Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Inter- and intra-observer variability associated with the use of the Mirels’ scoring system for metastatic bone lesions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Metastatic bone disease is increasing in association with ever-improving medical management of osteophylic malignant conditions. The precise timing of surgical intervention for secondary lesions in long bones can be difficult to determine. This paper aims to evaluate a classic scoring system. All radiographs were examined twice by three orthopaedic oncologists and scored according to the Mirels’ scoring system. The Kappa statistic was used for the purpose of statistical analysis. The results show agreement between observers (κ = 0.35–0.61) for overall scores at the two time intervals. Inter-observer agreement was also seen with subset analysis of size (κ = 0.27–0.60), site (κ = 0.77–1.0) and nature of the lesion (κ = 0.55–0.81). Similarly, low levels of intra-observer variability were noted for each of the three surgeons (κ= 0.34, 0.39, and 0.78, respectively). These results indicate a reliable, repeatable assessment of bony metastases. We continue to advocate its use in the management of patients with long bone metastases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bonargio BC, Rubin P (1967) Non-union of pathological fracture after irradiation therapy. Radiology 88:889–898

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bremmer RA, Jelliffe AM (1958) The management of pathological fracture of the major long bones from metastatic cancer. J Bone Jt Surg 40B:652–659

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bunting RW, Boublik M, Blevins FT, Dame CC, Ford LA, Lavine LS (1992) Functional outcome of pathological fracture secondary to malignant disease in a rehabilitation hospital. Cancer 69:98–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Coleman RE (1997) Skeletal complications of malignancy. Cancer 80:1588–1594

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Damron TA, Morgan H, Prakash D, Grant W, Aronowitz J, Heiner J (2003) Critical evaluation of Mirels rating system for impending pathological fractures. Clin Orthop 415S:201–207

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dawson R, Currow D, Stevens G, Morgan G, Barton M (1999) Radiotherapy for bone metastases: a critical appraisal of outcome measures. J Pain Symptom Manage 17:208–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dijstra S, Wiggers T, van Geel BN, Boxma H (1994) Impending and actual pathological fractures in patients with bone metastases of the long bones. A retrospective study of 233 surgically treated fractures. Eur J Surg 160:535–542

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fidler M (1973) Prophylactic internal fixation of secondary neoplastic deposits in long bones. Br Med J 1:341–343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Habermann ET, Sachs R, Stern RE, Hirsh DM, Anderson WJ (1982) The pathology and treatment of metastatic disease of the femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 169:70–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Harrington KD (1982) New trends in management of lower extremity metastases. Clin Orthop 169:53–61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrington KD, Sim FH, Enis JE, Johnson JD, Dick HM, Gristina AG (1976) Methylmethacrylate as an adjunct in internal fixation of pathological fractures. J Bone Jt Surg 58A:1047–1055

    Google Scholar 

  12. Keene JS, Sellinger MD, McBeath AA, Engber WD (1986) Metastatic breast cancer in the femur: a search for the lesion at risk of fracture. Clin Orthop 203:282–288

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mirels H (1989) Metastatic disease in long bones: a proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathological fractures. Clin Orthop 249:256–264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mundy GR (2002) Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 2:584–593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Papadakis SA, Mitsitsikas TC, Markakidis S, Minas MK, Tripsiannis G, Tentes AA (2004) The development of bone metastases as the first sign of metastatic spread in patients with primary solid tumours. Int Orthop 28(2):102–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Parrish FF, Murray JA (1974) Surgical management of secondary neoplastic fractures about the hip. Orthop Clin North Am 5(4):887–901

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Perez CA, Bradfield JS, Morgan HC (1972) Management of pathological fractures. Cancer 29:684–693

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sarahrudi K, Hora K, Heinz MS, Vecsei V (2006) Treatment results of pathological fractures of the long bones: a retrospective analysis of 88 patients. Int Orthop 30(6):519–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schurman DJ, Amstutz HC (1973) Orthopaedic management of patients with metastatic carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 137:831–836

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Toma CD, Dominkus M, Nedelcu T, Abdolvahab F, Assadian O, Krepler P, Kotz R (2007) Metastatic bone disease: a 36-year single centre trend-analysis of patients admitted to a tertiary orthopaedic surgical department. J Surg Oncol 96(5):404–410

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ward WG, Spang J, Howe D, Gordan S (2000) Femoral recon nails for metastatic disease: indications, technique and results. Am J Orthop 29(9 Suppl):34–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruairi F. Mac Niocaill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mac Niocaill, R.F., Quinlan, J.F., Stapleton, R.D. et al. Inter- and intra-observer variability associated with the use of the Mirels’ scoring system for metastatic bone lesions. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 83–86 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0941-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0941-8

Keywords

Navigation