What Is New in Management of Bone Metastases

  • Costantino ErraniEmail author
  • Davide Maria Donati


Metastatic tumors are the most common malignancy of the bone. Traditional management techniques involve a combination of pharmacotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical procedures. Novel medical treatments combined with less invasive surgical procedures can offer an effective palliative option in patients with limited life expectancy. Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), was found to be a promising new therapeutic strategy for patients with bone metastases by restricting bone destruction. However, the scientific community should be aware of the possible association of denosumab treatment with occurrence of new malignancies.

Advancements in surgical techniques have led to the development of the concept of less invasive surgical procedures with the aim of achieving the same clinical results with less morbidity related to the surgical approach. Less invasive procedures include the following: endoscopic surgery, computer-assisted surgery, and minimally invasive percutaneous surgery. Benefits of less invasive techniques include decreased blood loss, less postoperative pain, and shortened recovery time. Less invasive procedures also allow earlier initiation of postoperative adjuvant treatments. Considering the limited expectancy of most patients with bone metastases, the main goal of novel medical and surgical treatments is to improve the quality of life of patients with bone metastases reducing the adverse effects related to the traditional medical or surgical treatments.


Bone metastases Novel therapies Denosumab Endoscopic surgery Computer-assisted surgery Minimally invasive percutaneous surgery 


  1. 1.
    Cheung FH. The practicing orthopedic surgeon’s guide to managing long bone metastases. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014;45:109–19. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weber KL, Randall RL, Grossman S, Parvizi J. Management of lower-extremity bone metastasis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 4):11–9. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coleman RE. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:6243s–9s. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schulman KL, Kohles J. Economic burden of metastatic bone disease in the U.S. Cancer. 2007;109:2334–42. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Errani C, Mavrogenis AF, Cevolani L, et al. Treatment for long bone metastases based on a systematic literature review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27:205–11. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ratasvuori M, Wedin R, Hansen BH, et al. Prognostic role of en-bloc resection and late onset of bone metastasis in patients with bone-seeking carcinomas of the kidney, breast, lung, and prostate: SSG study on 672 operated skeletal metastases. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:360–5. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forsberg JA, Eberhardt J, Boland PJ, et al. Estimating survival in patients with operable skeletal metastases: an application of a Bayesian belief network. PLoS One. 2011;6:e19956. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zheng GZ, Chang B, Lin FX, et al. Meta-analysis comparing denosumab and zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced solid tumours. Eur J Cancer Care. 2016.
  9. 9.
    Henry DH, Costa L, Goldwasser F, et al. Randomized, double-blind study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1125–32. Scholar
  10. 10.
    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;39:453–9. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Criscitiello C, Viale G, Gelao L, et al. Crosstalk between bone niche and immune system: osteoimmunology signaling as a potential target for cancer treatment. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41:61–8. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Errani C, Traina F, Chehrassan M, et al. Minimally invasive technique for curettage of chondroblastoma using endoscopic technique. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18:3394–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campos WK, Gasbarrini A, Boriani S. Case report: curetting osteoid osteoma of the spine using combined video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and navigation. Clin Orthop. 2013;471:680–5. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenthal D. Endoscopic approaches to the thoracic spine. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(Suppl 1):S8–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martins C, Cardoso AC, Alencastro LF, et al. Endoscopic-assisted lateral transatlantal approach to craniovertebral junction. World Neurosurg. 2010;74:351–8. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Le Huec JC, Lesprit E, Guibaud JP, et al. Minimally invasive endoscopic approach to the cervicothoracic junction for vertebral metastases: report of two cases. Eur Spine J. 2001;10:421–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Young PS, Bell SW, Mahendra A. The evolving role of computer-assisted navigation in musculoskeletal oncology. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:258–64. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wong KC, Kumta SM. Computer-assisted tumor surgery in malignant bone tumors. Clin Orthop. 2013;471:750–61. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loblaw DA, Perry J, Chambers A, Laperriere NJ. Systematic review of the diagnosis and management of malignant extradural spinal cord compression: the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative’s Neuro-Oncology Disease Site Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2028–37. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee C-H, Kwon J-W, Lee J, et al. Direct decompressive surgery followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a meta-analysis. Spine. 2014;39:E587–92. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim D-Y, Lee S-H, Chung SK, Lee H-Y. Comparison of multifidus muscle atrophy and trunk extension muscle strength: percutaneous versus open pedicle screw fixation. Spine. 2005;30:123–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Veeravagu A, Patil CG, Lad SP, Boakye M. Risk factors for postoperative spinal wound infections after spinal decompression and fusion surgeries. Spine. 2009;34:1869–72. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kwan MK, Lee CK, Chan CYW. Minimally invasive spinal stabilization using fluoroscopic-guided percutaneous screws as a form of palliative surgery in patients with spinal metastasis. Asian Spine J. 2016;10:99–110. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao PJ, Thayaparan GK, Fairhall JM, Mobbs RJ. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation techniques for metastatic spinal disease. Orthop Surg. 2014;6:187–95. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zairi F, Arikat A, Allaoui M, et al. Minimally invasive decompression and stabilization for the management of thoracolumbar spine metastasis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:19–23. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Versteeg AL, Verlaan J-J, de Baat P, et al. Complications after percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2343–9. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shim CS, Lee S-H, Jung B, et al. Fluoroscopically assisted percutaneous translaminar facet screw fixation following anterior lumbar interbody fusion: technical report. Spine. 2005;30:838–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nathan SS, Healey JH, Mellano D, et al. Survival in patients operated on for pathologic fracture: implications for end-of-life orthopedic care. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6072–82. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic ServiceIstituto Ortopedico RizzoliBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations