1. Introduction
Metastasis is the process through which cancer cells leave the initial tumour and travel throughout the body to establish a secondary tumour in other organs and anatomical sites.
Bone, is one of the most preferential metastatic target sites for cancers. Prostate, lung, breast, kidney, and thyroid primary cancers account for 80% of skeletal metastases [ 1 ]. Spine, pelvis, proximal femur, and skull are the most common sites of bone metastases.
Bone metastases can be divided into two broad categories; (i) osteolytic metastases that are associated with bone destruction and (ii) osteosclerotic metastases that are characterized by new bone formation. Bone metastases can be predominantly osteolytic or osteosclerotic, or mixed with features of both types [ 2 , 3 ].
Although precise molecular mechanisms underlying preferential cancer metastasis to bone need to be elucidated, it seems likely that bone provides an attractive environment that allows circulating cancer cells to home, survive and proliferate. This notion is consistent with the “seed and soil” theory proposed by Paget [ 4 ] in which he postulated that cancer cells, somehow liberated from the primary tumour, would seek nurturing conditions that resemble their original environment to grow and create a new lesion.
2. Seed and Soil Interactions
Bone metastasis occurs either via a direct invasion of bone tissue or secondarily to bone marrow, the latter being the most common. Bone marrow is colonized by metastatic cancer cells which in turn spread to the firm bone matrix [ 5 ]. In light of this, interactions of metastatic cancer cells (seed) with bone/bone marrow cells (soil) are critical for establishment and development of bone metastases [ 6 ]. This need for reciprocal interactions between cancer cells and the microenvironment make difficult to decipher mechanisms governing metastases formation, in particular the site specificity (i.e., preferentially in bones, lungs or liver for example) [ 6 , 7 ].
The binding of cancer cells at the metastatic site involves cell-to-cell interactions, or interactions between cells and the extracellular matrix, and these processes involves cell adhesion molecules like integrins [ 8 ]. It has been found that the endothelium represents the first point of interaction between metastatic cancer cells released in the blood stream and a specific tissue [ 9 ]. The success of this interaction is dependent on chemo-attraction and adhesion events according to different cell-surface markers, to morphological phenotypes and to specialized functions of the endothelium. For example, the presence of a stromal-derived growth factor (SDF-1—CXCL12) and its receptor CXCR4 on bone marrow endothelial cells has been shown to be favourable to cancer cell extravasation from the circulation and their retention in bone marrow [ 10 ]. This is particularly true for breast and prostate cancers, and a similar “seed and soil” interaction mechanism operating in the lung and liver may account for preferential formation of metastases within these environments [ 6 ].
The role played by this “seed and soil” interaction mechanism is clearly demonstrated by the inconsistency of metastasis formation throughout the skeleton. Indeed, the axial skeleton represents a preferential target, in accordance with the haematopoietic bone marrow content, while almost no metastases develop within hands and feet where no haematopoietic bone marrow is present [ 4 , 11 ].
3. Theories of Metastatic Progression
Two main models of metastatic progression are currently accepted. The classical model is a linear progression model, and the more recent one is the parallel progression model that represents somewhat of a paradigm shift [ 12 ].
In the linear progression/late dissemination model, a normal epithelial cell acquires mutations that inactivate tumour suppressor genes and/or activate oncogenes, which promotes survival and uncontrolled proliferation of cancer cells. An increased proliferation rate may also lead to mutations in progeny cells, which result in a variety of subsequent mutations heterogeneously distributed throughout discrete tumour sub-populations [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. Some of these mutations are associated with gene alterations that facilitate dissemination and invasion, and these mutated cells are capable of generating distal metastases. In this model, acquisition of malignant mutations is linked to tumours of large size and occurs at later stages of tumour growth [ 16 , 17 , 18 ].
The second model, is known as the parallel progression/early dissemination model [ 19 ] and has gained favour recently, although it dates from the 1950’s [ 20 ]. This model rejects the notion that tumours must reach a defined size before acquiring the ability to disseminate, and it posits that dissemination occurs long before detection of the primary tumour [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Nevertheless, both models agree that cancer progression depends on clonal expansion of “fittest” cells. The idea that tumour cells disseminate early is supported by the notion that in rare cases, patients with very small early-stage primary tumours (T1) present metastases at the time of diagnoses. This concept is further sustained by the fact that metastatic cancers of unknown primary origin represents 5–10% of all cancer diagnoses in the United States and Europe [ 24 ].
There is a third recent theory, known as the “pre-metastatic niche”, which is based on observations made during the last decade [ 25 ]. This theory has radically changed our view of metastatic colonization. It holds that secreted factors (S100A8, S100A9, osteopontin OPN) are produced either by the primary tumour or by stromal cells in the metastatic site, which serve to “prime” tissues for later metastatic tumour engraftment [ 17 , 26 , 27 ]. These factors facilitate mobilization and recruitment of bone marrow-derived cells that can liberate pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α. These inflammatory cytokines “prime the soil” by activating endothelial cells and inducing matrix metallo proteins (MMPs) expression to promote subsequent cancer cell colonization and outgrowth [ 2 ].
A key observation in the field of cancer metastasis is that specific cancers tend to colonize particular sites. For example, breast cancer most commonly metastasizes to bone, followed by lung, brain, and liver [ 28 ], whereas colorectal cancers most frequently metastasize to liver, then lung, and rarely to bone and brain [ 29 , 30 ]. Stephen Paget first offered in 1889 an explanation for this observation. His seminal “seed and soil” hypothesis suggested that to support the growth of metastases, the “soil” (i.e., metastatic environment) must be capable of nourishing the “seed” (i.e., a disseminated cancer cell) [ 4 , 30 , 31 ]. For instance, the bone microenvironment may provide sufficient growth signals to facilitate breast cancer outgrowth while these same signals are less effective at promoting colon cancer outgrowth. This hypothesis was challenged nearly 40 years later when James Ewing claimed that differences in metastatic colonization by certain cancers could be explained by anatomy of the local circulatory system [ 32 ]. Thus, cancers will rather metastasize to secondary sites presenting the highest degree of accessibility via the vasculature and blood flow patterns [ 31 , 33 ]. This is best exemplified by the high propensity of colon cancers to metastasize to liver [ 34 ], which is the first organ they encounter following intravasation into the portal circulation. It was later shown that while local recurrences correlated with increased perfusion rates, the formation of distant metastases could not be completely explained by anatomical vascular access patterns, and Paget’s “seed and soil” hypothesis prevailed and remained a guiding principle in the study of organ-specific metastatic process.
4. Gene Expression Profiling of Bone Metastases
In recent years, gene expression profiling has become a standard technique used to identify genes that are deregulated in cancer. A better understanding of the various stages of metastatic progression has been gained by coupling gene-expression profiling with pre-clinical mouse models of breast cancer metastasis to bone. Some of these approaches, starting from heterogeneous cultures of breast cancer cells, involve derivation of sub-populations that preferentially spread to bones. These cell populations are isolated directly from established bone metastases that have been obtained following injection of the parental population into the left cardiac ventricle or the mammary fat pads of mice. Successive rounds of in vivo selection result in breast cancer cells that aggressively metastasize to bone tissue when compared to the original cell population. These approaches have facilitated the identification of individual molecular mediators of metastatic process such as IL-8 [ 35 ], as well as sets of genes that work cooperatively including CXCR4 , MMP-1 and the TGFβ-regulated genes CTGF and IL-11 [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. On the other hand, the in vitro isolation of single cell progeny (SCP) yielded breast cancer cell-derived populations with vastly variable in vivo bone metastatic phenotypes [ 40 ]. Importantly, compared with aggressive bone metastatic cell populations that were derived by in vivo selection, aggressive bone metastatic SCPs present gene-expression profiles that are largely overlapping [ 16 ]. These studies, in addition to identifying novel mediators of metastasis, provide insights into the nature of the metastatic process.
5. Bone Metastasis Microenvironment
Bone is a unique microenvironment made of proteins and calcified hydroxyapatite crystals forming a dense matrix that is tightly interconnected to bone marrow, which contains osteoblast and osteoclast progenitors, as well as hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Bone marrow is a major site of metastatic diseases for breast and prostate carcinomas, and for multiple myeloma [ 25 , 41 ]. Although metastasis formation in lungs, liver and bones displays some similarities, the bone microenvironment undergoes constant remodelling events that deeply impacts metastasis onset and development [ 42 ]. This remodelling process results from an equilibrium between osteoblasts and osteoclasts activities, which are regulated by mechanical stress, cytokines and hormones. Should this balance be disturbed, osteolytic or osteosclerotic metastases appear, depending on the predominant activity occurring within lesions [ 5 , 43 , 44 ].
5.1. Osteolytic Bone Metastases
Osteolytic lesions arise when osteoclast-mediated bone resorption overcomes bone formation by osteoblasts, resulting in weakened structures that compromise bone integrity [ 5 , 6 ]. Various factors including cytokines and hormones control the bone remodelling equilibrium [ 5 ], and a vicious cycle involving osteoclasts and tumour cells progressively leads to the development of osteolytic lesions. Briefly, the production of parathyroid hormone-related peptide (PTHrP) and the expression of receptor activator of nuclear factor—κB receptor ligand (RANKL) play important roles in osteolytic metastases, and in bone metastases arising from primary breast cancer. It has been observed that PTHrP expression was significantly higher compared to metastases from other primary cancers [ 11 ]. PTHrP increases RANKL expression, which acts on osteoclasts to increase osteoclast maturation and resorptive activity. Subsequently, the resorptive activity releases TGFβ and other growth factors like EGFs or IGFs from the bone matrix [ 5 , 45 , 46 ], generating a feed-back loop that stimulates metastatic proliferation [ 45 ]. Once released, TGFβ in turn stimulates PTHrP production, which is further increased by a high local calcium concentration resulting from bone resorption [ 47 , 48 ]. Moreover, TGFβ regulates osteolytic and pro-metastatic agents, as well as other microenvironment factors like hypoxia [ 49 ], which promotes the growth of tumour cells. Indeed, TGFβ activates the epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) [ 50 ], increases tumour cells invasiveness and angiogenesis, and displays also immunomodulation properties [ 51 ].
In addition, stromal cells present within the bone marrow microenvironment are involved in the establishment and the progression of bone metastases. These includes neurons, blood platelets and endothelial cells. Thus, sympathetic neurons activation by bone metastasis is responsible for severe pains [ 52 ], but also for increasing tumour proliferation and invasiveness [ 53 ]. On the other hand, tumour cells bind preferentially to endothelial cells and activate platelets aggregation, which induce angiogenesis and increases tumour survival and proliferation [ 54 ]. Indeed, platelet aggregation initiates a massive production of lysophosphatidic acid (LPA), which acts as a pro-metastatic lipid mediator that promotes survival, proliferation, motility and invasiveness of breast cancer cells for example [ 55 ]. Likewise, via the activation of G-protein-coupled receptors, LPA acts directly on tumour cells by stimulating the secretion of pro-osteoclastic interleukins such as interleukins (IL) IL-6 and IL-8 among others [ 56 , 57 ].
Concerning IL-6, it increases bone degradation via: (i) the production of RANKL, and the negative regulation of osteoprotegerin (OPG); (ii) the induction of proteins involved in bone resorption such as PTHrP, interleukin (IL) IL-8, IL-11 and Cox-2; (iii) an increase of oestradiol 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase activity (an inhibitor of the anti-osteoclast activity of oestrogens); (iv) the stimulation of DKK-1 expression by tumour cells and (v) the downregulation of collagen II and aggrecans by the osteoblasts [ 31 ]. Interestingly, these last two functions of IL-6 illustrate that the bone loss observed in osteolytic metastases is also partially due to the failure of osteoblasts to produce new osteoid and repair the bone matrix. In addition, other factors that play a role in osteolytic bone metastases are secreted or induced by metastatic tumour cells (IL-1, prostaglandin E2, granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor GM-CSF, tumour necrosis factor-alpha TNFα, matrix metallo protein MMPs, cathepsin K CTSK and osteopontin OPN) [ 54 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ].
Finally, as already mentioned above, osteolytic lesions are not only the result of bone resorption mediated by osteoclasts. Indeed, they are also due to a decreased bone formation mediated by osteoblasts, and the antagonistic expression of Wnt and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP) could play an important role [ 64 , 65 ]. Consequently, the bone metastatic niche favours a complex vicious cycle comprising interconnected processes, which feed on each other, that is bone metabolism regulations and tumour growth.
A good understanding of these mechanisms and pathways is crucial to develop therapeutic strategies, and several pharmacological inhibitors are already being tested in clinical trials [ 11 , 46 , 66 , 67 ].
5.2. Osteosclerotic Bone Metastases
Osteosclerotic bone metastases result from excessive bone formation, which produces often a disorganized and weak bone tissue. This imbalance is mostly encountered with metastases originating from prostate and breast primary tumours [ 5 , 6 , 29 , 66 ]. However, in contrast to osteolytic bone metastases, the mechanisms involved are less understood. The most influential factors so far identified are BMP and endothelin-1 (ET-1) [ 5 , 6 , 29 ]. The up-regulation of BMP expression by osteoblasts proportionally affects bone formation, and it is also involved in ectopic bone formation [ 6 ]. Compared to other primary cancers, BMP expression is high in cancerous prostate cells, correlating with the high occurrence of osteosclerotic metastases observed for primary prostate cancers [ 2 ]. Concerning ET-1, it is a potent vasoconstrictor, a direct stimulant of osteoblast progenitors mitogenesis, and it has been linked to the substantial pain resulting from osteosclerotic lesions [ 5 , 6 , 29 ].
Figure 1 summarizes the main steps of bone metastasis progression from the primary tumour to the development of osteolytic or osteosclerotic lesions.
6. Bone Metastasis Treatments
Patients bearing bone metastases often suffer from many complications including pain, decreased mobility, neurologic compromise and pathologic fractures [ 68 ]. These complications, generically called skeletal-related events (SREs), impair the patient’s prognosis and increase the cost of treatments.
Despite numerous studies attempting to better understand bone metastasis pathophysiology, there are as yet no established and efficient clinical methods for their cure and/or their prevention. Currently, medical management of bone metastases is based on local approaches (i.e., surgery, radiation therapy) or systemic strategies such as molecular targeted therapies [ 66 , 69 ].
Depending on the case, local treatment of bone metastases can be done either by a consolidation procedure and/or tumour destruction by using surgery, irradiation (stereotactic) or interventional radiology techniques (i.e., vertebroplasty, radiofrequency, cryoablation).
6.1. Ablative Procedures
Local treatments of bone metastases have a dual role: (i) mechanical stabilization to prevent pathological fractures; (ii) tumour destruction to block or slow tumour and, for example, to fight against neurological complications in case of spinal metastases. It is noteworthy that in almost 90% of cases, ablative treatments lead to a relief from pain within 24 h [ 70 ].
6.1.1. Surgical Techniques
Surgical approaches are generally used for patients with impending or complete pathological fracture, or for patients exhibiting spinal cord instability or compression. Indeed, surgery may represent an emergency solution in the case of compression, a situation which requires the restoration of skeletal integrity to limit neurological impact. Concerning extra spinal bone metastases, about 92% of surgical procedures result from complete or imminent fractures [ 71 ].
6.1.2. Irradiation Techniques
Ablative irradiation with tumouricidal doses are used for bone metastases limited in size and number (1 to 3 metastatic sites), and/or with a vertebral localisation close to the spinal cord. In 50 to 80% of cases, radiotherapy is used as an analgesic treatment, with the aim of getting an immediate relief, preventing complications, and improving the quality of life of patients. Most of the studies reported in the literature are related to the spine, while information concerning other metastatic sites (limbs, ribs) is limited [ 72 , 73 ].
6.1.3. Thermal and Chemical Ablation
Interventional radiology uses several techniques (cementoplasty, radiofrequency ablation, cryotherapy, chemoembolization) to achieve bone consolidation with varying degrees of tumour cells destruction [ 74 , 75 ].
Radiofrequency ablation - Radiofrequency ablation of bone metastases is a recent radiological percutaneous technique, using alternative current (450–600 kHz) applied through a needle entered in the metastasis under radioscopic control. Radiofrequency energy generates an overheating (60–70 °C), and cancer cells necrosis is obtained by heat destruction within a volume of 3 cm in diameter. This technique cannot be used in the close vicinity of nerve tissues, since they do not support a temperature above 45 °C. It is also difficult to implement this technique for metastases affecting flat bones (i.e., sternum, iliac wing). Radiofrequency can also be used in combination with cementoplasty, although this combination has not yet shown significant improvement compared to cementoplasty alone [ 72 , 74 ].
Cryotherapy—Cryotherapy is the more recent technique that enables tumoral destruction, over areas up to 5 cm, by low temperature using a needle-like applicator and liquid argon. This technique involves generally little pain and it can be realized under simple sedation, contrary to radiotherapy that usually requires general anaesthesia. On the other hand, cryotherapy cannot be combined with cementoplasty since tissue cooling exerts an inhibitory effect on cement polymerization [ 72 , 74 ].
Chemoembolization—Chemoembolization consists of delivering directly to tumours an antimitotic infusion or antimitotic-loaded microparticles (carboplatin and adriamycin). This technique is used to treat bone lesions that have been previously irradiated, or which are unresectable and resistant to other treatments. In 50% of cases, a partial or complete response is observed, and this method is often very effective in treating initial metastases (especially from breast cancer) [ 72 , 74 ].
Figure 2 recapitulates the main ablative procedures proposed to patients.
6.2. Reconstructive Procedures
Cementoplasty, which is the simplest and most suitable technique to obtain vertebral body stabilization, represents the most common interventional radiology technique. It consists of injecting percutaneously, under radiologic control, a surgical cement in bone lesions (mostly PMMA, poly (methyl methacrylate)). In almost 90% of cases, mechanical stabilization and analgesic effects are obtained. In addition to these effects, the in situ recurrence rate is low (around 14%). This phenomenon can be explained by heat generation induced by the cement polymerization (60–70 °C), and/or by a direct toxic action of cement monomers on tumour cells [ 76 ]. In addition to osteolytic metastasis treatment, cementoplasty can also be efficient in the context of osteosclerotic or mixed metastases. However, in these circumstances, the technical implementation is more complex and therefore, a high rate of postoperative complications is observed. Cementoplasty can be applied in numerous sites including spine, humeral head or intertrochanteric region. However, some locations remain out of the scope of this technique (femoral neck, parts of the hip bone), especially if there is an associated fracture that requires a surgery procedure [ 72 , 75 ].
These procedures may also involve an endoprosthetic reconstruction or consolidation techniques using intramedullary nails or metallic equipments such as plates and screws [ 77 ].
6.3. Pharmacological Approaches
One has to keep in mind that systemic administration of chemotherapeutic agents may alter the normal skeletal development and bone remodelling, leading to increased risks of fractures [ 78 ]. Considering the complex set of interactions between metastatic cells, the microenvironment, and bone-resident cells, therapies cannot be based on the genetic profile of primary tumours. In this context, the concept of vicious cycle has changed the therapeutic approach, and bone resorption-blocking strategies have emerged as new potential treatments [ 79 ], together with several other pharmacological approaches including therapies targeting cancer cells and tumour vascularization [ 80 ].
6.3.1. Bisphosphonates
Due to their chemical and pharmacological properties, bisphosphonates (BPs), which have been initially developed for the treatment of osteoporosis, are also indicated for treatment of bone metastases [ 81 ].
Due to their chemical structure, BPs display a strong affinity to hydroxyapatite crystals forming the mineral phase of the bone matrix. They are synthetic products derived from inorganic pyrophosphates (PPi), in which the P-O-P bond is replaced by a P-C-P bond to increase the chemical resistance to enzymatic cleavage. The phosphonates groups can chelate calcium ions present within biological hydroxyapatites, and this affinity increases when R1 is a hydroxyl group [ 81 ]. Accordingly, two models of bonds have been presented: (i) a weak bond, corresponding to one single phosphonate group (etidronate); (ii) a stronger bond carrying two phosphonates and hydroxyl groups, (alendronate, zoledronate). Recently, it has been suggested that the R2 group could also impact BPs’ affinity for hydroxyapatite crystals. Finally, it has been shown that, compared to compounds with a higher affinity, low-affinity molecules can penetrate more deeply within the mineral matrix, and so doing could reach the canalicular network [ 81 ].
Concerning the mechanisms of action, BPs’ affinity decreases in acidic conditions (resorption lacuna) because of phosphonate-groups protonation. Once they are released from the bone matrix, BPs can be internalized into osteoclasts through endocytosis. Afterward, via the inhibition of the farnesyl diphosphate synthase, BP prevent the prenylation of several molecules (protein G trimeric subunits, phosphodiesterase subunits) involved in many cellular processes crucial for osteoclastic functions (cytoskeleton architecture, actin rings formation, wrinkling of the border, intracellular vesicles movements). The fusion of osteoclastic precursors is still possible and leads to multinucleated giant cells, which are inactive. At high concentration, BP can induce osteoclasts apoptosis. In all cases, by inhibiting bone resorption, they deprive tumour cells of growth factors released from the bone matrix upon osteoclastic action (TGFβ, IGFs) [ 81 ].
Much preclinical evidence suggests that BPs possess direct antitumor properties [ 82 , 83 , 84 ]. After internalization, BPs significantly disrupt the function of small GTPases proteins by blocking their prenylation, which is essential for adhesion, migration, invasion and proliferation of tumour cells. Similarly, it has been suggested that BPs could inhibit αVβ3 integrin activation, which is involved in tumour cells adhesion on the bone surface [ 85 ]. Moreover, BPs could induce tumour cell apoptosis through cell structure alteration and DNA fragmentation [ 86 ].
BPs could have also an indirect antitumor activity by blocking angiogenesis. Actually, BPs regulate the proliferation, the migration and the adhesion of endothelial cells, and they inhibit the development of capillaries. Finally, BPs could have an indirect antitumor action via the modulation of the immune system through the activation of γδτ T lymphocytes [ 87 ]. This activation is caused by: (i) structural similarity between BPs and non-peptidic ligands that activates γδτ T cells; (ii) the recognition by the TCR (T cell receptor) of isopentyl pyrophosphate accumulated after the inhibition of farnesyl diphosphate synthase [ 81 , 82 , 88 , 89 ].
BPs (clodronate, pamidronate, ibandronate, zoledronate) are effective for the prevention and the retardation of SREs in patients with bone metastases from solid tumours or with multiple myeloma osteolytic lesions. Interestingly, several generation of compounds are available [ 90 ]. It has been shown that N-BPs of the second and the third generation (nitrogen-containing BP: zoledronate, palmidronate, alendronate, ibandronate) are more efficient in reducing SREs related to bone metastases coming from solid tumours other than breast and prostate cancers [ 91 ] or from castration-resistant prostate cancers [ 92 ].
BP administration is proposed for all patients with bone metastases from solid tumours or with bone lesions from multiple myeloma [ 93 ]. Similar to the strategy used for the patients with breast cancers, BP therapy should be initiated as soon as the discovery of X-ray evidence of bone destruction, or abnormal bone scan images combined with localized pain, and it should be continued throughout the disease [ 94 ]. In other words, BPs should be started at the first diagnosis of bone metastases [ 95 ].
Effectiveness of BP therapies requires a high level of patient compliance. However, this can be compromised by the extended duration of treatment, the use of another treatment, or private health insurance concerns in certain countries. Oral administration of BPs often triggers gastrointestinal side effects, and it requires strictly controlled administration conditions. In particular, patients must stay in a vertical position up to 2 h after drug intake, and they are advised to avoid food that could interact with BP metabolism. Concerning intravenous (iv) administration of BP, it is associated with development of symptoms similar to flu, principally after the first administration. In some cases, and following IV administration of high doses, severe side effects such as osteonecrosis of the jaw have been reported [ 81 , 96 , 97 ].
6.3.2. Denosumab
Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody developed for the treatment of osteoporosis and bone metastases [ 78 , 98 , 99 ]. Denosumab therapy reduces and delays the risk of SREs in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer, prostate cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and other types of solid tumours. Indeed, it binds and neutralizes RANKL, similarly to the decoy receptor OPG that blocks RANKL receptor activation on the surface of osteoclasts and their precursors, preventing osteoclastogenesis, as well as osteoclasts activity and survival [ 95 ]. As a result, bone resorption is decreased and the tumour-induced bone destruction is inhibited.
Denosumab is administered by subcutaneous injections, which provides an alternative route of administration and eliminates the need for routine test of renal function prior to administration [ 100 ]. Hence, its use is widely recommended for patients with renal failure or receiving a nephrotoxic chemotherapy like cisplatin [ 101 ]. Regarding long-term impact, a study in postmenopausal women with low bone mass and treated with denosumab reported that stopping the treatment resulted in decreased bone density at lumbar spine and hip sites within 12 months following the final dose [ 102 ]. Since denosumab use is recent, no data are available about patients’ compliance. However, observance should be better compared to treatments with BP. Indeed, good tolerance is reported, and the administration mode is more adaptable and less restrictive [ 81 , 99 ].
6.3.3. Other Agents Targeting Bone Tissue
Therapeutic strategies targeting osteoclastic bone resorption represents an area of intense clinical research [ 81 ]. This includes inhibitors of RANK/RANKL interaction (osteoclasts formation), as well as Ctsk and αVβ3 integrin inhibitors [ 89 , 103 ]. Interestingly, these therapies also impact on tumour cells and on stromal components involved in bone metastatic disease [ 57 ].
The RANK/RANKL/OPG triad appears as a key player in tumour expansion within bone tissue. Indeed, RANKL level is increased in osteolytic lesions related to malignant tumours, while OPG level is increased in osteosclerotic lesions [ 104 ]. In animal models of bone metastases from breast cancer, OPG inhibits bone destruction and reduces bone tumour mass. This reduction of tumour development is probably related to the inhibition of osteoclastic resorption, since OPG does not affect tumour growth in soft tissue. In addition, RANK-related RANKL inhibitors (Fc-OPG) [ 105 ], neutralizing antibodies directed against RANKL, and soluble antagonists of RANK (Fc-RANK) are inhibitors of bone metastases, as observed in preclinical and clinical models [ 80 , 106 ].
The use of the semi-metallic element gallium (Ga) offers promising prospects. Indeed, through its action on osteoclastogenesis, Ga is an inhibitor of bone resorption [ 107 ]. Moreover, previous experiments have established that Ga would represent an attractive additive to calcium phosphate-based biomaterials for bone reconstructive surgery [ 108 ]. Ga’s direct effects on tumour cells have been recently studied in the context of bone metastases. The in vitro data obtained suggest that, through its action against the vicious cycle involving bone cells and tumour cells, Ga represents a relevant and promising candidate for a local delivery upon the resection of bone metastases from breast cancer [ 109 ].
As new potential diagnosis and therapeutic markers for bone metastases, microRNAs (miRNAs) are also currently investigated. During the last years, the list of miRNAs involved in the progression of breast and prostate cancers has grown, including those directly involved in cancer cells metastasis to the bone [ 110 ]. Analysis of osteoclasts-derived miRNAs that are induced in the presence of tumour cells also led to the discovery of specific miRNAs (miR-16, miR-378, miR-141) that might have an influence on osteolytic bone metastases [ 111 , 112 , 113 ]. As another example, MiR-34a is considered as an anti-osteoclastogenic factor negatively regulated by transforming growth factor-β-induced factor 2 (Tgif2) [ 114 ]. By consequence, Tgif2 deletion may reduce bone resorption by abolishing miR-34a regulation.
Several strategies targeting TGFβ signalling pathways are under study in the context of cancer therapies. The different classes of TGFβ inhibitors used in preclinical models and clinical trials include: (i) monoclonal antibodies targeting TGFβ and preventing TGFβ interactions with its receptor; (ii) small molecules that inhibit TGFβRI kinase activity and TGFβRII-mediated activation of TGFβR1-SMAD proteins; (iii) a naturally derived product, halofuginone (HFG), which inhibits TGFβ [ 115 ]. Because TGFβ signalling pathways are activated in numerous cell types, the blockade of the TGFβ axis could have adverse effects on wound healing and on the immune system. Nevertheless, clinical studies (patients with advanced metastatic melanoma, colon cancer, prostate and breast cancers) have shown that a small inhibitory molecule (LY2157299) was well-tolerated and displayed minimal toxicity [ 116 ].
Considering the variety of factors released from the bone matrix upon osteoclastic resorption (IGF1, PDGFs, BMP, calcium etc.), and which stimulate the growth of certain tumours, this field of research represents also a potential source of pharmacological targets capable of interfering with metastatic processes [ 57 ].
Endothelin 1 (ET-1) is one of the promising osteoblastic targets studied in preclinical and clinical trials. This vasoconstriction agent stimulates osteoblastic proliferation and differentiation, and it is involved in the development of skeletal metastases of prostate cancer [ 117 ]. Therefore, atrasentan was the first receptor antagonist to ET-1 sub-type A studied in patients with prostate cancer, while zibotentan, a more selective inhibitor, is currently used in clinical trials [ 118 ].
Bone stroma and the osteoblastic niche can interact with cancer cells and thus promote a resistance to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Cancer cells are often resistant because they are maintained on the G0 phase of the cell cycle by contact with stromal cells present within bone marrow. A new therapeutic approach exploits the fact that tumour cells use CXCR4 and VLA4 proteins for bone marrow homing [ 119 ]. In addition, the use of mobilizing agents for MSCs (AMD3100, VLA4 target agents), which drive leukaemia and melanoma cells out of bone marrow, leads to a better response to chemotherapy in animal models. This approach is under investigation in clinical trials for the treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia and multiple myeloma [ 57 ].
6.3.4. Agents Targeting Tumour Cells
As mentioned above, bone metastases result from selection and enrichment of pre-existing cellular subpopulations displaying gene expression signatures associated with metastatic bone development, ( CXCR4, MMP-1, FGF5, CTGF, IL-11, OPN , follistatin, proteoglycan 1). Identification of these genes, and the corresponding signalling pathways, could provide potential therapeutic targets. Indeed, anti-CXCR4 antibodies reduce significantly the number of bone metastases in a model of prostate cancer, and the blockage of CXCR4 expression by siRNAs (small interfering RNAs) decreases in vitro the invasive character of breast cancer cells and inhibits the metastatic phenomenon in an animal model [ 120 ].
Growth factors and cytokines signalling pathways protect metastatic cells from anticancer drugs-induced apoptosis. Thus, targeting these survival factors in bone (TGFβ, IGF, IL-6, FGF, ET-1 and others) could increase cancer cells sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents.
Identification of metastases suppressor genes (MSGs:) also provides new insights into the formation of bone metastases. These genes block the metastatic capacity without impacting growth of the primary tumour. For example, the recovery of PTEN expression (Phosphatase and Tensin homolog) inhibits the development of bone metastases from prostate cancer, while it has no effect on lung metastases [ 121 ].
In parallel to MSGs, miRNAs have been identified as another class of molecules which regulates negatively the formation of bone metastases. This is the case of miR-335 and miR-126, which have been identified as metastasis suppressors in breast cancer [ 80 , 104 ].
6.3.5. Agents Targeting Angiogenesis
Antiangiogenic treatments appear as attractive and promising anticancer therapies, but they have been less studied in the bone context. Indeed, to reduce the blood supply to a tumour is a challenge since bone marrow is a highly vascularized site, which can be strongly affected by antiangiogenic inhibitors [ 80 ]. In bone metastasis models, the antiangiogenic agent avastin inhibits tumour growth via indirect targeting to osteoclasts [ 122 ]. On the other hand, the exact target of antiangiogenic therapies is unknown, since actions of such agents on circulating endothelial progenitors have not been clearly established. However, the combination of an antiangiogenic agent with a cytotoxic chemotherapy has given promising results in an animal model of bone metastases from breast primary tumour [ 123 ].
Endothelial progenitor cells derived from bone marrow represent potential targets of antiangiogenic strategies. The difficulty here lies in the absence of consistent markers for endothelial progenitors that could be used to target them.
MTA1 (metastasis-associated protein 1) is a proangiogenic factor involved in prostate cancer progression [ 124 ]. Accordingly, silencing MTA1 effectively limits the expression of proangiogenic factors like vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) by prostate cancer cells, and represents thereby a new potential target for patients with prostate tumour [ 57 ].
6.3.6. Agents Targeting Pain
Bone pain is very difficult to treat and tends to be resistant to opioids [ 125 ]. Indeed, bone tissue is densely innervated by primary afferent neurons and sympathetic neurons located in the intramedullary bone and the periosteum. Bone resorption inhibitors decrease substantially the pain caused by expanding bone metastases. Honore et al. demonstrated that osteoclastic resorption triggers recruitment of nervous fibbers related to pain and leads to bone pain-inducing modifications of spinal cord neurochemical properties. OPG, an antagonist of RANKL, prevents activation of nerve fibbers associated with pain, and reduces pain behaviours in mice with bone metastases [ 126 ]. In addition, tumour cells residing within bone secreting factors (NGF nerve growth factor, ET-1) activate neurons-associated pain perception. Therefore, bone resorption inhibitors, receptor A of ET-1 and NGF represent therapeutic targets for bone pain treatment. Another approach for patients with bone metastases is the use of radiopharmaceutical molecules (i.e., strontium, samarium and radium) that have a high avidity for calcified bone matrix. Finally, these agents have a slight antitumor effect via localized radiations, but they have substantial effects on bone pain and hence they are principally indicated because of their analgesic action [ 57 , 127 ].
7. Conclusions: Immunotherapy Perspectives
Identifying chemokines and their receptors involved in cancer biology is of growing interest due to their involvement in multiple steps of the metastatic process including proliferation, extravasation, survival of tumour cells and tumour angiogenesis [ 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 ]. Chemokines have been shown to control angiogenesis: (i) directly through interactions with their receptors expressed on endothelial cells, as described for CXCL5, CXCL8 and CXCL12; (ii) indirectly through the recruitment and the stimulation of leukocytes resulting in the production of angiogenic factors [ 133 , 134 ]. Lastly, tumour invasion is also controlled by chemokines and their receptors and among them, CXCR4 is the most frequently overexpressed receptor [ 135 ].
Interestingly, through their ability to recruit many leukocyte sub-populations, chemokines and their receptors regulate also the immune response toward the tumour [ 82 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 ]. Understanding these mechanisms provides numerous molecular targets for potential therapeutic applications. Several types of therapy can be explored including blocking interactions between chemokines and their receptors, interfering with receptor transduction pathways, or providing a local delivery of chemokines able to trigger an anti-cancer immune response [ 140 , 141 , 142 ]. In that respect, Bidwell et al. identified an innate immune pathway (Irf7 pathway) intrinsic to breast cancer cells involved in the development of metastasis. Based on this result, they suggested that the restoration of Irf7 may reduce bone metastases [ 143 ].
However, despite the development of these novel therapies, few studies address specifically the issue of bone metastases treatment, and this research area will certainly continue to expand. Indeed, unlike ‘’passive’’ strategies involving the use of antibodies, such innovative and ambitious therapies can be considered as ‘’active’’, since they trigger the immune system response against cancer cells, including an immune memory resulting in long-term benefits.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the funding support from the University of Nantes (AAP Interdisciplinaires 2017—phase 1).
Author Contributions
All authors have contributed to the manuscript. Heidy Schmid-Antomarchi, Annie Schmid-Alliana, Patricia Lagadec and Rasha Al-Sahlanee have extensively participated to the bibliographic research and have commented the studies. Jean-Claude Scimeca and Elise Verron have written and supervised the works.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
References
1. Davila D. Antoniou A. Chaudhry M.A. Evaluation of osseous metastasis in bone scintigraphy Semin. Nucl. Med. 2015 45 3 15 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2014.07.004 25475375
2. Camparo P. Vieillefond A. Molecular aspects of prostate cancer: Recent data from the literature Bull. Cancer 2007 94 F77 F88 17845997
3. 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
4. Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. 1889 Cancer Metastasis Rev. 1989 8 98 101 2673568
5. Cecchini M.G. Wetterwald A. van der Pluijm G. Thalmann G.N. Molecular and Biological Mechanisms of Bone Metastasis EAU Update Ser. 2005 3 214 226 10.1016/j.euus.2005.09.006
6. Buijs J.T. van der Pluijm G. Osteotropic cancers: From primary tumor to bone Cancer Lett. 2009 273 177 193 10.1016/j.canlet.2008.05.044 18632203
7. Yoneda T. Hiraga T. Crosstalk between cancer cells and bone microenvironment in bone metastasis Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2005 328 679 687 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.11.070 15694401
8. Ata R. Antonescu C.N. Integrins and Cell Metabolism: An Intimate Relationship Impacting Cancer Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017 18 10.3390/ijms18010189 28106780 PMC5297821
9. Gasparics A. Rosivall L. Krizbai I.A. Sebe A. When the endothelium scores an own goal: Endothelial cells actively augment metastatic extravasation through endothelial-mesenchymal transition Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2016 310 H1055 H1063 10.1152/ajpheart.00042.2016 26993222
10. Sipkins D.A. Wei X. Wu J.W. Runnels J.M. Cote D. Means T.K. Luster A.D. Scadden D.T. Lin C.P. In vivo imaging of specialized bone marrow endothelial microdomains for tumour engraftment Nature 2005 435 969 973 10.1038/nature03703 15959517 PMC2570168
11. Iddon J. Byrne G. Bundred N.J. Bone metastasis in breast cancer: The role of parathyroid hormone related protein Surg. Oncol. 1999 8 13 25 10.1016/S0960-7404(99)00011-0 10885390
12. Klein C.A. Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases Nat. Rev. Cancer 2009 9 302 312 10.1038/nrc2627 19308069
13. Klein G. Foulds’ dangerous idea revisited: The multistep development of tumors 40 years later Adv. Cancer Res. 1998 72 1 23 9338072 10.1016/s0065-230x(08)60698-3
14. Fearon E.R. Vogelstein B. A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis Cell 1990 61 759 767 10.1016/0092-8674(90)90186-I 2188735
15. Cairns J. Mutation selection and the natural history of cancer Nature 1975 255 197 200 10.1038/255197a0 1143315
16. Olivier M. Langerod A. Carrieri P. Bergh J. Klaar S. Eyfjord J. Theillet C. Rodriguez C. Lidereau R. Bieche I. The clinical value of somatic TP53 gene mutations in 1794 patients with breast cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2006 12 1157 1167 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1029 16489069
17. McAllister S.S. Gifford A.M. Greiner A.L. Kelleher S.P. Saelzler M.P. Ince T.A. Reinhardt F. Harris L.N. Hylander B.L. Repasky E.A. Systemic endocrine instigation of indolent tumor growth requires osteopontin Cell 2008 133 994 1005 10.1016/j.cell.2008.04.045 18555776 PMC4121664
18. Koscielny S. Tubiana M. Le M.G. Valleron A.J. Mouriesse H. Contesso G. Sarrazin D. Breast cancer: Relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination Br. J. Cancer 1984 49 709 715 10.1038/bjc.1984.112 6733019 PMC1976833
19. Koscielny S. Tubiana M. Parallel progression of tumour and metastases Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010 10 156 10.1038/nrc2627-c1 20094050
20. Collins V.P. Loeffler R.K. Tivey H. Observations on growth rates of human tumors Am. J. Roentgenol. Radium Ther. Nucl. Med. 1956 76 988 1000 13362715
21. Husemann Y. Geigl J.B. Schubert F. Musiani P. Meyer M. Burghart E. Forni G. Eils R. Fehm T. Riethmuller G. Systemic spread is an early step in breast cancer Cancer Cell 2008 13 58 68 10.1016/j.ccr.2007.12.003 18167340
22. Podsypanina K. Du Y.C. Jechlinger M. Beverly L.J. Hambardzumyan D. Varmus H. Seeding and propagation of untransformed mouse mammary cells in the lung Science 2008 321 1841 1844 10.1126/science.1161621 18755941 PMC2694414
23. Schmidt-Kittler O. Ragg T. Daskalakis A. Granzow M. Ahr A. Blankenstein T.J. Kaufmann M. Diebold J. Arnholdt H. Muller P. From latent disseminated cells to overt metastasis: Genetic analysis of systemic breast cancer progression Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003 100 7737 7742 10.1073/pnas.1331931100 12808139 PMC164657
24. Tomuleasa C. Zaharie F. Muresan M.S. Pop L. Fekete Z. Dima D. Frinc I. Trifa A. Berce C. Jurj A. How to Diagnose and Treat a Cancer of Unknown Primary Site J. Gastrointestin. Liver Dis. 2017 26 69 79 28338116 10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.261.haz
25. Kaplan R.N. Psaila B. Lyden D. Bone marrow cells in the ‘pre-metastatic niche’: Within bone and beyond Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2006 25 521 529 10.1007/s10555-006-9036-9 17186383
26. Hess K.R. Varadhachary G.R. Taylor S.H. Wei W. Raber M.N. Lenzi R. Abbruzzese J.L. Metastatic patterns in adenocarcinoma Cancer 2006 106 1624 1633 10.1002/cncr.21778 16518827
27. Psaila B. Lyden D. The metastatic niche: Adapting the foreign soil Nat. Rev. Cancer 2009 9 285 293 10.1038/nrc2621 19308068 PMC3682494
28. Nguyen D.X. Bos P.D. Massague J. Metastasis: From dissemination to organ-specific colonization Nat. Rev. Cancer 2009 9 274 284 10.1038/nrc2622 19308067
29. Fidler I.J. The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis: The ‘seed and soil’ hypothesis revisited Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003 3 453 458 10.1038/nrc1098 12778135
30. Gupta G.P. Minn A.J. Kang Y. Siegel P.M. Serganova I. Cordon-Cardo C. Olshen A.B. Gerald W.L. Massague J. Identifying site-specific metastasis genes and functions Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2005 70 149 158 10.1101/sqb.2005.70.018 16869748
31. Ara T. Declerck Y.A. Interleukin-6 in bone metastasis and cancer progression Eur. J. Cancer 2010 46 1223 1231 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.026 20335016 PMC2917917
32. Ewing J. Neoplastic Diseases: A Treatise on Tumors 3rd ed. WB Saunders Philadelphia, PA, USA 1928
33. Chiang A.C. Massague J. Molecular basis of metastasis N. Engl. J. Med. 2008 359 2814 2823 10.1056/NEJMra0805239 19109576 PMC4189180
34. Zarour L.R. Anand S. Billingsley K.G. Bisson W.H. Cercek A. Clarke M.F. Coussens L.M. Gast C.E. Geltzeiler C.B. Hansen L. Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis: Evolving Paradigms and Future Directions Cell. Mol. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017 3 163 173 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.01.006 28275683 PMC5331831
35. Waugh D.J. Wilson C. The interleukin-8 pathway in cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2008 14 6735 6741 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4843 18980965
36. Weidle U.H. Birzele F. Kollmorgen G. Ruger R. Molecular Mechanisms of Bone Metastasis Cancer Genom. Proteom. 2016 13 1 12 26708594
37. Goerge T. Barg A. Schnaeker E.M. Poppelmann B. Shpacovitch V. Rattenholl A. Maaser C. Luger T.A. Steinhoff M. Schneider S.W. Tumor-derived matrix metalloproteinase-1 targets endothelial proteinase-activated receptor 1 promoting endothelial cell activation Cancer Res. 2006 66 7766 7774 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3897 16885380
38. Jacobson A. Cunningham J.L. Connective tissue growth factor in tumor pathogenesis Fibrogenesis Tissue Repair 2012 5 S8 10.1186/1755-1536-5-S1-S8 23259759 PMC3368788
39. Sotiriou C. Lacroix M. Lespagnard L. Larsimont D. Paesmans M. Body J.J. Interleukins-6 and -11 expression in primary breast cancer and subsequent development of bone metastases Cancer Lett. 2001 169 87 95 10.1016/S0304-3835(01)00524-9 11410329
40. Rose A.A. Pepin F. Russo C. Abou Khalil J.E. Hallett M. Siegel P.M. Osteoactivin promotes breast cancer metastasis to bone Mol. Cancer Res. 2007 5 1001 1014 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-07-0119 17951401
41. Psaila B. Lyden D. Roberts I. Megakaryocytes, malignancy and bone marrow vascular niches J. Thromb. Haemost. 2012 10 177 188 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2011.04571.x 22122829 PMC3272087
42. Guise T.A. Mundy G.R. Cancer and bone Endocr. Rev. 1998 19 18 54 10.1210/er.19.1.18 9494779
43. Msaouel P. Pissimissis N. Halapas A. Koutsilieris M. Mechanisms of bone metastasis in prostate cancer: Clinical implications Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2008 22 341 355 10.1016/j.beem.2008.01.011 18471791
44. Quail D.F. Joyce J.A. Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis Nat. Med. 2013 19 1423 1437 10.1038/nm.3394 24202395 PMC3954707
45. Buijs J.T. Stayrook K.R. Guise T.A. The role of TGF-beta in bone metastasis: Novel therapeutic perspectives Bonekey Rep. 2012 1 96 10.1038/bonekey.2012.96 23951484 PMC3727840
46. Juarez P. Guise T.A. TGF-beta in cancer and bone: Implications for treatment of bone metastases Bone 2011 48 23 29 10.1016/j.bone.2010.08.004 20699127
47. Kiriyama T. Gillespie M.T. Glatz J.A. Fukumoto S. Moseley J.M. Martin T.J. Transforming growth factor beta stimulation of parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP): A paracrine regulator? Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 1993 92 55 62 10.1016/0303-7207(93)90074-T 8472867
48. Kingsley L.A. Fournier P.G. Chirgwin J.M. Guise T.A. Molecular biology of bone metastasis Mol. Cancer Ther. 2007 6 2609 2617 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0234 17938257
49. McMahon S. Charbonneau M. Grandmont S. Richard D.E. Dubois C.M. Transforming growth factor beta1 induces hypoxia-inducible factor-1 stabilization through selective inhibition of PHD2 expression J. Biol. Chem. 2006 281 24171 24181 10.1074/jbc.M604507200 16815840
50. Moustakas A. Heldin C.H. Induction of epithelial-mesenchymal transition by transforming growth factor beta Semin. Cancer Biol. 2012 22 446 454 10.1016/j.semcancer.2012.04.002 22548724
51. Flavell R.A. Sanjabi S. Wrzesinski S.H. Licona-Limon P. The polarization of immune cells in the tumour environment by TGFbeta Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2010 10 554 567 10.1038/nri2808 20616810 PMC3885992
52. Yoneda T. Hata K. Nakanishi M. Nagae M. Nagayama T. Wakabayashi H. Nishisho T. Sakurai T. Hiraga T. Involvement of acidic microenvironment in the pathophysiology of cancer-associated bone pain Bone 2011 48 100 105 10.1016/j.bone.2010.07.009 20637323
53. Xu X.T. Xu B. Song Q.B. Zeng H. The role of neural-related factors in the metastasis of the gastrointestinal cancer J. Cancer Res. Ther. 2013 9 S123 S128 24516047 10.4103/0973-1482.122505
54. Artacho-Cordon F. Rios-Arrabal S. Lara P.C. Artacho-Cordon A. Calvente I. Nunez M.I. Matrix metalloproteinases: Potential therapy to prevent the development of second malignancies after breast radiotherapy Surg. Oncol. 2012 21 e143 e151 10.1016/j.suronc.2012.06.001 22749313
55. Leblanc R. Lee S.C. David M. Bordet J.C. Norman D.D. Patil R. Miller D. Sahay D. Ribeiro J. Clezardin P. Interaction of platelet-derived autotaxin with tumor integrin alphaVbeta3 controls metastasis of breast cancer cells to bone Blood 2014 124 3141 3150 10.1182/blood-2014-04-568683 25277122 PMC4231421
56. Peyruchaud O. Leblanc R. David M. Pleiotropic activity of lysophosphatidic acid in bone metastasis Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2013 1831 99 104 10.1016/j.bbalip.2012.06.004 22710393
57. Weilbaecher K.N. Guise T.A. McCauley L.K. Cancer to bone: A fatal attraction Nat. Rev. Cancer 2011 11 411 425 10.1038/nrc3055 21593787 PMC3666847
58. Voronov E. Shouval D.S. Krelin Y. Cagnano E. Benharroch D. Iwakura Y. Dinarello C.A. Apte R.N. IL-1 is required for tumor invasiveness and angiogenesis Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003 100 2645 2650 10.1073/pnas.0437939100 12598651 PMC151394
59. Di Francesco S. Castellan P. Manco R. Tenaglia R.L. Reciprocal cross-talk between Prostaglandin E2 and bone in prostate cancer: A current review Cent. Eur. J. Urol. 2011 64 201 204 10.5173/ceju.2011.04.art2 24578893 PMC3921745
60. Diament M.J. Stillitani M.I. Puricelli L. Bal de Kier-Joffe E. Klein S. GM-CSF secreted by murine adenocarcinoma cells modulates tumor progression and immune activity Oncol. Rep. 2003 10 1647 1652 10.3892/or.10.5.1647 12883753
61. Kato H. Wakabayashi H. Naito Y. Kato S. Nakagawa T. Matsumine A. Sudo A. Anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy inhibits lung metastasis in an osteosarcoma cell line Oncology 2015 88 139 146 10.1159/000368414 25402182
62. Verbovsek U. Van Noorden C.J. Lah T.T. Complexity of cancer protease biology: Cathepsin K expression and function in cancer progression Semin. Cancer Biol. 2015 35 71 84 10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.08.010 26320409
63. Kruger T.E. Miller A.H. Godwin A.K. Wang J. Bone sialoprotein and osteopontin in bone metastasis of osteotropic cancers Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2014 89 330 341 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2013.08.013 24071501 PMC3946954
64. Davis H. Raja E. Miyazono K. Tsubakihara Y. Moustakas A. Mechanisms of action of bone morphogenetic proteins in cancer Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2016 27 81 92 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2015.11.009 26678814
65. Valkenburg K.C. Steensma M.R. Williams B.O. Zhong Z. Skeletal metastasis: Treatments, mouse models, and the Wnt signaling Chin. J. Cancer 2013 32 380 396 10.5732/cjc.012.10218 23327798 PMC3845601
66. Buijs J.T. Kuijpers C.C. van der Pluijm G. Targeted therapy options for treatment of bone metastases; beyond bisphosphonates Curr. Pharm. Des. 2010 16 3015 3027 10.2174/138161210793563536 20722621
67. Garrison K. Hahn T. Lee W.C. Ling L.E. Weinberg A.D. Akporiaye E.T. The small molecule TGF-beta signaling inhibitor SM16 synergizes with agonistic OX40 antibody to suppress established mammary tumors and reduce spontaneous metastasis Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2012 61 511 521 10.1007/s00262-011-1119-y 21971588 PMC3595193
68. Coleman R.E. Skeletal complications of malignancy Cancer 1997 80 1588 1594 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19971015)80:8+<1588::AID-CNCR9>3.0.CO;2-G 9362426
69. Liepe K. Kotzerke J. Internal radiotherapy of painful bone metastases Methods 2011 55 258 270 10.1016/j.ymeth.2011.07.001 21803158
70. Kurup A.N. Callstrom M.R. Expanding role of percutaneous ablative and consolidative treatments for musculoskeletal tumours Clin. Radiol. 2017 72 645 656 10.1016/j.crad.2017.02.019 28363660
71. Szendroi M. Antal I. Szendroi A. Lazary A. Varga P.P. Diagnostic algorithm, prognostic factors and surgical treatment of metastatic cancer diseases of the long bones and spine EFORT Open Rev. 2017 2 372 381 10.1302/2058-5241.2.170006 29071122 PMC5644421
72. Thariat J. Vignot S. Bensadoun R.J. Mornex F. Improvements of ablative local treatments modify the management of the oligometastatic disease Cancer Radiother. 2012 16 325 329 10.1016/j.canrad.2012.04.005 22784592
73. Kougioumtzopoulou A. Zygogianni A. Liakouli Z. Kypraiou E. Kouloulias V. The role of radiotherapy in bone metastases: A critical review of current literature Eur. J. Cancer Care 2017 26 10.1111/ecc.12724 28631284
74. Chiras J. Shotar E. Cormier E. Clarencon F. Interventional radiology in bone metastases Eur. J. Cancer Care 2017 26 10.1111/ecc.12741 28873239
75. Laredo J.D. Chiras J. Kemel S. Taihi L. Hamze B. Vertebroplasty and interventional radiology procedures for bone metastases Jt. Bone Spine 2017 10.1016/j.jbspin.2017.05.005 28499893
76. Pikis S. Goldstein J. Spektor S. Potential neurotoxic effects of polymethylmethacrylate during cranioplasty J. Clin. Neurosci. 2015 22 139 143 10.1016/j.jocn.2014.06.006 25085727
77. 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
78. Van Driel M. van Leeuwen J.P. Cancer and bone: A complex complex Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2014 561 159 166 10.1016/j.abb.2014.07.013 25046842
79. Mundy G.R. Metastasis to bone: Causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities Nat. Rev. Cancer 2002 2 584 593 10.1038/nrc867 12154351
80. Zou X. Zou L. He Y. Bunger C. Molecular treatment strategies and surgical reconstruction for metastatic bone diseases Cancer Treat. Rev. 2008 34 527 538 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.012 18472222
81. Verron E. Bouler J.M. Is bisphosphonate therapy compromised by the emergence of adverse bone disorders? Drug Discov. Today 2014 19 312 319 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.08.010 23974069
82. Bernardini G. Gismondi A. Santoni A. Chemokines and NK cells: Regulators of development, trafficking and functions Immunol. Lett. 2012 145 39 46 10.1016/j.imlet.2012.04.014 22698182 PMC7112821
83. Gronich N. Rennert G. Beyond aspirin-cancer prevention with statins, metformin and bisphosphonates Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2013 10 625 642 10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.169 24080598
84. Odri G. Kim P.P. Lamoureux F. Charrier C. Battaglia S. Amiaud J. Heymann D. Gouin F. Redini F. Zoledronic acid inhibits pulmonary metastasis dissemination in a preclinical model of Ewing’s sarcoma via inhibition of cell migration BMC Cancer 2014 14 169 10.1186/1471-2407-14-169 24612486 PMC3975287
85. Clezardin P. Ebetino F.H. Fournier P.G. Bisphosphonates and cancer-induced bone disease: Beyond their antiresorptive activity Cancer Res. 2005 65 4971 4974 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0264 15958534
86. Guise T.A. Antitumor effects of bisphosphonates: Promising preclinical evidence Cancer Treat. Rev. 2008 34 Suppl. S1 S19 S24 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.006 18486348
87. Clezardin P. Mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates in oncology: A scientific concept evolving from antiresorptive to anticancer activities Bonekey Rep. 2013 2 267 10.1038/bonekey.2013.1 24422040 PMC3722725
88. Benzaid I. Monkkonen H. Bonnelye E. Monkkonen J. Clezardin P. In vivo phosphoantigen levels in bisphosphonate-treated human breast tumors trigger Vgamma9Vdelta2 T-cell antitumor cytotoxicity through ICAM-1 engagement Clin. Cancer Res. 2012 18 6249 6259 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0918 23032740
89. Benzaid I. Monkkonen H. Stresing V. Bonnelye E. Green J. Monkkonen J. Touraine J.L. Clezardin P. High phosphoantigen levels in bisphosphonate-treated human breast tumors promote Vgamma9Vdelta2 T-cell chemotaxis and cytotoxicity in vivo Cancer Res. 2011 71 4562 4572 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3862 21646473
90. Dominguez L.J. Di Bella G. Belvedere M. Barbagallo M. Physiology of the aging bone and mechanisms of action of bisphosphonates Biogerontology 2011 12 397 408 10.1007/s10522-011-9344-5 21695491
91. Hirsh V. Tchekmedyian N.S. Rosen L.S. Zheng M. Hei Y.J. Clinical benefit of zoledronic acid in patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors: Analysis based on history of skeletal complications Clin. Lung Cancer 2004 6 170 174 10.3816/CLC.2004.n.030 15555218
92. Saad F. Gleason D.M. Murray R. Tchekmedyian S. Venner P. Lacombe L. Chin J.L. Vinholes J.J. Goas J.A. Zheng M. Long-term efficacy of zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2004 96 879 882 10.1093/jnci/djh141 15173273
93. Terpos E. Confavreux C.B. Clezardin P. Bone antiresorptive agents in the treatment of bone metastases associated with solid tumours or multiple myeloma Bonekey Rep. 2015 4 744 10.1038/bonekey.2015.113 26512321 PMC4606491
94. Van Poznak C.H. Von Roenn J.H. Temin S. American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update: Recommendations on the role of bone-modifying agents in metastatic breast cancer J. Oncol. Pract. 2011 7 117 121 10.1200/JOP.2011.000212 21731520 PMC3051857
95. Coleman R. Gnant M. Morgan G. Clezardin P. Effects of bone-targeted agents on cancer progression and mortality J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2012 104 1059 1067 10.1093/jnci/djs263 22752060
96. Khosla S. Burr D. Cauley J. Dempster D.W. Ebeling P.R. Felsenberg D. Gagel R.F. Gilsanz V. Guise T. Koka S. Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw: Report of a task force of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research J. Bone Miner. Res. 2007 22 1479 1491 10.1359/jbmr.0707onj 17663640
97. Lezot F. Chesneau J. Battaglia S. Brion R. Castaneda B. Farges J.C. Heymann D. Redini F. Preclinical evidence of potential craniofacial adverse effect of zoledronic acid in pediatric patients with bone malignancies Bone 2014 68 146 152 10.1016/j.bone.2014.08.018 25193159
98. Anderson P. Kopp L. Anderson N. Cornelius K. Herzog C. Hughes D. Huh W. Novel bone cancer drugs: Investigational agents and control paradigms for primary bone sarcomas (Ewing’s sarcoma and osteosarcoma) Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 2008 17 1703 1715 10.1517/13543784.17.11.1703 18922107
99. D’Antonio C. Passaro A. Gori B. Del Signore E. Migliorino M.R. Ricciardi S. Fulvi A. de Marinis F. Bone and brain metastasis in lung cancer: Recent advances in therapeutic strategies Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2014 6 101 114 10.1177/1758834014521110 24790650 PMC3987652
100. Clemons M. Gelmon K.A. Pritchard K.I. Paterson A.H. Bone-targeted agents and skeletal-related events in breast cancer patients with bone metastases: The state of the art Curr. Oncol. 2012 19 259 268 10.3747/co.19.1011 23144574 PMC3457877
101. Peddi P. Lopez-Olivo M.A. Pratt G.F. Suarez-Almazor M.E. Denosumab in patients with cancer and skeletal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis Cancer Treat. Rev. 2013 39 97 104 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.07.002 22898302 PMC3691016
102. Miller P.D. Bolognese M.A. Lewiecki E.M. McClung M.R. Ding B. Austin M. Liu Y. San Martin J. Amg Bone Loss Study Group Effect of denosumab on bone density and turnover in postmenopausal women with low bone mass after long-term continued, discontinued, and restarting of therapy: A randomized blinded phase 2 clinical trial Bone 2008 43 222 229 10.1016/j.bone.2008.04.007 18539106
103. Casimiro S. Guise T.A. Chirgwin J. The critical role of the bone microenvironment in cancer metastases Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2009 310 71 81 10.1016/j.mce.2009.07.004 19616059
104. Ando K. Heymann M.F. Stresing V. Mori K. Redini F. Heymann D. Current therapeutic strategies and novel approaches in osteosarcoma Cancers 2013 5 591 616 10.3390/cancers5020591 24216993 PMC3730336
105. Fili S. Karalaki M. Schaller B. Mechanism of bone metastasis: The role of osteoprotegerin and of the host-tissue microenvironment-related survival factors Cancer Lett. 2009 283 10 19 10.1016/j.canlet.2009.01.011 19201081
106. Wittrant Y. Theoleyre S. Chipoy C. Padrines M. Blanchard F. Heymann D. Redini F. RANKL/RANK/OPG: New therapeutic targets in bone tumours and associated osteolysis Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2004 1704 49 57 10.1016/j.bbcan.2004.05.002 15363860
107. Verron E. Loubat A. Carle G.F. Vignes-Colombeix C. Strazic I. Guicheux J. Rochet N. Bouler J.M. Scimeca J.C. Molecular effects of gallium on osteoclastic differentiation of mouse and human monocytes Biochem. Pharmacol. 2012 83 671 679 10.1016/j.bcp.2011.12.015 22202439
108. Strazic Geljic I. Melis N. Boukhechba F. Schaub S. Mellier C. Janvier P. Laugier J.P. Bouler J.M. Verron E. Scimeca J.C. Gallium enhances reconstructive properties of a calcium phosphate bone biomaterial J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2017 10.1002/term.2396 28079305
109. Strazic-Geljic I. Guberovic I. Didak B. Schmid-Antomarchi H. Schmid-Alliana A. Boukhechba F. Bouler J.M. Scimeca J.C. Verron E. Gallium, a promising candidate to disrupt the vicious cycle driving osteolytic metastases Biochem. Pharmacol. 2016 116 11 21 10.1016/j.bcp.2016.06.020 27378505
110. Scimeca J.C. Verron E. The multiple therapeutic applications of miRNAs for bone regenerative medicine Drug Discov. Today 2017 22 1084 1091 10.1016/j.drudis.2017.04.007 28435060
111. Green D. Mohorianu I. McNamara I. Dalmay T. Fraser W.D. miR-16 is highly expressed in Paget’s associated osteosarcoma Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2017 24 L27 L31 10.1530/ERC-16-0487 28377382
112. Dostalova Merkerova M. Krejcik Z. Votavova H. Belickova M. Vasikova A. Cermak J. Distinctive microRNA expression profiles in CD34+ bone marrow cells from patients with myelodysplastic syndrome Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2011 19 313 319 10.1038/ejhg.2010.209 21150891 PMC3061996
113. Zhang H.L. Qin X.J. Cao D.L. Zhu Y. Yao X.D. Zhang S.L. Dai B. Ye D.W. An elevated serum miR-141 level in patients with bone-metastatic prostate cancer is correlated with more bone lesions Asian J. Androl. 2013 15 231 235 10.1038/aja.2012.116 23377530 PMC3739140
114. Krzeszinski J.Y. Wei W. Huynh H. Jin Z. Wang X. Chang T.C. Xie X.J. He L. Mangala L.S. Lopez-Berestein G. miR-34a blocks osteoporosis and bone metastasis by inhibiting osteoclastogenesis and Tgif2 Nature 2014 512 431 435 10.1038/nature13375 25043055 PMC4149606
115. Colak S. Ten Dijke P. Targeting TGF-beta Signaling in Cancer Trends Cancer 2017 3 56 71 10.1016/j.trecan.2016.11.008 28718426
116. Herbertz S. Sawyer J.S. Stauber A.J. Gueorguieva I. Driscoll K.E. Estrem S.T. Cleverly A.L. Desaiah D. Guba S.C. Benhadji K.A. Clinical development of galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate), a small molecule inhibitor of transforming growth factor-beta signaling pathway Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2015 9 4479 4499 10.2147/DDDT.S86621 PMC4539082 26309397
117. Guise T.A. Mohammad K.S. Endothelins in bone cancer metastases Cancer Treat. Res. 2004 118 197 212 15043194 10.1007/978-1-4419-9129-4_9
118. Qiao L. Liang Y. Li N. Hu X. Luo D. Gu J. Lu Y. Zheng Q. Endothelin-A receptor antagonists in prostate cancer treatment-a meta-analysis Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015 8 3465 3473 26064237 PMC4443071
119. Bae M.H. Oh S.H. Park C.J. Lee B.R. Kim Y.J. Cho Y.U. Jang S. Lee J.H. Kim N. Park S.H. VLA-4 and CXCR4 expression levels show contrasting prognostic impact (favorable and unfavorable, respectively) in acute myeloid leukemia Ann. Hematol. 2015 94 1631 1638 10.1007/s00277-015-2442-8 26155911
120. Liang Z. Yoon Y. Votaw J. Goodman M.M. Williams L. Shim H. Silencing of CXCR4 blocks breast cancer metastasis Cancer Res. 2005 65 967 971 15705897 PMC3734941
121. Wu Z. McRoberts K.S. Theodorescu D. The role of PTEN in prostate cancer cell tropism to the bone micro-environment Carcinogenesis 2007 28 1393 1400 10.1093/carcin/bgm050 17347137
122. Peyruchaud O. Serre C.M. NicAmhlaoibh R. Fournier P. Clezardin P. Angiostatin inhibits bone metastasis formation in nude mice through a direct anti-osteoclastic activity J. Biol. Chem. 2003 278 45826 45832 10.1074/jbc.M309024200 12954626
123. Krzeszinski J.Y. Wan Y. New therapeutic targets for cancer bone metastasis Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2015 36 360 373 10.1016/j.tips.2015.04.006 25962679 PMC4461455
124. Malisetty V.L. Penugurti V. Panta P. Chitta S.K. Manavathi B. MTA1 expression in human cancers—Clinical and pharmacological significance Biomed. Pharmacother. 2017 95 956 964 10.1016/j.biopha.2017.09.025 28915537
125. Lozano-Ondoua A.N. Symons-Liguori A.M. Vanderah T.W. Cancer-induced bone pain: Mechanisms and models Neurosci. Lett. 2013 557 Pt A 52 59 10.1016/j.neulet.2013.08.003 24076008 PMC4542064
126. Honore P. Luger N.M. Sabino M.A. Schwei M.J. Rogers S.D. Mach D.B. O’Keefe P.F. Ramnaraine M.L. Clohisy D.R. Mantyh P.W. Osteoprotegerin blocks bone cancer-induced skeletal destruction, skeletal pain and pain-related neurochemical reorganization of the spinal cord Nat. Med. 2000 6 521 528 10802707 10.1038/74999
127. Chwistek M. Recent advances in understanding and managing cancer pain F1000Research 2017 6 945 10.12688/f1000research.10817.1 28690839 PMC5482325
128. Itatani Y. Kawada K. Inamoto S. Yamamoto T. Ogawa R. Taketo M.M. Sakai Y. The Role of Chemokines in Promoting Colorectal Cancer Invasion/Metastasis Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016 17 10.3390/ijms17050643 27136535 PMC4881469
129. O’Hayre M. Salanga C.L. Handel T.M. Allen S.J. Chemokines and cancer: Migration, intracellular signalling and intercellular communication in the microenvironment Biochem. J. 2008 409 635 649 10.1042/BJ20071493 18177271
130. Rollins B.J. Inflammatory chemokines in cancer growth and progression Eur. J. Cancer 2006 42 760 767 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.002 16510278
131. Sarvaiya P.J. Guo D. Ulasov I. Gabikian P. Lesniak M.S. Chemokines in tumor progression and metastasis Oncotarget 2013 4 2171 2185 10.18632/oncotarget.1426 24259307 PMC3926818
132. Vicari A.P. Caux C. Chemokines in cancer Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2002 13 143 154 10.1016/S1359-6101(01)00033-8 11900990
133. Santoni M. Bracarda S. Nabissi M. Massari F. Conti A. Bria E. Tortora G. Santoni G. Cascinu S. CXC and CC chemokines as angiogenic modulators in nonhaematological tumors Biomed. Res. Int. 2014 2014 768758 10.1155/2014/768758 24971349 PMC4058128
134. Stockmann C. Schadendorf D. Klose R. Helfrich I. The impact of the immune system on tumor: Angiogenesis and vascular remodeling Front. Oncol. 2014 4 69 10.3389/fonc.2014.00069 24782982 PMC3986554
135. Wang Y. Xie Y. Oupicky D. Potential of CXCR4/CXCL12 Chemokine Axis in Cancer Drug Delivery Curr. Pharmacol. Rep. 2016 2 1 10 10.1007/s40495-015-0044-8 27088072 PMC4827436
136. D’Ambrosio D. Regulatory T cells: How do they find their space in the immunological arena? Semin. Cancer Biol. 2006 16 91 97 10.1016/j.semcancer.2005.11.002 16384712
137. Franciszkiewicz K. Boissonnas A. Boutet M. Combadiere C. Mami-Chouaib F. Role of chemokines and chemokine receptors in shaping the effector phase of the antitumor immune response Cancer Res. 2012 72 6325 6332 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2027 23222302
138. Hemdan N.Y. Anti-cancer versus cancer-promoting effects of the interleukin-17-producing T helper cells Immunol. Lett. 2013 149 123 133 10.1016/j.imlet.2012.11.002 23159638
139. Sallusto F. Lanzavecchia A. Mackay C.R. Chemokines and chemokine receptors in T-cell priming and Th1/Th2-mediated responses Immunol. Today 1998 19 568 574 10.1016/S0167-5699(98)01346-2 9864948
140. Viola A. Sarukhan A. Bronte V. Molon B. The pros and cons of chemokines in tumor immunology Trends Immunol. 2012 33 496 504 10.1016/j.it.2012.05.007 22726608
141. Dranoff G. Cytokines in cancer pathogenesis and cancer therapy Nat. Rev. Cancer 2004 4 11 22 10.1038/nrc1252 14708024
142. Mantovani A. Savino B. Locati M. Zammataro L. Allavena P. Bonecchi R. The chemokine system in cancer biology and therapy Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2010 21 27 39 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2009.11.007 20004131
143. Bidwell B.N. Slaney C.Y. Withana N.P. Forster S. Cao Y. Loi S. Andrews D. Mikeska T. Mangan N.E. Samarajiwa S.A. Silencing of Irf7 pathways in breast cancer cells promotes bone metastasis through immune escape Nat. Med. 2012 18 1224 1231 10.1038/nm.2830 22820642