shown higher local control rates than external beam radiotherapy [ 93 , 94 , 95 ]. Sohn et al. conducted a matched-pair study comparing the results of stereotactic radiosurgery and external beam radiotherapy when used as a first-line treatment for spinal metastases from renal cell carcinoma [ 94 ]. The decrease in perioperative visual analogue scale scores was greater in the stereotactic radiosurgery group than in the radiotherapy group ( p = 0.04). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the stereotactic radiosurgery group ( p = 0.01) [ 94 ]. Treatment should be started within 24 h if there is metastatic spinal cord compression and neurological symptoms, within 3 days if there is metastatic spinal cord compression but no neurological symptoms, or within 2 weeks if there is only pain [ 3 ].

Surgical stabilization or percutaneous cement augmentation may be indicated for spinal instability, regardless of the ESCC grade and tumor radiosensitivity [ 86 ]. Radiotherapy may not improve spinal stability [ 86 ], defined as the “loss of spinal integrity due to a neoplastic process that is associated with movement-related pain, symptomatic or progressive deformity, and/or neural compromise under physiologic loads” [ 77 ]. The assessment of spinal instability is based on both clinical symptom criteria and CT imaging criteria. In 2010, the Spine Oncology Study Group created the SINS according to the best evidence provided by systematic review [ 77 , 96 ]. In this scoring system, spinal instability is assessed by adding five imaging and one clinical component score: spinal lesion level, presence and type of pain, lesion bone quality, spinal alignment, extent of vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral involvement of the spinal elements [ 77 ]. The total SINS ranges from 0 to 18 points and is divided into three clinical categories: 0–6 points suggests stability, 7–12 points suggests impending instability, and 13–18 points denotes instability ( Table 5 ). Consultation with a spine surgeon may be recommended for patients with SINS ≥ 7. SINS showed excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability in determining spinal instability [ 97 ]. Its sensitivity and specificity were 96% and 80%, respectively [ 97 ]. However, there are some limitations to the SINS. For multiple spinal metastatic lesions, SINSs are not summed. Previous laminectomy or other surgical procedures and previous radiotherapy can affect spinal instability along with low bone quality, patient weight, and activity level [ 98 ].

Park et al. compared the outcome between patients with spinal metastases as the first symptom of malignancy and patients with prior treatment for primary malignancies who subsequently developed spinal metastases [ 99 ]. The survival time of the former group (mean 23 months) was significantly longer than that of the latter group (mean 15.5 months) [ 99 ].

A randomized, multi-institutional, non-blinded trial conducted by Patchell et al. in 2005 showed that direct decompressive surgery and postoperative radiotherapy were superior to radiotherapy alone in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression [ 88 ]. In this study, patients with metastatic spinal cord compression were randomly assigned to either surgery with subsequent radiotherapy ( n = 50) or radiotherapy alone ( n = 51). Significantly more patients were able to walk after treatment in the surgery with radiotherapy group (42/50, 84%) than in the radiotherapy alone group (29/51, 57%) (odds ratio 6.2 (95% CI 2.0–19.8), p = 0.001) [ 88 ]. Two subsequent meta-analyses confirmed that decompression surgery with postoperative radiotherapy resulted in a better ambulatory status than radiotherapy alone [ 100 , 101 ]. However, surgery is not always an option for patients with spinal metastases. Spine surgery should only be performed if the patient has a life expectancy of more than 6 months, and if clinical improvement outweighs the risks associated with surgery [ 61 , 102 ]. Pereira et al. identified the factors related to complications that occurred within 30 days of surgery for spinal metastases [ 103 ]. The surgical methods included corpectomy with stabilization (313 cases, 48%), decompression with stabilization (230 cases, 36%), decompression alone (84 cases, 13%), and stabilization alone (20 cases, 3.0%). Of the 647 patients, 205 (32%) had complications within 30 days [ 103 ]. Variables that were associated with these complications were lower albumin levels, additional comorbidities, pathologic fracture, three or more spinal levels operated on, and combined surgical approach. Complications within 30 days were associated with poor survival [ 103 ].

Less invasive spinal procedures include vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and minimally invasive spine stabilization with percutaneous pedicle screws. Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty provide anterior column stability [ 104 ]. Vertebroplasty may relieve pain within 1-3 days [ 105 ]. Minimally invasive spine stabilization provides both anterior and posterior column stability ( Figure 2 ) [ 106 ]. Therefore, these types of palliative surgery may be recommended for patients with a life expectancy of at least 3 months [ 3 ].

With regard to adjunct of spinal surgery, conventional spinal navigation solutions have been criticized for taking longer to set up and longer surgical time. However, augmented reality navigation solutions can simplify the setup and registration process using optical markers or surface recognition for patient tracking. Furthermore, it is possible to reduce the surgical time by obtaining the actual surgical field information and virtual information from the same field of view [ 107 , 108 ]. According to recent systematic review, with the augmented reality navigation solutions, the workflow was superior and the surgical accuracy was not inferior compared to the free-hand method or conventional navigation solutions [ 107 ]. In addition, the augmented reality navigation solutions reduced the radiation exposure of patients and staff [ 107 ]. Therefore, augmented reality navigation solutions may also be recommended for surgery of spinal metastasis.

When symptomatic metastatic spinal cord compression is identified, external beam radiotherapy and prompt administration of corticosteroids may be standard options, combined with supportive therapies, such as opioids, bisphosphonates, and spinal braces [ 109 , 110 ]. Embolization should also be considered for pain palliation in patients with spinal metastasis [ 111 ].

6. Bone Metastasis of the PELVIS

Bone metastases in the pelvis significantly impair the patient’s quality of life and require treatment [ 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]. Lesions in the ilium wing, sacroiliac joint, or anterior arch of the pelvis may have a low risk of mechanical failure and may usually be successfully treated with radiotherapy [ 44 ]. Surgery may be needed only if the patient has a good prognosis for solitary and late metastases at these sites [ 44 ]. In such cases, wide resection or aggressive curettage may improve patient survival [ 44 ]. The ilium wing and the anterior pelvic arch may cause less dysfunction after en bloc resection and may not require reconstruction other than reinforcement with synthetic mesh to avoid visceral hernias [ 44 ]. Periacetabular lesions are usually painful with weight bearing and are at risk of mechanical failure, resulting in progressive protrusio acetabuli. Therefore, surgical treatment and postoperative radiotherapy may be indicated to reduce pain, restore function, and allow early weight bearing [ 120 ]. If the medial wall of the acetabulum is involved, special cups with screwed lateral flanges may be used to prevent medial migration, and a metal mesh is placed on the medial wall before cementation. Different types of reinforcement rings may be used when both the medial and lateral walls of the acetabulum are destroyed. Harrington introduced another method using cement to fill the defect, which is reinforced by Steinmann pins placed into the pubic and ischial rami and from the acetabular dome to the sacroiliac joint [ 120 ]. This system improves the distribution of stress from the acetabular component to the spine and provides long-term durability of the implant [ 120 ]. Rowell et al. studied 46 patients who underwent acetabular cage and cement fixation to treat destructive acetabular metastases [ 121 ]. Four patients experienced postoperative dislocation, one experienced postoperative deep infection, and the other died within 30 days after surgery; 23 patients were able to walk independently, 10 used walking sticks, and 12 used walkers [ 121 ]. Tillman et al. studied 50 patients who underwent a modified Harrington procedure for periacetabular metastasis or hematological malignancy [ 122 ]. No perioperative deaths or complications occurred. Implant survival rates were 100% and 46% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Ambulatory status and pain improved in 83% and 89% of patients, respectively [ 122 ]. They reported that the modified Harrington procedure for periacetabular metastasis had a lower incidence of complications, better functional outcomes, and reduced pain [ 122 ]. Houdek et al. compared the results of highly porous uncemented tantalum acetabular components (37 cases) and the modified Harrington procedure (78 cases). Eighty-three percent of the patients received adjuvant radiotherapy, and additional surgery was performed in 24 patients (21%). Harrington-style reconstructions had a higher reoperation rate than tantalum reconstructions (hazard ratio, 4.59; p = 0.003). Thirteen patients (11%) underwent acetabular component revision (11%); 5 (4%) were due to loosening of the acetabular component. The 10-year cumulative incidence acetabular component revision due to loosening was 9.6% in the Harrington-style reconstruction group and 0% in the tantalum reconstruction group ( p = 0.09). After reconstruction, the mean Harris hip score improved significantly (31 to 67 points, p < 0.001), and there was no significant difference in the mean Harris hip score between the two groups ( p = 0.29) [ 123 ]. Preoperative embolization may be recommended for all patients with pelvic bone metastases because all metastatic bone lesions are hypervascular and some are highly hypervascular [ 124 ].

Cotten et al. used the vertebroplasty technique to treat osteolytic metastatic lesions around the acetabulum [ 125 ]. Acetabuloplasty consisted of percutaneously injecting low-viscosity acrylic cement into the osteolytic cavity. The main goal is to increase the resistance of bone metastatic lesions to compressive stress and reduce the risk of fractures [ 126 ]. In addition, the exothermic reaction during cement polymerization may cause a local cytotoxic reaction to the tumor. Acetabuloplasty provided complete pain relief in 59% of patients [ 127 ]. Combining ablation treatment with cementoplasty may increase overall efficacy. In general, percutaneous treatment has a very low incidence of complications. Rare cases of hip cement protrusion without significant loss of function have been reported [ 128 , 129 ]. The indications for acetabuloplasty are pain and impending fractures [ 118 , 128 , 129 ]. Contraindications for acetabuloplasty include articular cortical destruction of the acetabular roof > 5 mm in diameter and soft tissue involvement more than three times the bone destruction area [ 118 , 128 , 129 ].

7. Radiotherapy

The main purpose of radiotherapy for bone metastases is to relieve pain, achieve local tumor control, and improve quality of life. After external beam radiotherapy, bone metastases usually begin to ossify within 3–6 weeks; partial response rates are up to approximately 60%, and complete response rates range from 10% to 25% [ 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]. The treatment for pain relief from uncomplicated bone metastases may be a single fraction of 8 Gy. Repeat radiotherapy may be effective in relieving symptoms that have recurred after single-fraction treatment [ 134 ]. An updated meta-analysis of palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases included 25 randomized controlled trials comparing single-fraction and multiple-fraction radiotherapy [ 135 ]. The overall and complete pain response rates were found to be equivalent. However, retreatment rates were 2.6 times higher for single-fraction radiotherapy [ 135 ]. Therefore, multiple-fraction radiotherapy that produce a sustained response may be recommended for patients with oligometastatic disease or good prognosis [ 136 , 137 , 138 ]. Stereotactic body radiation therapy is a highly concentrated form of radiation that can irradiate target tissue at a high dose without affecting the surrounding normal tissue. Although there is a high risk of vertebral compression fractures, it involves minimal toxicity to the spinal cord and has a high local control rate of spinal metastases [ 136 ]. A systematic review of complications of stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases found a 14% risk of vertebral compression fractures after stereotactic body radiation therapy [ 139 ]. In a retrospective study of 594 patients who underwent stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases, multivariate analysis revealed that a pre-existing vertebral compression fracture, a solitary metastasis, and a prescription dose of 38.4 Gy or higher increased the risk of compression fractures [ 140 ]. A meta-analysis of repeated radiation for painful bone metastases showed that repeated external beam radiation improved pain in only approximately 58% of patients [ 141 ], whereas repeated stereotactic body radiation therapy improved pain in 65–81% of patients [ 142 ].

Radiopharmaceuticals are currently used in patients with diffuse bone metastases, for which external beam radiation alone is not sufficient. Radionuclides, including beta-emitters such as Strontium-89 ( 89 Sr) and Samarium-153 ( 153 Sa), and alpha-emitters such as Radium-223 ( 223 Ra) can be selectively delivered towards bone areas of amplified osteoblastic activity, sparing healthy organs from irradiation [ 143 ]. Beta-emitters can relieve pain but cause myelosuppression. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 89 Sr and 153 Sa radionuclides for the treatment of pain from bone metastasis, as well as 223 Ra alpha-emitter for patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer, symptomatic bone metastases and no known visceral metastatic disease [ 136 ]. In the placebo-controlled ALSYMPCA trial, 223 Ra improved median overall survival in castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients with symptomatic bone metastases, compared with the control (15 vs. 11 months, p < 0.001), and prolonged the time to first skeletal-related event (16 vs. 10 months with placebo, hazard ratio 0.66, p < 0.001) [ 144 ]. However, recent meta-analyses showed no significant benefit in overall survival or symptomatic skeletal-related event-free survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer [ 145 ]. Patients need to have osteoblast activity in symptomatic bone metastases, with adequate renal function, bone marrow capacity, and life expectancy to receive radionuclide treatment [ 146 ]. In addition, radionuclide therapy is contraindicated in cases of spinal cord compression, a high risk of fracture of the bones of the lower extremities, or pregnancy and lactation [ 146 ].

8. Bisphosphonates and Denosumab

The histology of the primary tumor is the most important factor in choosing a chemotherapy regimen aimed at controlling tumor progression and preventing the development of skeletal-related events. Bisphosphonates indirectly reduce osteoclast activity by affecting osteoblasts, and directly induce osteoclast apoptosis by inhibiting farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase [ 1 ]. Among the intravenous agents, zoledronic acid is approved for the treatment of bone metastases in solid tumors and multiple myeloma, and pamidronate is approved for patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma. Ibandronate can be administered both intravenously and orally and is effective for bone metastases in breast cancer patients. Oral clodronate is another treatment option for osteolytic bone metastases [ 147 ]. For breast cancer, bisphosphonates should be administered from the first presentation of bone metastases, even if they are asymptomatic. In prostate cancer, patients with hormone-sensitive disease have a lower risk of skeletal-related events, so bisphosphonates should only be administered to castrate-resistant patients. Bisphosphonates should be considered in patients with bone metastases from other malignancies who develop symptoms of skeletal-related events. Zoledronic acid is most effective in reducing serum calcium levels in patients with hypercalcemia, a serious and potentially life-threatening complication of osteolytic bone metastases [ 147 ]. Bisphosphonates have a risk of adverse events such as osteonecrosis of the jaw, renal failure, and hypocalcemia [ 147 ]. Zoledronic acid is usually administered every 3–4 weeks. However, a less intensive schedule (every 12 weeks) was reportedly non-inferior for breast cancer, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma [ 148 , 149 , 150 ]. Therefore, a three-month schedule can reduce the risk of adverse events without affecting treatment outcomes.

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets the receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL), a protein that acts as the primary signal to promote bone loss, inhibits the interaction between RANKL and RANK and, therefore, reduces osteoclast maturation and activity. The guidelines for denosumab for metastatic bone disease are similar to those for bisphosphonates. However, denosumab is not nephrotoxic and can be used in patients with renal failure. Hypocalcemia and osteonecrosis of the jaw are the most common complications of denosumab [ 134 , 147 ]. Currently, there is no evidence to support a reduced frequency of denosumab treatment; unlike bisphosphonates, denosumab does not accumulate in bone, even after months, and its interruption may compromise the therapeutic effect [ 151 ].

Lipton et al. performed a randomized controlled trial comparing denosumab and zoledronic acid for their ability to prevent skeletal-related events of bone metastases from various cancers [ 152 ]. Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases, regardless of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, baseline visceral metastasis presence/absence, bone metastasis number, and urinary N-telopeptide level [ 152 ]. Chen et al. conducted a meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials to compare the safety of denosumab and zoledronic acid for bone metastases [ 153 ]. Regarding minor adverse events, anemia and anorexia were more common in the zoledronic acid group, but the occurrence of back pain, nausea, fatigue, constipation, bone pain, arthralgia, and vomiting were not different between the two groups [ 153 ]. Regarding serious adverse events, there was no difference in osteonecrosis of the jaw between the two groups; however, renal adverse events were more common in the zoledronic acid group, and hypocalcemia and new primary malignancy were more common in the denosumab group [ 153 ].

9. Embolization

Embolization is a useful auxiliary procedure for bone metastases that can facilitate surgery by controlling bleeding, suppressing tumor growth, and relieving pain [ 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 ]. Most metastatic lesions are hypervascular; some lesions, such as renal ( Figure 3 ) and thyroid metastases, are highly hypervascular [ 154 , 155 ]. Various embolic agents are currently available, including N-2-butyl cyano-acrylate, gelfoam, polyvinyl alcohol particles, alcohol emulsions, coils, tissue adhesives, ethanol, and microfibrillar collagen [ 52 , 134 , 160 , 161 ]. This procedure is technically successful if the intravascular contrast material completely stops the hypervascularity of the tumor, or if the vascularity of the tumor is reduced by more than 80% compared to the initial angiography [ 162 ].

Embolization of hypervascular bone metastases can reduce blood loss and surgical time, especially when performed on the day of surgery [ 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 ]. Complications that occur in 18–86% of embolizations are post-embolization syndromes that manifest as fever, pain, and malaise [ 162 , 167 ]. Other complications include neurologic complications, skin or muscle necrosis, and infections [ 154 , 167 , 168 ].

Rossi et al. performed 309 palliative embolizations with N-2-butyl cyano-acrylate in 243 patients with bone metastases. Fifty-six patients underwent repeated embolization at the same site within 1–3 months, while 197 underwent embolization for progressive lesions after radiotherapy. They reported a 50% or greater reduction in pain scores and analgesic needs in 97% of patients. The average duration of pain relief was 8 months (range: 1–12 months) [ 161 ].

10. Radiofrequency Thermal ABLATION (RFA)

RFA was reported to relieve the pain associated with bone metastases [ 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 ]. The Metastatic Spine Disease Multidisciplinary Working Group stated that RFA may be ineffective in treating bone metastases in the following situations: asymptomatic spinal metastases in patients with poor general condition, life expectancy of less than 6 months, pathological vertebral compression fracture, and epidural spinal cord compression [ 174 ]. Ablation methods, such as RFA or cryotherapy, are contraindicated if the tumor is within 1 cm of important structures such as the spinal cord, major nerves, and blood vessels [ 174 ].

Luigi Cazzato et al. performed RFA ( n = 12; 25%) or cryotherapy ( n = 37; 76%) in 49 patients with bone metastases, and the primary tumors were thyroid ( n = 11, 23%), breast ( n = 21; 43%), lung ( n = 8; 16%), and other cancers ( n = 9; 18%) [ 175 ]. Local progression at the treatment site was observed in 29% of cases ( n = 14). The local control rates for 1 and 2 years were 77% and 72%, respectively. The local progression rate was higher when the size of the bone lesion was 2 cm or larger ( p = 0.002) [ 175 ].

11. Electrochemotherapy

Electrochemotherapy consists of a combination of electric pulses and intravenous infusion of chemotherapeutic drugs [ 176 ]. Cell membranes are usually poor or non-permeant, but electric pulses induce the opening of the transmembrane channels, which allows chemotherapeutic agents to enter the cell and enhance local cytotoxic effects [ 177 , 178 ]. Bleomycin and cisplatin have been shown to be the most effective and appropriate agents for electrochemotherapy in clinical use [ 134 , 179 ]. Recently, electrochemotherapy has become available for bone metastases ( Figure 4 and Figure 5 ), improving pain relief and local control of bone metastases in patients who have failed radiotherapy or who have difficulty undergoing surgery [ 134 ]. The bone mineral structure was unchanged by electrochemotherapy, and the neural structure exhibited transient edema without structural changes after electroporation [ 180 ]. This is the main advantage of electrochemotherapy over radiotherapy and other ablation techniques [ 180 , 181 ]. Cornelis et al. reported that electrochemotherapy was performed in two patients with spinal metastasis and spinal cord compression to achieve pain relief, motor function improvement, and tumor growth control without complications, such as exacerbation of paralysis [ 182 ]. Campanacci et al. conducted a multicenter prospective study of 102 patients with bone metastases who underwent electrochemotherapy. Twenty-four patients (24%) received intramedullary nails scheduled after electrochemotherapy during the same surgery. Responses to treatment according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria were 40% objective responses, 51% stable disease, and 9% progressive disease. Breast cancer diagnosis and performance status of 0 to 1 were significantly associated with objective responses. During follow-up, a significant reduction in pain and a significant improvement in quality of life were observed [ 183 ].

12. High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU)

HIFU causes coagulation necrosis at a thermal threshold of 65 °C to 85 °C, depending on the tissue absorption coefficient [ 184 , 185 ]. Ultrasound beam focus results in high intensities only at a specific location within a small volume that minimizes the potential for thermal damage to tissues outside the focal region [ 184 , 186 , 187 , 188 ]. MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) combines high-intensity focused ultrasound with MRI guidance [ 189 ], and it has been approved for pain palliation in patients with bone metastases by the US FDA. In one study, MRgFUS relieved pain in 60–100% of patients; pain relief occurred rapidly and lasted for more than 3 months [ 190 ]. MRgFUS is recommended as a second-line treatment for pain relief in non-vertebral and non-skull metastases after radiotherapy failure. There are no restrictions based on the type of bone lesion (osteolytic or osteoblastic) or the number of bone lesions. Treatable lesions should always be identified on the image and restricted to the non-articular areas of the limbs, ribs, sternum, pelvis, shoulders, lumbar spine, and posterior sacrum. Further inclusion criteria are that lesions should be at least 10 mm below the skin surface, and the ultrasound beam path should always reach the target lesion without encountering other structures with high absorption or reflecting properties (such as non-target bone, air-filled organs, wide scars, or metallic implants/devices), as these shield the propagation of ultrasound and obscure targets beyond them [ 191 ].

Tsai et al. investigated factors correlated with therapeutic efficacy in 31 patients with bone metastases treated with MRgFUS. The overall clinical response rate was 84%, and the radiographic response rate was 68%. Multivariate analysis showed that good Karnofsky performance status and large lesion coverage volume factor (thermal ablative tumor volume/pretreatment tumor volume × 100%) correlated with a higher therapeutic effect [ 192 ].

According to the literature, the clinical response rate after MRgFUS ranges from 64% to 76% [ 193 , 194 , 195 ]. In one randomized controlled study, the MRgFUS group showed better response rates than the placebo group (64% vs. 20%, p < 0.001) [ 190 ]. The most common complication during MRgFUS treatment was pain (32%). Third-degree skin burns or fractures also occurred in 3% of patients [ 190 ]. Furthermore, a matched-pair design study compared MRgFUS and conventional radiotherapy in terms of efficacy as first-line local treatment, and MRgFUS had a higher response rate 1 week after treatment (71% vs. 26%, p = 0.0009) [ 195 ]. Randomized controlled trials from the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study database showed that MRgFUS was more effective when Karnofsky performance status was good and breast or prostate cancer was the primary cancer type [ 196 ]. Treatment of spinal metastases is not currently performed in clinical practice because of concerns about heat damage to the spinal cord [ 197 ].

13. Conclusions

The number of patients with bone metastasis is increasing as medical management and surgery improve the overall survival of patients with cancer. Bone metastasis can cause skeletal complications, including bone pain, pathological fractures, spinal cord or nerve root compression, and hypercalcemia. Before initiation of treatment for bone metastasis, it is important to exclude primary bone malignancy, which would require a completely different therapeutic approach. It is essential to select surgical methods and tools for patient prognosis, quality of life, postoperative function, and risk of postoperative complications. Therefore, the treatment of bone metastasis requires a multidisciplinary team approach by radiologists, oncologists, and orthopedic surgeons. Recently, many palliative treatments have emerged for bone metastases, such as radiotherapy techniques and radiopharmaceuticals, osteoplasties, minimally invasive spine stabilization with percutaneous pedicle screws, embolization, thermal ablation techniques, electrochemotherapy, and high-intensity focused ultrasound. These techniques are beneficial for patients who do not benefit from surgery or radiotherapy and are expected to increase further in the near future.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all medical doctors who continue to fight cancer around the world during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, S.T. and A.F.M.; writing—review and editing, A.K., Y.T., G.F., G.P. and G.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Sousa S. Clézardin P. Bone-targeted therapies in cancer-induced bone disease Calcif. Tissue Int. 2018 102 227 250 10.1007/s00223-017-0353-5 29079995

2. Li S. Peng Y. Weinhandl E.D. Blaes A.H. Cetin K. Chia V.M. Stryker S. Pinzone J.J. Acquavella J.F. Arneson T.J. Estimated number of prevalent cases of metastatic bone disease in the US adult population Clin. Epidemiol. 2012 4 87 93 10.2147/CLEP.S28339 22570568 PMC3345874

3. Bollen L. Dijkstra S.P.D. Bartels R.H.M.A. de Graeff A. Poelma D.L.H. Brouwer T. Algra P.R. Kuijlen J.M.A. Minnema M.C. Nijboer C. Clinical management of spinal metastases—The Dutch national guideline Eur. J. Cancer 2018 104 81 90 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.028 30336360

4. Anract P. Biau D. Boudou-Rouquette P. Metastatic fractures of long limb bones Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2017 103 S41 S51 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.11.001 28089230

5. Soldatos T. Chalian M. Attar S. McCarthy E.F. Carrino J.A. Fayad L.M. Imaging differentiation of pathologic fractures caused by primary and secondary bone tumors Eur. J. Radiol. 2013 82 e36 e42 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.08.016 23017193

6. Zhang L. Wang Y. Gu Y. Hou Y. Chen Z. The need for bone biopsies in the diagnosis of new bone lesions in patients with a known primary malignancy: A comparative review of 117 biopsy cases J. Bone Oncol. 2019 14 100213 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.100213 30666287 PMC6329701

7. Schoenfeld A.J. Le H.V. Marjoua Y. Leonard D.A. Belmont P.J. Bono C.M. Harris M.B. Assessing the utility of a clinical prediction score regarding 30-day morbidity and mortality following metastatic spinal surgery: The New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS) Spine J. 2016 16 482 490 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.043 26409416

8. Willeumier J.J. van der Linden Y.M. van der Wal C.W.P.G. Jutte P.C. van der Velden J.M. Smolle M.A. van der Zwaal P. Koper P. Bakri L. de Pree I. An easy-to-use prognostic model for survival estimation for patients with symptomatic long bone metastases J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2018 100 196 204 10.2106/JBJS.16.01514 29406340

9. Piccioli A. Spinelli M.S. Forsberg J.A. Wedin R. Healey J.H. Ippolito V. Daolio P.A. Ruggieri P. Maccauro G. Gasbarrini A. How do we estimate survival? External validation of a tool for survival estimation in patients with metastatic bone disease-decision analysis and comparison of three international patient populations BMC Cancer 2015 15 424 10.1186/s12885-015-1396-5 25998535 PMC4443666

10. Forsberg J.A. Wedin R. Bauer H.C.F. Hansen B.H. Laitinen M. Trovik C.S. Keller J.Ø. Boland P.J. Healey J.H. External validation of the Bayesian Estimated Tools for Survival (BETS) models in patients with surgically treated skeletal metastases BMC Cancer 2012 12 493 10.1186/1471-2407-12-493 23098538 PMC3556063

11. Ogura K. Gokita T. Shinoda Y. Kawano H. Takagi T. Ae K. Kawai A. Wedin R. Forsberg J.A. Can a multivariate model for survival estimation in skeletal metastases (PATHFx) be externally validated using Japanese patients? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017 475 2263 2270 10.1007/s11999-017-5389-3 28560532 PMC5539033

12. Forsberg J.A. Wedin R. Boland P.J. Healey J.H. Can we estimate short- and intermediate-term survival in patients undergoing surgery for metastatic bone disease? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2017 475 1252 1261 10.1007/s11999-016-5187-3 27909972 PMC5339146

13. Anderson A.B. Wedin R. Fabbri N. Boland P. Healey J. Forsberg J.A. External validation of PATHFx Version 3.0 in patients treated surgically and nonsurgically for symptomatic skeletal metastases Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020 478 808 818 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001081 32195761 PMC7282571

14. Meares C. Badran A. Dewar D. Prediction of survival after surgical management of femoral metastatic bone disease—A comparison of prognostic models J. Bone Oncol. 2019 15 100225 10.1016/j.jbo.2019.100225 30847272 PMC6389683

15. Katagiri H. Okada R. Takagi T. Takahashi M. Murata H. Harada H. Nishimura T. Asakura H. Ogawa H. New prognostic factors and scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis Cancer Med. 2014 3 1359 1367 10.1002/cam4.292 25044999 PMC4302686

16. Ratasvuori M. Wedin R. Keller J. Nottrott M. Zaikova O. Bergh P. Kalen A. Nilsson J. Jonsson H. Laitinen M. Insight opinion to surgically treated metastatic bone disease: Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Skeletal Metastasis Registry report of 1195 operated skeletal metastasis Surg. Oncol. 2013 22 132 138 10.1016/j.suronc.2013.02.008 23562148

17. Janssen S.J. van der Heijden A.S. van Dijke M. Ready J.E. Raskin K.A. Ferrone M.L. Hornicek F.J. Schwab J.H. 2015 Marshall Urist Young Investigator Award: Prognostication in patients with long bone metastases: Does a boosting algorithm improve survival estimates? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2015 473 3112 3121 10.1007/s11999-015-4446-z 26155769 PMC4562931

18. Sørensen M.S. Gerds T.A. Hindsø K. Petersen M.M. External validation and optimization of the SPRING Model for prediction of survival after surgical treatment of bone metastases of the extremities Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2018 476 1591 1599 10.1097/01.blo.0000534678.44152.ee 30020148 PMC6259768

19. Thio Q.C.B.S. Karhade A.V. Bindels B.J.J. Ogink P.T. Bramer J.A.M. Ferrone M.L. Calderón S.L. Raskin K.A. Schwab J.H. Development and internal validation of machine learning algorithms for preoperative survival prediction of extremity metastatic disease Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020 478 322 333 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000997 31651589 PMC7438151

20. Forsberg J.A. Eberhardt J. Boland P.J. Wedin R. Healey J.H. Estimating survival in patients with operable skeletal metastases: An application of a bayesian belief network PLoS ONE 2011 6 e19956 10.1371/journal.pone.0019956 21603644 PMC3094405

21. Overmann A.L. Clark D.M. Tsagkozis P. Wedin R. Forsberg J.A. Validation of PATHFx 2.0: An Open-Source Tool for Estimating Survival in Patients Undergoing Pathologic Fracture Fixation J. Orthop. Res. 2020 38 2149 2156 10.1002/jor.24763 32492213

22. Karhade A.V. Thio Q.C.B.S. Ogink P.T. Shah A.A. Bono C.M. Oh K.S. Saylor P.J. Schoenfeld A.J. Shin J.H. Harris M.B. Development of Machine Learning Algorithms for Prediction of 30-Day Mortality After Surgery for Spinal Metastasis Neurosurgery 2019 85 E83 E91 10.1093/neuros/nyy469 30476188

23. Karhade A.V. Thio Q.C.B.S. Ogink P.T. Bono C.M. Ferrone M.L. Oh K.S. Saylor P.J. Schoenfeld A.J. Shin J.H. Harris M.B. Predicting 90-Day and 1-Year Mortality in Spinal Metastatic Disease: Development and Internal Validation Neurosurgery 2019 85 E671 E681 10.1093/neuros/nyz070 30869143

24. Errani C. Cosentino M. Ciani G. Ferra L. Alfaro P.A. Bordini B. Donati D.M. C-reactive protein and tumour diagnosis predict survival in patients treated surgically for long bone metastases Int. Orthop. 2021 45 1337 1346 10.1007/s00264-020-04921-2 33392682

25. Karhade A.V. Thio Q.C.B.S. Kuverji M. Ogink P.T. Ferrone M.L. Schwab J.H. Prognostic value of serum alkaline phosphatase in spinal metastatic disease Br. J. Cancer 2019 120 640 646 10.1038/s41416-019-0407-8 30792532 PMC6461951

26. Kim J.H. Seo S.W. Chung C.H. What factors are associated with early mortality in patients undergoing femur surgery for metastatic lung cancer? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2018 476 1815 1822 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000101 30794217 PMC6259786

27. Sarahrudi K. Hora K. Heinz T. Millington S. Vécsei V. Treatment results of pathological fractures of the long bones: A retrospective analysis of 88 patients Int. Orthop. 2006 30 519 524 10.1007/s00264-006-0205-9 16944144 PMC3172736

28. Errani C. Mavrogenis A.F. Cevolani L. Spinelli S. Piccioli A. Maccauro G. Baldini N. Donati D. Treatment for long bone metastases based on a systematic literature review Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2017 27 205 211 10.1007/s00590-016-1857-9 27650452

29. Ruatta F. Derosa L. Escudier B. Colomba E. Guida A. Baciarello G. Loriot Y. Fizazi K. Albiges L. Prognosis of renal cell carcinoma with bone metastases: Experience from a large cancer centre Eur. J. Cancer 2019 107 79 85 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.10.023 30551078

30. Ruggieri P. Mavrogenis A.F. Casadei R. Errani C. Angelini A. Calabrò T. Pala E. Mercuri M. Protocol of surgical treatment of long bone pathological fractures Injury 2010 41 1161 1167 10.1016/j.injury.2010.09.018 20947077

31. Wedin R. Bauer H.C.F. Surgical treatment of skeletal metastatic lesions of the proximal femur: Endoprosthesis or reconstruction nail? J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2005 87 1653 1657 10.1302/0301-620X.87B12.16629 16326880

32. Mirels H. Metastatic disease in long bones. A proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1989 249 256 264 10.1097/00003086-198912000-00027 2684463

33. Howard E.L. Shepherd K.L. Cribb G. Cool P. The validity of the Mirels score for predicting impending pathological fractures of the lower limb Bone Jt. J. 2018 100-B 1100 1105 10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0300.R1 30062934

34. Van der Linden Y.M. Dijkstra P.D.S. Kroon H.M. Lok J.J. Noordijk E.M. Leer J.W.H. Marijnen C.A.M. Comparative analysis of risk factors for pathological fracture with femoral metastases J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2004 86 566 573 10.1302/0301-620X.86B4.14703 15174555

35. Shinoda Y. Sawada R. Ishibashi Y. Akiyama T. Zhang L. Hirai T. Oka H. Ohki T. Ikegami M. Okajima K. Prediction of pathological fracture in patients with lower limb bone metastasis using computed tomography imaging Clin. Exp. Metastasis 2020 37 607 616 10.1007/s10585-020-10053-z 32737738

36. Philipp T.C. Mikula J.D. Doung Y.-C. Gundle K.R. Is there an association between prophylactic femur stabilization and survival in patients with metastatic bone disease? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020 478 540 546 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000803 32168065 PMC7145091

37. Ward W.G. Holsenbeck S. Dorey F.J. Spang J. Howe D. Metastatic disease of the femur: Surgical treatment Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2003 415 S230 S244 10.1097/01.blo.0000093849.72468.82 14600615

38. McLynn R.P. Ondeck N.T. Grauer J.N. Lindskog D.M. What is the adverse event profile after prophylactic treatment of femoral shaft or distal femur metastases? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2018 476 2381 2388 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000489 30260860 PMC6259894

39. Bindels B.J.J. Thio Q.C.B.S. Raskin K.A. Ferrone M.L. Lozano Calderón S.A. Schwab J.H. Thirty-day postoperative complications after surgery for metastatic long bone disease are associated with higher mortality at 1 year Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2020 478 306 318 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001036 31714410 PMC7438145

40. Tanaka A. Katagiri H. Murata H. Wasa J. Miyagi M. Honda Y. Takahashi M. Surgery for femoral metastases Bone Jt. J. 2020 102-B 285 292 10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0976.R1 32114815

41. Katagiri H. Takahashi M. Wakai K. Sugiura H. Kataoka T. Nakanishi K. Prognostic factors and a scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2005 87 698 703 10.1302/0301-620X.87B5.15185 15855375

42. Erol B. Saglam F. Are cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions superior to uncemented endoprostheses in terms of postoperative outcomes and complications in patients with extremity-located bone metastasis scheduled for adjuvant radiotherapy? J. Arthroplast. 2021 36 1160 1167 10.1016/j.arth.2020.09.026 33092933

43. Gainor B.J. Buchert P. Fracture healing in metastatic bone disease Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1983 178 297 302 10.1097/00003086-198309000-00041 6883864

44. Capanna R. Campanacci D.A. The treatment of metastases in the appendicular skeleton J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2001 83 471 481 10.1302/0301-620X.83B4.0830471 11380113

45. Willeumier J.J. van der Linden Y.M. Dijkstra P.D.S. 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 121 138 142 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.07.009 27524407

46. Flynn C.J. Danjoux C. Wong J. Christakis M. Rubenstein J. Yee A. Yip D. Chow E. Two cases of acrometastasis to the hands and review of the literature Curr. Oncol. 2008 15 51 58 10.3747/co.v15i5.189 19008991 PMC2582515

47. Healey J.H. Turnbull A.D. Miedema B. Lane J.M. Acrometastases. A study of twenty-nine patients with osseous involvement of the hands and feet J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1986 68 743 746 10.2106/00004623-198668050-00017 3459730

48. Kerin R. Metastatic tumors of the hand. A review of the literature J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 1983 65 1331 1335 10.2106/00004623-198365090-00016 6654944

49. Mavrogenis A.F. Mimidis G. Kokkalis Z.T. Karampi E.-S. Karampela I. Papagelopoulos P.J. Armaganidis A. Acrometastases Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2014 24 279 283 10.1007/s00590-013-1311-1 24013815

50. Osterhouse M.D. Guebert G.M. Bilateral acrometastasis secondary to breast cancer J. Manip. Physiol. Ther. 2004 27 275 279 10.1016/j.jmpt.2004.02.007 15148467

51. Shannon F.J. Antonescu C.R. Athanasian E.A. Metastatic thymic carcinoma in a digit: A case report J. Hand Surg. Am. 2000 25 1169 1172 10.1053/jhsu.2000.17863 11119681

52. Baran R. Guillot P. Tosti A. Metastasis from carcinoma of the bronchus to the distal aspect of two digits Br. J. Dermatol. 1998 138 708 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1998.02193.x 9678955

53. Khokhar N. Lee J.D. Phalangeal metastasis: First clinical sign of bronchogenic carcinoma South. Med. J. 1983 76 927 10.1097/00007611-198307000-00031 6867806

54. Bevan D.A. Ehrlich G.E. Gupta V.P. Metastatic carcinoma simulating gout JAMA 1977 237 2746 2747 10.1001/jama.1977.03270520056025 577230

55. De Andrade C.H. Tsai P.W.C. Takagaki T.Y. Thumb metastasis from small cell lung cancer treated with radiation Rev. Hosp. Clin. Fac. Med. Sao Paulo 2002 57 283 286 10.1590/s0041-87812002000600007 12612761

56. Mulvey R.B. Peripheral bone metastases Am. J. Roentgenol. Radium Ther. Nucl. Med. 1964 91 155 160 14113760

57. Okada H. Qing J. Ohnishi T. Watanabe S. Metastasis of gastric carcinoma to a finger Br. J. Dermatol. 1999 140 776 777 10233355

58. Plotkine E. Coscas R. Guigui P. Digital metastasis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A surgical trap. Case report and literature review Chir. Main 2008 27 187 190 10.1016/j.main.2008.07.003 18760951

59. Igoumenou V.G. Mavrogenis A.F. Angelini A. Baracco R. Benzakour A. Benzakour T. Bork M. Vazifehdan F. Nena U. Ruggieri P. Complications of spine surgery for metastasis Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2020 30 37 56 10.1007/s00590-019-02541-0 31473821

60. Quraishi N.A. Gokaslan Z.L. Boriani S. The surgical management of metastatic epidural compression of the spinal cord J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2010 92 1054 1060 10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.22296 20675746

61. Vazifehdan F. Karantzoulis V.G. Igoumenou V.G. Surgical treatment for metastases of the cervical spine Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2017 27 763 775 10.1007/s00590-017-2002-0 28638950

62. Mavrogenis A.F. Pneumaticos S. Sapkas G.S. Papagelopoulos P.J. Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression Orthopedics 2009 32 431 439 10.3928/01477447-20090511-20 19634817

63. Constans J.P. de Divitiis E. Donzelli R. Spaziante R. Meder J.F. Haye C. Spinal metastases with neurological manifestations. Review of 600 cases J. Neurosurg. 1983 59 111 118 10.3171/jns.1983.59.1.0111 6864265

64. Perrin R.G. Laxton A.W. Metastatic Spine Disease: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and evaluation of patients Neurosurg. Clin. N. Am. 2004 15 365 373 10.1016/j.nec.2004.04.018 15450871

65. Salvo N. Christakis M. Rubenstein J. de Sa E. Napolskikh J. Sinclair E. Ford M. Goh P. Chow E. The role of plain radiographs in management of bone metastases J. Palliat. Med. 2009 12 195 198 10.1089/jpm.2008.0055 19207068

66. Hamaoka T. Madewell J.E. Podoloff D.A. Hortobagyi G.N. Ueno N.T. Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2004 22 2942 2953 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.181 15254062

67. Yang H.-L. Liu T. Wang X.-M. Xu Y. Deng S.-M. Diagnosis of bone metastases: A meta-analysis comparing 18 FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy Eur. Radiol. 2011 21 2604 2617 10.1007/s00330-011-2221-4 21887484

68. Jehn C.F. Diel I.J. Overkamp F. Kurth A. Schaefer R. Miller K. Lüftner D. Management of metastatic bone disease algorithms for diagnostics and treatment Anticancer Res. 2016 36 2631 2637 27272771

69. Peterson J.J. Kransdorf M.J. O’Connor M.I. Diagnosis of occult bone metastases: Positron emission tomography Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2003 415 S120 S128 10.1097/01.blo.0000093051.96273.7c 14600601

70. Chakraborty D. Bhattacharya A. Mete U.K. Mittal B.R. Comparison of 18F fluoride PET/CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in the detection of skeletal metastases in urinary bladder carcinoma Clin. Nucl. Med. 2013 38 616 621 10.1097/RLU.0b013e31828da5cc 23603596

71. Duo J. Han X. Zhang L. Wang G. Ma Y. Yang Y. Comparison of FDG PET/CT and gadolinium-enhanced MRI for the detection of bone metastases in patients with cancer: A meta-analysis Clin. Nucl. Med. 2013 38 343 348 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182817af3 23531774

72. Beheshti M. Vali R. Waldenberger P. Fitz F. Nader M. Hammer J. Loidl W. Pirich C. Fogelman I. Langsteger W. The use of F-18 choline PET in the assessment of bone metastases in prostate cancer: Correlation with morphological changes on CT Mol. Imaging Biol. 2010 12 98 107 10.1007/s11307-009-0239-7 19588206

73. Shen G. Deng H. Hu S. Jia Z. Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: A meta-analysis Skelet. Radiol. 2014 43 1503 1513 10.1007/s00256-014-1903-9 24841276

74. Kitajima K. Suenaga Y. Ueno Y. Kanda T. Maeda T. Makihara N. Ebina Y. Yamada H. Takahashi S. Sugimura K. Value of fusion of PET and MRI in the detection of intra-pelvic recurrence of gynecological tumor: Comparison with 18F-FDG contrast-enhanced PET/CT and pelvic MRI Ann. Nucl. Med. 2014 28 25 32 10.1007/s12149-013-0777-6 24129541 PMC4328133

75. Catalano O.A. Rosen B.R. Sahani D.V. Hahn P.F. Guimaraes A.R. Vangel M.G. Nicolai E. Soricelli A. Salvatore M. Clinical impact of PET/MR imaging in patients with cancer undergoing same-day PET/CT: Initial experience in 134 patients—A hypothesis-generating exploratory study Radiology 2013 269 857 869 10.1148/radiol.13131306 24009348

76. Tsukamoto S. Mavrogenis A.F. Langevelde K.V. Vucht N.V. Kido A. Errani C. Imaging of spinal bone tumors: Principles and practice Curr. Med. Imaging 2021 10.2174/1573405617666210301110446 33645487

77. Fisher C.G. DiPaola C.P. Ryken T.C. Bilsky M.H. Shaffrey C.I. Berven S.H. Harrop J.S. Fehlings M.G. Boriani S. Chou D. A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: An evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the spine oncology study group Spine 2010 35 E1221 E1229 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e16ae2 20562730

78. Avrahami E. Tadmor R. Dally O. Hadar H. Early MR demonstration of spinal metastases in patients with normal radiographs and CT and radionuclide bone scans J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 1989 13 598 602 10.1097/00004728-198907000-00008 2745777

79. Algra P.R. Bloem J.L. Tissing H. Falke T.H. Arndt J.W. Verboom L.J. Detection of vertebral metastases: Comparison between MR Imaging and bone scintigraphy Radiographics 1991 11 219 232 10.1148/radiographics.11.2.2028061 2028061

80. Smoker W.R. Godersky J.C. Knutzon R.K. Keyes W.D. Norman D. Bergman W. The role of MR imaging in evaluating metastatic spinal disease AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1987 149 1241 1248 10.2214/ajr.149.6.1241 3500616

81. Algra P.R. Heimans J.J. Valk J. Nauta J.J. Lachniet M. Van Kooten B. Do metastases in vertebrae begin in the body or the pedicles? Imaging study in 45 patients AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1992 158 1275 1279 10.2214/ajr.158.6.1590123 1590123

82. Kim J.K. Learch T.J. Colletti P.M. Lee J.W. Tran S.D. Terk M.R. Diagnosis of vertebral metastasis, epidural metastasis, and malignant spinal cord compression: Are T(1)-weighted sagittal images sufficient? Magn. Reson. Imaging 2000 18 819 824 10.1016/S0730-725X(00)00181-8 11027875

83. Bilsky M.H. Laufer I. Fourney D.R. Groff M. Schmidt M.H. Varga P.P. Vrionis F.D. Yamada Y. Gerszten P.C. Kuklo T.R. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale J. Neurosurg. Spine 2010 13 324 328 10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09459 20809724

84. Rades D. Rudat V. Veninga T. Stalpers L.J.A. Basic H. Karstens J.H. Hoskin P.J. Schild S.E. A score predicting posttreatment ambulatory status in patients irradiated for metastatic spinal cord compression Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2008 72 905 908 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.02.018 18436390

85. Rades D. Douglas S. Huttenlocher S. Rudat V. Veninga T. Stalpers L.J.A. Basic H. Karstens J.H. Hoskin P.J. Adamietz I.A. Validation of a score predicting post-treatment ambulatory status after radiotherapy for metastatic spinal cord compression Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2011 79 1503 1506 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.01.024 20605351

86. Laufer I. Rubin D.G. Lis E. Cox B.W. Stubblefield M.D. Yamada Y. Bilsky M.H. The NOMS Framework: Approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors Oncologist 2013 18 744 751 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0293 23709750 PMC4063402

87. Matamalas A. Valverde C. Benavente S. Casas-Gomila L. Romagosa C. González-Tartière P. Pellisé F. Team approach: Metastatic disease of the spine JBJS Rev. 2018 6 e6 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00118 29762343

88. Patchell R.A. Tibbs P.A. Regine W.F. Payne R. Saris S. Kryscio R.J. Mohiuddin M. Young B. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: A randomised trial Lancet 2005 366 643 648 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66954-1 16112300

89. Rades D. Huttenlocher S. Dunst J. Bajrovic A. Karstens J.H. Rudat V. Schild S.E. Matched pair analysis comparing surgery followed by radiotherapy and radiotherapy alone for metastatic spinal cord compression J. Clin. Oncol. 2010 28 3597 3604 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.5635 20606090

90. Tokuhashi Y. Matsuzaki H. Oda H. Oshima M. Ryu J. A Revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis Spine 2005 30 2186 2191 10.1097/01.brs.0000180401.06919.a5 16205345

91. Quraishi N.A. Arealis G. Salem K.M.I. Purushothamdas S. Edwards K.L. Boszczyk B.M. The surgical management of metastatic spinal tumors based on an Epidural Spinal Cord Compression (ESCC) scale Spine J. 2015 15 1738 1743 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.03.040 25817737

92. Spratt D.E. Beeler W.H. de Moraes F.Y. Rhines L.D. Gemmete J.J. Chaudhary N. Shultz D.B. Smith S.R. Berlin A. Dahele M. An integrated multidisciplinary algorithm for the management of spinal metastases: An International Spine Oncology Consortium report Lancet Oncol. 2017 18 e720 e730 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30612-5 29208438

93. Thibault I. Al-Omair A. Masucci G.L. Masson-Côté L. Lochray F. Korol R. Cheng L. Xu W. Yee A. Fehlings M.G. Spine stereotactic body radiotherapy for renal cell cancer spinal metastases: Analysis of outcomes and risk of vertebral compression fracture J. Neurosurg. Spine 2014 21 711 718 10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13895 25170656

94. Sohn S. Chung C.K. Sohn M.J. Chang U.-K. Kim S.H. Kim J. Park E. Stereotactic radiosurgery compared with external radiation therapy as a primary treatment in spine metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: A multicenter, matched-pair study J. Neurooncol. 2014 119 121 128 10.1007/s11060-014-1455-9 24792488

95. Folkert M.R. Bilsky M.H. Tom A.K. Oh J.H. Alektiar K.M. Laufer I. Tap W.D. Yamada Y. Outcomes and toxicity for hypofractionated and single-fraction image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery for sarcomas metastasizing to the spine Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2014 88 1085 1091 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.12.042 24661662

96. Weber M.H. Burch S. Buckley J. Schmidt M.H. Fehlings M.G. Vrionis F.D. Fisher C.G. Instability and impending instability of the thoracolumbar spine in patients with spinal metastases: A systematic review Int. J. Oncol. 2011 38 5 12 21109920

97. Fourney D.R. Frangou E.M. Ryken T.C. Dipaola C.P. Shaffrey C.I. Berven S.H. Bilsky M.H. Harrop J.S. Fehlings M.G. Boriani S. Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score: An analysis of reliability and validity from the Spine Oncology Study Group J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 29 3072 3077 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.3897 21709187

98. Leone A. Cianfoni A. Zecchi V. Cortese M.C. Rumi N. Colosimo C. Instability and impending instability in patients with vertebral metastatic disease Skelet. Radiol. 2019 48 195 207 10.1007/s00256-018-3032-3 30069584

99. Park J.-S. Park S.-J. Lee C.-S. Incidence and prognosis of patients with spinal metastasis as the initial manifestation of malignancy: Analysis of 338 patients undergoing surgical treatment Bone Jt. J. 2019 101-B 1379 1384 10.1302/0301-620X.101B11.BJJ-2018-1600.R2 31674246

100. Klimo P. Thompson C.J. Kestle J.R.W. Schmidt M.H. A meta-analysis of surgery versus conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic spinal epidural disease Neuro Oncol. 2005 7 64 76 10.1215/S1152851704000262 15701283 PMC1871618

101. Lee C.-H. Kwon J.-W. Lee J. Hyun S.-J. Kim K.-J. Jahng T.-A. Kim H.-J. Direct decompressive surgery followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: A meta-analysis Spine 2014 39 E587 E592 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000258 24503688

102. Rao J. Tiruchelvarayan R. Lee L. Palliative surgery for cervical spine metastasis Singap. Med. J. 2014 55 569 573 10.11622/smedj.2014152 PMC4294004 25631966

103. Paulino Pereira N.R. Ogink P.T. Groot O.Q. Ferrone M.L. Hornicek F.J. van Dijk C.N. Bramer J.A.M. Schwab J.H. Complications and reoperations after surgery for 647 patients with spine metastatic disease Spine J. 2019 19 144 156 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.037 29864546

104. Fourney D.R. Schomer D.F. Nader R. Chlan-Fourney J. Suki D. Ahrar K. Rhines L.D. Gokaslan Z.L. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for painful vertebral body fractures in cancer patients J. Neurosurg. 2003 98 21 30 10.3171/spi.2003.98.1.0021 12546384

105. Itagaki M.W. Talenfeld A.D. Kwan S.W. Brunner J.W.M. Mortell K.E. Brunner M.C. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for pathologic vertebral fractures in the medicare population: Safer and less expensive than open surgery J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2012 23 1423 1429 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.08.010 23101914

106. Ishida Y. Shigematsu H. Tsukamoto S. Morimoto Y. Iwata E. Okuda A. Kawasaki S. Tanaka M. Fujii H. Tanaka Y. Impairment-driven cancer rehabilitation in patients with neoplastic spinal cord compression using minimally invasive spine stabilization World J. Surg. Oncol. 2020 18 187 10.1186/s12957-020-01964-y 32711537 PMC7382795

107. Burström G. Persson O. Edström E. Elmi-Terander A. Augmented Reality Navigation in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review Acta Neurochir. 2021 163 843 852 10.1007/s00701-021-04708-3 33506289 PMC7886712

108. Jud L. Fotouhi J. Andronic O. Aichmair A. Osgood G. Navab N. Farshad M. Applicability of Augmented Reality in Orthopedic Surgery—A Systematic Review BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020 21 103 10.1186/s12891-020-3110-2 32061248 PMC7023780

109. Abrahm J.L. Banffy M.B. Harris M.B. Spinal cord compression in patients with advanced metastatic cancer: “All I care about is walking and living my life” JAMA 2008 299 937 946 10.1001/jama.299.8.937 18314436

110. Ross J.R. Saunders Y. Edmonds P.M. Patel S. Wonderling D. Normand C. Broadley K. A systematic review of the role of bisphosphonates in metastatic disease Health Technol. Assess. 2004 8 1 176 10.3310/hta8040 14960258

111. Facchini G. Di Tullio P. Battaglia M. Bartalena T. Tetta C. Errani C. Mavrogenis A.F. Rossi G. Palliative embolization for metastases of the spine Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2016 26 247 252 10.1007/s00590-015-1726-y 26667933

112. Selvaggi G. Scagliotti G.V. Management of bone metastases in cancer: A Review Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2005 56 365 378 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2005.03.011 15978828

113. Bickels J. Wittig J.C. Kollender Y. Kellar-Graney K. Malawer M.M. Meller I. Sciatic nerve resection: Is that truly an indication for amputation? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2002 399 201 204 10.1097/00003086-200206000-00024 12011710

114. Damron T.A. Sim F.H. Surgical treatment for metastatic disease of the pelvis and the proximal end of the femur Instr. Course Lect. 2000 49 461 470 10829199

115. Mankin H.J. Hornicek F.J. Temple H.T. Gebhardt M.C. Malignant tumors of the pelvis: An outcome study Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004 425 212 217 10.1097/00003086-200408000-00030 15292810

116. Marco R.A. Sheth D.S. Boland P.J. Wunder J.S. Siegel J.A. Healey J.H. Functional and oncological outcome of acetabular reconstruction for the treatment of metastatic disease J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2000 82 642 651 10.2106/00004623-200005000-00005 10819275

117. Patterson F.R. Peabody T.D. Operative management of metastases to the pelvis and acetabulum Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 2000 31 623 631 10.1016/S0030-5898(05)70180-2 11043101

118. Yasko A.W. Rutledge J. Lewis V.O. Lin P.P. Disease- and recurrence-free survival after surgical resection of solitary bone metastases of the pelvis Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2007 459 128 132 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3180619533 17452920

119. Müller D.A. Capanna R. The surgical treatment of pelvic bone metastases Adv. Orthop. 2015 2015 525363 10.1155/2015/525363 25810925 PMC4355119

120. Harrington K.D. Orthopaedic management of extremity and pelvic lesions Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1995 312 136 147 7634598

121. Rowell P. Lowe M. Sommerville S. Dickinson I. Is an Acetabular cage and cement fixation sufficiently durable for the treatment of destructive acetabular metastases? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2019 477 1459 1465 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000725 31094843 PMC6554111

122. Tillman R. Tsuda Y. Puthiya Veettil M. Young P.S. Sree D. Fujiwara T. Abudu A. The long-term outcomes of modified harrington procedure using antegrade pins for periacetabular metastasis and haematological diseases Bone Jt. J. 2019 101-B 1557 1562 10.1302/0301-620X.101B12.BJJ-2019-0265.R1 31786990

123. Houdek M.T. Ferguson P.C. Abdel M.P. Griffin A.M. Hevesi M. Perry K.I. Rose P.S. Wunder J.S. Lewallen D.G. Comparison of porous tantalum acetabular implants and harrington reconstruction for metastatic disease of the acetabulum J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2020 102 1239 1247 10.2106/JBJS.19.01189 PMC7431144 32675673

124. Ruggieri P. Mavrogenis A.F. Angelini A. Mercuri M. Metastases of the pelvis: Does resection improve survival? Orthopedics 2011 34 e236 e244 10.3928/01477447-20110526-07 21717982

125. Cotten A. Deprez X. Migaud H. Chabanne B. Duquesnoy B. Chastanet P. Malignant acetabular osteolyses: Percutaneous injection of acrylic bone cement Radiology 1995 197 307 310 10.1148/radiology.197.1.7568843 7568843

126. Li Z. Butala N.B. Etheridge B.S. Siegel H.J. Lemons J.E. Eberhardt A.W. A biomechanical study of periacetabular defects and cement filling J. Biomech. Eng. 2007 129 129 136 10.1115/1.2472367 17408317

127. Maccauro G. Liuzza F. Scaramuzzo L. Milani A. Muratori F. Rossi B. Waide V. Logroscino G. Logroscino C.A. Maffulli N. Percutaneous acetabuloplasty for metastatic acetabular lesions BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2008 9 66 10.1186/1471-2474-9-66 18457594 PMC2390555

128. Kelekis A. Lovblad K.O. Mehdizade A. Somon T. Yilmaz H. Wetzel S.G. Seium Y. Dietrich P.-Y. Rufenacht D.A. Martin J.-B. Pelvic osteoplasty in osteolytic metastases: Technical approach under fluoroscopic guidance and early clinical results J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2005 16 81 88 10.1097/01.RVI.0000141717.84515.92 15640414

129. Marcy P.Y. Palussière J. Descamps B. Magné N. Bondiau P.Y. Ciais C. Bruneton J.N. Percutaneous cementoplasty for pelvic bone metastasis Support. Care Cancer 2000 8 500 503 10.1007/s005200000138 11094996

130. Tucci M. Stucci S. Savonarola A. Ciavarella S. Cafforio P. Dammacco F. Silvestris F. Immature dendritic cells in multiple myeloma are prone to osteoclast-like differentiation through interleukin-17A stimulation Br. J. Haematol. 2013 161 821 831 10.1111/bjh.12333 23594390

131. Culleton S. Kwok S. Chow E. Radiotherapy for pain Clin. Oncol. 2011 23 399 406 10.1016/j.clon.2010.11.011 21168999

132. Sahgal A. Roberge D. Schellenberg D. Purdie T.G. Swaminath A. Pantarotto J. Filion E. Gabos Z. Butler J. Letourneau D. The Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology scope of practice guidelines for lung, liver and spine stereotactic body radiotherapy Clin. Oncol. 2012 24 629 639 10.1016/j.clon.2012.04.006 22633542

133. Sze W.M. Shelley M.D. Held I. Wilt T.J. Mason M.D. Palliation of metastatic bone pain: Single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy—A systematic review of randomised trials Clin. Oncol. 2003 15 345 352 10.1016/S0936-6555(03)00113-4 14524489

134. Mavrogenis A.F. Angelini A. Vottis C. Pala E. Calabrò T. Papagelopoulos P.J. Ruggieri P. Modern Palliative treatments for metastatic bone disease: Awareness of advantages, disadvantages, and guidance Clin. J. Pain 2016 32 337 350 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000255 25988937

135. Chow E. Zeng L. Salvo N. Dennis K. Tsao M. Lutz S. Update on the systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases Clin. Oncol. 2012 24 112 124 10.1016/j.clon.2011.11.004 22130630

136. Shiloh R. Krishnan M. Radiation for treatment of painful bone metastases Hematol. Oncol. Clin. N. Am. 2018 32 459 468 10.1016/j.hoc.2018.01.008 29729781

137. Finlay I.G. Mason M.D. Shelley M. Radioisotopes for the palliation of metastatic bone cancer: A systematic review Lancet Oncol. 2005 6 392 400 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70206-0 15925817

138. Hird A. Chow E. Zhang L. Wong R. Wu J. Sinclair E. Danjoux C. Tsao M. Barnes E. Loblaw A. Determining the incidence of pain flare following palliative radiotherapy for symptomatic bone metastases: Results from three Canadian cancer centers Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009 75 193 197 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.10.044 19167840

139. Husain Z.A. Sahgal A. De Salles A. Funaro M. Glover J. Hayashi M. Hiraoka M. Levivier M. Ma L. Martínez-Alvarez R. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for de novo spinal metastases: Systematic review J. Neurosurg. Spine 2017 27 295 302 10.3171/2017.1.SPINE16684 28598293

140. Jawad M.S. Fahim D.K. Gerszten P.C. Flickinger J.C. Sahgal A. Grills I.S. Sheehan J. Kersh R. Shin J. Oh K. Vertebral compression fractures after stereotactic body radiation therapy: A large, multi-institutional, multinational evaluation J. Neurosurg. Spine 2016 24 928 936 10.3171/2015.10.SPINE141261 26895526

141. Huisman M. van den Bosch M.A.A.J. Wijlemans J.W. van Vulpen M. van der Linden Y.M. Verkooijen H.M. Effectiveness of reirradiation for painful bone metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012 84 8 14 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.080 22300568

142. Myrehaug S. Sahgal A. Hayashi M. Levivier M. Ma L. Martinez R. Paddick I. Régis J. Ryu S. Slotman B. Reirradiation spine stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: Systematic Review J. Neurosurg. Spine 2017 27 428 435 10.3171/2017.2.SPINE16976 28708043

143. Macedo F. Ladeira K. Pinho F. Saraiva N. Bonito N. Pinto L. Goncalves F. Bone metastases: An overview Oncol. Rev. 2017 11 321 10.4081/oncol.2017.321 28584570 PMC5444408

144. Parker C. Nilsson S. Heinrich D. Helle S.I. O’Sullivan J.M. Fosså S.D. Chodacki A. Wiechno P. Logue J. Seke M. Alpha emitter Radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 369 213 223 10.1056/NEJMoa1213755 23863050

145. Terrisse S. Karamouza E. Parker C.C. Sartor A.O. James N.D. Pirrie S. Collette L. Tombal B.F. Chahoud J. Smeland S. Overall survival in men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with bone-targeting radioisotopes: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials JAMA Oncol. 2020 6 206 216 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4097 31830233 PMC6990736

146. Manafi-Farid R. Masoumi F. Divband G. Saidi B. Ataeinia B. Hertel F. Schweighofer-Zwink G. Morgenroth A. Beheshti M. Targeted palliative radionuclide therapy for metastatic bone pain J. Clin. Med. 2020 9 2622 10.3390/jcm9082622 32806765 PMC7464823

147. Coleman R. Body J.J. Aapro M. Hadji P. Herrstedt J. ESMO Guidelines Working Group Bone health in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines Ann. Oncol. 2014 25 (Suppl. 3) iii124 iii137 10.1093/annonc/mdu103 24782453

148. Hutton B. Addison C.L. Campbell K. Fergusson D. Mazarello S. Clemons M. A systematic review of dosing frequency with bone-targeted agents for patients with bone metastases from breast cancer J. Bone Oncol. 2013 2 123 131 10.1016/j.jbo.2013.05.001 26909282 PMC4723383

149. Hortobagyi G.N. Van Poznak C. Harker W.G. Gradishar W.J. Chew H. Dakhil S.R. Haley B.B. Sauter N. Mohanlal R. Zheng M. Continued treatment effect of zoledronic acid dosing every 12 vs 4 weeks in women with breast cancer metastatic to bone: The OPTIMIZE-2 Randomized Clinical Trial JAMA Oncol. 2017 3 906 912 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6316 28125763 PMC5824238

150. Himelstein A.L. Foster J.C. Khatcheressian J.L. Roberts J.D. Seisler D.K. Novotny P.J. Qin R. Go R.S. Grubbs S.S. O’Connor T. Effect of longer-interval vs standard dosing of zoledronic acid on skeletal events in patients with bone metastases: A randomized clinical trial JAMA 2017 317 48 58 10.1001/jama.2016.19425 28030702 PMC5321662

151. Tsourdi E. Langdahl B. Cohen-Solal M. Aubry-Rozier B. Eriksen E.F. Guañabens N. Obermayer-Pietsch B. Ralston S.H. Eastell R. Zillikens M.C. Discontinuation of denosumab therapy for osteoporosis: A systematic review and position statement by ECTS Bone 2017 105 11 17 10.1016/j.bone.2017.08.003 28789921

152. Lipton A. Fizazi K. Stopeck A.T. Henry D.H. Smith M.R. Shore N. Martin M. Vadhan-Raj S. Brown J.E. Richardson G.E. Effect of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases by baseline characteristics Eur. J. Cancer 2016 53 75 83 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.09.011 26693901

153. Chen F. Pu F. Safety of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Oncol. Res. Treat. 2016 39 453 459 10.1159/000447372 27487236

154. Forauer A.R. Kent E. Cwikiel W. Esper P. Redman B. Selective palliative transcatheter embolization of bony metastases from renal cell carcinoma Acta Oncol. 2007 46 1012 1018 10.1080/02841860701280725 17851849

155. Hansch A. Neumann R. Pfeil A. Marintchev I. Pfleiderer S. Gajda M. Kaiser W.-A. Embolization of an unusual metastatic site of hepatocellular carcinoma in the humerus World J. Gastroenterol. 2009 15 2280 2282 10.3748/wjg.15.2280 19437571 PMC2682246

156. De Vries M.M. Persoon A.C.M. Jager P.L. Gravendeel J. Plukker J.T.M. Sluiter W.J. Links T.P. Embolization therapy of bone metastases from epithelial thyroid carcinoma: Effect on symptoms and serum thyroglobulin Thyroid 2008 18 1277 1284 10.1089/thy.2008.0066 18991486

157. Eustatia-Rutten C.F.A. Romijn J.A. Guijt M.J. Vielvoye G.J. van den Berg R. Corssmit E.P.M. Pereira A.M. Smit J.W.A. Outcome of palliative embolization of bone metastases in differentiated thyroid carcinoma J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2003 88 3184 3189 10.1210/jc.2003-030231 12843163

158. Smit J.W. Vielvoye G.J. Goslings B.M. Embolization for vertebral metastases of follicular thyroid carcinoma J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2000 85 989 994 10.1210/jcem.85.3.6436 10720028

159. Van Tol K.M. Hew J.M. Jager P.L. Vermey A. Dullaart R.P. Links T.P. Embolization in combination with radioiodine therapy for bone metastases from differentiated thyroid carcinoma Clin. Endocrinol. 2000 52 653 659 10.1046/j.1365-2265.2000.00998.x 10792347

160. Rossi G. Mavrogenis A.F. Casadei R. Bianchi G. Romagnoli C. Rimondi E. Ruggieri P. Embolisation of bone metastases from renal cancer Radiol. Med. 2013 118 291 302 10.1007/s11547-012-0802-4 22430676

161. Rossi G. Mavrogenis A.F. Rimondi E. Braccaioli L. Calabrò T. Ruggieri P. Selective embolization with n-butyl cyanoacrylate for metastatic bone disease J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2011 22 462 470 10.1016/j.jvir.2010.12.023 21367617

162. Barton P.P. Waneck R.E. Karnel F.J. Ritschl P. Kramer J. Lechner G.L. Embolization of bone metastases J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 1996 7 81 88 10.1016/S1051-0443(96)70738-8 8773979

163. Kato S. Hozumi T. Takaki Y. Yamakawa K. Goto T. Kondo T. Optimal schedule of preoperative embolization for spinal metastasis surgery Spine 2013 38 1964 1969 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a46576 23917645

164. Kim W. Han I. Jae H.J. Kang S. Lee S.A. Kim J.S. Kim H.-S. Preoperative embolization for bone metastasis from hepatocellular carcinoma Orthopedics 2015 38 e99 e105 10.3928/01477447-20150204-56 25665126

165. Luksanapruksa P. Buchowski J.M. Tongsai S. Singhatanadgige W. Jennings J.W. Systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of preoperative embolization in surgery for metastatic spine disease J. Neurointerv. Surg. 2018 10 596 601 10.1136/neurintsurg-2017-013350 28918384

166. Pazionis T.J.C. Papanastassiou I.D. Maybody M. Healey J.H. Embolization of hypervascular bone metastases reduces intraoperative blood loss: A case-control study Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2014 472 3179 3187 10.1007/s11999-014-3734-3 24964883 PMC4160496

167. Sun S. Lang E.V. Bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma: Preoperative embolization J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 1998 9 263 269 10.1016/S1051-0443(98)70267-2 9540910

168. Kickuth R. Waldherr C. Hoppe H. Bonel H.M. Ludwig K. Beck M. Triller J. Interventional management of hypervascular osseous metastasis: Role of embolotherapy before orthopedic tumor resection and bone stabilization AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008 191 W240 W247 10.2214/AJR.07.4037 19020210

169. Rosenthal D.I. Radiofrequency treatment Orthop. Clin. N. Am. 2006 37 475 484 10.1016/j.ocl.2006.05.004 16846772

170. Rosenthal D.I. Alexander A. Rosenberg A.E. Springfield D. Ablation of osteoid osteomas with a percutaneously placed electrode: A new procedure Radiology 1992 183 29 33 10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549690 1549690

171. Lane M.D. Le H.B.Q. Lee S. Young C. Heran M.K.S. Badii M. Clarkson P.W. Munk P.L. Combination radiofrequency ablation and cementoplasty for palliative treatment of painful neoplastic bone metastasis: Experience with 53 treated lesions in 36 patients Skelet. Radiol. 2011 40 25 32 10.1007/s00256-010-1010-5 20686765

172. Mendel E. Bourekas E. Gerszten P. Golan J.D. Percutaneous techniques in the treatment of spine tumors: What are the diagnostic and therapeutic indications and outcomes? Spine 2009 34 S93 S100 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b77895 19829281

173. Goetz M.P. Callstrom M.R. Charboneau J.W. Farrell M.A. Maus T.P. Welch T.J. Wong G.Y. Sloan J.A. Novotny P.J. Petersen I.A. Percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation of painful metastases involving bone: A multicenter study J. Clin. Oncol. 2004 22 300 306 10.1200/JCO.2004.03.097 14722039

174. Wallace A.N. Robinson C.G. Meyer J. Tran N.D. Gangi A. Callstrom M.R. Chao S.T. Van Tine B.A. Morris J.M. Bruel B.M. The Metastatic Spine Disease Multidisciplinary Working Group Algorithms Oncologist 2015 20 1205 1215 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0085 26354526 PMC4591956

175. Luigi Cazzato R. Auloge P. De Marini P. Rousseau C. Chiang J.B. Koch G. Caudrelier J. Rao P. Garnon J. Gangi A. Percutaneous image-guided ablation of bone metastases: Local tumor control in oligometastatic patients Int. J. Hyperth. 2018 35 493 499 10.1080/02656736.2018.1508760 30307346

176. Belehradek M. Domenge C. Luboinski B. Orlowski S. Belehradek J. Mir L.M. Electrochemotherapy, a new antitumor treatment. First clinical phase I-II trial Cancer 1993 72 3694 3700 10.1002/1097-0142(19931215)72:12<3694::AID-CNCR2820721222>3.0.CO;2-2 7504576

177. Horiuchi A. Nikaido T. Mitsushita J. Toki T. Konishi I. Fujii S. Enhancement of antitumor effect of bleomycin by low-voltage in vivo electroporation: A study of human uterine leiomyosarcomas in nude mice Int. J. Cancer 2000 88 640 644 10.1002/1097-0215(20001115)88:4<640::AID-IJC19>3.0.CO;2-K 11058883

178. Kotnik T. Pucihar G. Miklavcic D. Induced transmembrane voltage and its correlation with electroporation-mediated molecular transport J. Membr. Biol. 2010 236 3 13 10.1007/s00232-010-9279-9 20617432

179. Fini M. Tschon M. Ronchetti M. Cavani F. Bianchi G. Mercuri M. Alberghini M. Cadossi R. Ablation of bone cells by electroporation J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 2010 92 1614 1620 10.1302/0301-620X.92B11.24664 21037363

180. Giardino R. Fini M. Bonazzi V. Cadossi R. Nicolini A. Carpi A. Electrochemotherapy a novel approach to the treatment of metastatic nodules on the skin and subcutaneous tissues Biomed. Pharmacother. 2006 60 458 462 10.1016/j.biopha.2006.07.016 16930935

181. Zhou Y.-F. High intensity focused ultrasound in clinical tumor ablation World J. Clin. Oncol. 2011 2 8 27 10.5306/wjco.v2.i1.8 21603311 PMC3095464

182. Cornelis F.H. Ben Ammar M. Nouri-Neuville M. Matton L. Benderra M.A. Gligorov J. Fallet V. Mir L.M. Percutaneous image-guided electrochemotherapy of spine metastases: Initial experience Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2019 42 1806 1809 10.1007/s00270-019-02316-4 31440783

183. Campanacci L. Bianchi G. Cevolani L. Errani C. Ciani G. Facchini G. Spinnato P. Tognù A. Massari L. Cornelis F.H. Operating procedures for electrochemotherapy in bone metastases: Results from a multicenter prospective study on 102 patients Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2021 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.05.004 34083080

184. Simon C.J. Dupuy D.E. Mayo-Smith W.W. Microwave ablation: Principles and applications Radiographics 2005 25 (Suppl. 1) S69 S83 10.1148/rg.25si055501 16227498

185. Lynn J.G. Zwemer R.L. Chick A.J. Miller A.E. A new method for the generation and use of focused ultrasound in experimental biology J. Gen. Physiol. 1942 26 179 193 10.1085/jgp.26.2.179 19873337 PMC2142058

186. Bazzocchi A. Napoli A. Sacconi B. Battista G. Guglielmi G. Catalano C. Albisinni U. MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery in musculoskeletal diseases: The hot topics Br. J. Radiol. 2016 89 20150358 10.1259/bjr.20150358 26607640 PMC4985948

187. Fry W.J. Barnard J.W. Fry E.J. Krumins R.F. Brennan J.F. Ultrasonic lesions in the mammalian central nervous system Science 1955 122 517 518 10.1126/science.122.3168.517 13255886

188. Lynn J.G. Putnam T.J. Histology of cerebral lesions produced by focused ultrasound Am. J. Pathol. 1944 20 637 649 19970769 PMC2033152

189. Chamberlain M.C. Kormanik P.A. Epidural spinal cord compression: A single institution’s retrospective experience Neuro Oncol. 1999 1 120 123 10.1093/neuonc/1.2.120 11550307 PMC1920751

190. Hurwitz M.D. Ghanouni P. Kanaev S.V. Iozeffi D. Gianfelice D. Fennessy F.M. Kuten A. Meyer J.E. LeBlang S.D. Roberts A. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for patients with painful bone metastases: Phase III trial results J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2014 106 dju082 10.1093/jnci/dju082 24760791 PMC4112926

191. Scipione R. Anzidei M. Bazzocchi A. Gagliardo C. Catalano C. Napoli A. HIFU for bone metastases and other musculoskeletal applications Semin. Interv. Radiol. 2018 35 261 267 10.1055/s-0038-1673363 PMC6218253 30402009

192. Tsai Y.-C. Lee H.-L. Kuo C.-C. Chen C.-Y. Hsieh K.L.-C. Wu M.-H. Wen Y.-C. Yu H.-W. Hsu F.-C. Tsai J.-T. Prognostic and predictive factors for clinical and radiographic responses in patients with painful bone metastasis treated with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery Int. J. Hyperth. 2019 36 932 937 10.1080/02656736.2019.1655593 31535591

193. Liberman B. Gianfelice D. Inbar Y. Beck A. Rabin T. Shabshin N. Chander G. Hengst S. Pfeffer R. Chechick A. Pain palliation in patients with bone metastases using MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery: A multicenter study Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2009 16 140 146 10.1245/s10434-008-0011-2 19002530

194. Napoli A. Anzidei M. Marincola B.C. Brachetti G. Ciolina F. Cartocci G. Marsecano C. Zaccagna F. Marchetti L. Cortesi E. Primary pain palliation and local tumor control in bone metastases treated with magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound Investig. Radiol. 2013 48 351 358 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318285bbab 23571832

195. Lee H.-L. Kuo C.-C. Tsai J.-T. Chen C.-Y. Wu M.-H. Chiou J.-F. Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound versus conventional radiation therapy for painful bone metastasis: A matched-pair study J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2017 99 1572 1578 10.2106/JBJS.16.01248 28926387

196. Westhoff P.G. de Graeff A. Monninkhof E.M. Pomp J. van Vulpen M. Leer J.W.H. Marijnen C.A.M. van der Linden Y.M. Dutch Bone Metastasis Study Group Quality of Life in relation to pain response to radiation therapy for painful bone metastases Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2015 93 694 701 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.06.024 26281825

197. Huisman M. ter Haar G. Napoli A. Hananel A. Ghanouni P. Lövey G. Nijenhuis R.J. van den Bosch M.A.A.J. Rieke V. Majumdar S. International consensus on use of focused ultrasound for painful bone metastases: Current status and future directions Int. J. Hyperth. 2015 31 251 259 10.3109/02656736.2014.995237 25677840