Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical and radiological evaluation of patients with lytic, mixed and sclerotic bone metastases from solid tumors: is there a correlation between clinical status of patients and type of bone metastases?

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the association between the clinical status of patients with metastatic bone disease and the type of bone metastases. Patients and methods 80 patients with skeletal metastases underwent both clinical and radiological assessments. Bone lesions were evaluated with computed tomography (CT), and patients were separated into three groups: lytic, mixed, sclerotic. Bone density of each lesion was measured in Hounsfield units (HU). Results Patients with osteolytic lesions had the highest mean pain score with 8.1 ± 2.2 points, the least mean scores for quality of life (QoL) and performance status (PS) with 31.4 ± 14.6 and 58.6 ± 9.7 points respectively, the highest percentage and mean opioid consumption (100% and 220.9 mg of oral daily morphine equivalent respectively), and the least mean bone density (116.3 ± 40.4 HU). On the contrary, the group with sclerotic metastases had the least mean pain score with 4.6 ± 1.3 points, the highest mean scores of QoL and PS (61.1 ± 15.5 and 66.6 ± 10 points respectively), the least percentage and mean opioid requirement (55.5% and 170.6 mg respectively), and the highest mean bone density (444 ± 86.6 HU). The differences between the three groups were statistically significant for all parameters evaluated, apart from performance status between the sclerotic and mixed groups. The correlation coefficients were statistically significant between all parameters investigated. Bone density had a strong negative correlation with pain. Conclusion Our results show a clear correlation between the type of bone metastases and the clinical status of patients. Patients with excessive bone resorption suffer the most, and may be given priority in treatment. CT proved to be a practical and efficient method to investigate and classify metastatic bone lesions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brown HK, Healy JH (2001) Metastatic cancer in bone. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds) Cancer–principles and practice of oncology, 6 edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 2713–2729

    Google Scholar 

  2. Body JJ (1992) Metastatic bone disease: clinical and therapeutic aspects. Bone 13:557–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mauskop A, Foley KM (1998) Control of pain. In: Harrigton KD (ed) Orthopedic management of metastatic bone disease. CV Mosby, St Lewis, pp 121–137

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pecherstorfer M, Vesely M (2000) Diagnosis and monitoring of bone metastases: clinical means. In: Body JJ (ed) Tumor bone disease and osteoporosis in cancer patients. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 97–129

    Google Scholar 

  5. Vinholes JJ, Purohit OP, Abbey ME et al (1997) Relationships between biochemical and symptomatic response in a double–blind randomized trial of pamidronate for metastatic bone disease. Ann Oncol 8:1243–1250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Peh WCG, Muttarak M (2003) Clinics in diagnostic Imaging (82). Singapore Med J 44(2):101–105

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Coleman RE (2001) Metastatic bone disease: clinical features, pathophysiology and treatment strategies. Cancer Treat Rev 27:165–176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Maisano R, Pergolizzi S, Cascinu S (2001) Novel therapeutic approaches to cancer patients with bone metastasis. Crit rev Oncol/Hematol 40:239–250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Iddon J, Byrne G, Bundred NJ (1999) Bone metastasis in breast cancer: the role of parathyroid hormone related protein. Surg oncol 8:13–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonadonna G, Rossi A, Valagussa P et al (1997) The CMF program for operable breast cancer with positive axillary nodes. Cancer 39:2904–2915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chow E, Holden L, Rubenstein J et al (2004) Computed Tomography (CT) evaluation of breast cancer patients with osteolytic bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy–a feasibility study. Radiother Oncol 70:291–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Karnofsky DA, Abelmann WH, Craver LF et al (1948) The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. Cancer 1:634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al (1993) For the European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality of life instrument for use in international trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Storto G, Klain M, Paone G et al (2006) Combined therapy of Sr-89 and zoledronic acid in patients with painful bone metastases. Bone 39:35–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vassiliou V, Kalogeropoulou C, Christopoulos C et al. (2007) Combination ibandronate and radiotherapy for the treatment of bone metastases: clinical evaluation and radiologic assessment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67(1): 264–272

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chow E, Ling A, Davis L et al (2005) Pain flare following external beam radiotherapy and meaningful change in pain scores in the treatment of bone metastases. Radiotherapy Oncol 75:64–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Umatsu T, Yuen S, Yukisawa S et al (2005) Comparison of FDGPET and SPECT for detection of bone metastases in breast cancer. AJR 184:1266–1273

    Google Scholar 

  18. Southard TE, Southard KA (1996) Detection of simulated osteoporosis in maxillae using radiographic texture analysis. IEEE Trans Biom Eng 43:123–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Patras Medical School, Athinon 81, Patras, 264 41, Greece

    Vassilios Vassiliou & Dimitrios Kardamakis

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Patras Medical School, Patras, Greece

    Christine Kalogeropoulou & Theodoros Petsas

  3. Laboratory of Public Health, University of Patras Medical School, Patras, Greece

    Michael Leotsinidis

Authors
  1. Vassilios Vassiliou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Kalogeropoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Theodoros Petsas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Leotsinidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dimitrios Kardamakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Kardamakis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vassiliou, V., Kalogeropoulou, C., Petsas, T. et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of patients with lytic, mixed and sclerotic bone metastases from solid tumors: is there a correlation between clinical status of patients and type of bone metastases?. Clin Exp Metastasis 24, 49–56 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-007-9056-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-007-9056-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation