The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2009;91:1503-1516.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00175
© 2009 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow CME: Take the activities for this article:
 CME 2: April, May, June 2009 (publication date July 6, 2009; expiration dat...
Oncology Test 8: Winter 2010 (publication date February 16, 2010; expiratio...
Trauma Test 27: Summer 2009 (publication date August 14, 2009; expiration d...
Right arrow [FREE Spanish Translation]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bickels, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lidar, Z.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bickels, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lidar, Z.
Related Collections
Right arrow Current Concepts Review
Right arrow Oncology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Current Concepts Review

Surgical Management of Metastatic Bone Disease

Jacob Bickels, MD1, Shlomo Dadia, MD1 and Zvi Lidar, MD1

1 National Unit of Orthopedic Oncology (J.B. and S.D.) and Spine Care Unit (Z.L.), Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, 6 Weizmann Street, Tel-Aviv 64239, Israel. E-mail address for J. Bickels: jbickels{at}012.net.il

Investigation performed at the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Indications
 Operative Technique
 Postoperative Care
 Functional and Oncological...
 References
 
Metastatic bone disease is a major contributor to the deterioration of the quality of life of patients with cancer; it causes pain, impending and actual pathological fractures, and loss of function and may also be associated with considerable metabolic alterations.

Operative treatment may be required for an impending or existing fracture and intractable pain. The goals of surgery are to provide local tumor control and allow immediate weight-bearing and function. Radiation therapy is often indicated postoperatively.

Detailed preoperative evaluation is required to assess the local extent of bone destruction and soft-tissue involvement, involvement of other skeletal sites, and the overall medical and oncological status.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Indications
 Operative Technique
 Postoperative Care
 Functional and Oncological...
 References
 
After the lungs and liver, the skeleton is the most common site of metastatic disease1,2. Prostate, breast, lung, kidney, and thyroid cancers account for 80% of all skeletal metastases1-3. The femur, spine, humerus, pelvis, ribs, and skull are reported to be the most commonly affected sites, in that order4-6. The prolonged survival of more patients with cancer has led to increasing numbers of individuals with metastatic bone disease. The exact incidence of bone metastasis is unknown, but it is estimated that 350,000 people die with bone metastases annually in the United States alone7. Overall management of metastatic bone disease is estimated to result in as much as 17% of the total direct medical costs of cancer treatment in the United States8.

Metastatic bone disease is a major contributor to the deterioration of the quality of life of patients with cancer. Impending and actual pathological fractures initiate the period of dependent care for many of them. The majority of metastatic bone lesions are treated effectively with nonsurgical modalities such as radiation therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, bone-seeking isotopes, and bisphosphonates9-12.

The use of chemotherapeutic and hormonal agents has improved the survival of patients with metastatic bone disease13,14. Randomized trials comparing the newer class of aromatase inhibitors with a progestational agent for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer have shown better survival in the former group15,16. The combination of chemotherapy with a monoclonal antibody to HER-2 (trastuzumab)17 or the combination of docetaxel and an oral 5-fluorouracil agent (capecitabine)18 has also been shown to improve the survival of patients who have metastatic breast cancer when compared with that of patients treated with standard chemotherapy alone.

Bisphosphonates reduce bone resorption by inhibiting osteoclast function, although direct and poorly understood antineoplastic effects may also occur. Administration of clodronate to patients who had breast cancer and were at high risk for distant metastases was shown to reduce the incidence and number of new osseous and visceral metastases19. The addition of pamidronate to antineoplastic therapy for patients who had stage-IV breast cancer and osteolytic metastases resulted in a substantial reduction in the prevalence of skeletal complications (51% [186 of 367 patients] compared with 64% [246 of 384 patients not given pamidronate]) and a reduced rate of skeletal morbidity (2.4 compared with 3.7 events per year)20. Zoledronic acid normalized levels of N-telopeptide of type-I collagen within three months in 179 (81%) of 220 patients who had breast cancer with bone metastases, 135 (70%) of 193 patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer, and seventy (80%) of eighty-seven patients with non-small-cell lung cancer21. A normalized level of N-telopeptide of type-I collagen within three months after treatment, as compared with a persistently elevated level, was associated with reduced risks of skeletal complications (pathological fracture, the need for palliative radiation therapy or surgery to bone, and hypercalcemia of malignancy) and death21. Zoledronic acid (4 mg infused over fifteen minutes) was also shown to reduce the rate of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors other than breast and prostate cancer22. However, bisphosphonates given intravenously at high doses or rapidly were shown to be associated with osteonecrosis of the jaw as well as with renal dysfunction23,24. More recently, anti-angiogenic agents were also shown to be effective in the management of metastatic bone disease: SU11248, a multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated antitumor activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma25.

Treatment of pathological fractures with closed reduction and immobilization has been shown to be ineffective. Gainor and Buchert performed a study of 129 pathological fractures of long bones in 123 patients who had been treated with a variety of methods and followed until death or at least one year after the fracture26. They observed fracture-healing in 87% (twenty-six) of thirty patients who were treated with internal fixation and radiation therapy and lived more than six months compared with 57% (thirteen) of twenty-three patients who had a similar survival time but were treated with cast immobilization and radiation therapy26. As a result, those authors recommended the use of internal fixation and postoperative radiation.

Patients who have a slow-growing tumor that is responsive to chemotherapy and radiation therapy (such as multiple myeloma) and who have a pathological fracture of a non-weight-bearing bone may be initially treated nonoperatively. Operative treatment may be required for patients with an existing or impending pathological fracture or with intractable pain that does not respond to any nonoperative procedures27-29.

Operative intervention for metastatic bone disease is usually a palliative procedure. The goals of surgery are to achieve local tumor control and structural stability of the surgically treated site and to restore function as quickly as possible. Ideally, operative treatment should allow immediate function and weight-bearing with the least possible morbidity and rehabilitation. Operative reconstruction in patients who have bone metastases must also be reliable and durable in accordance with the expected duration of survival, which may be prolonged for patients with breast, prostate, or renal cancer30-33. Failure to achieve one of these goals usually necessitates a second operative intervention, leading to additional impairment of an already compromised quality of life. In their 1958 article, Bremner and Jelliffe stated that: "Most patients suffering long-bone pathological fracture have widespread disease, but it is wrong and unkind to regard this misfortune as a terminal event warranting only the simplest of symptomatic treatment. Recognition of this state of affairs demands the greatest expedition in returning the patient to comfort and mobility, that he may better enjoy his remaining months."34 This statement is even more relevant today because of the improved survival of patients who have metastatic bone disease and the newer techniques available for tumor resection and subsequent reconstruction of the defect.

The techniques for operative treatment of bone metastasis differ considerably from those used to fix a traumatic fracture because malignant tissue may need to be removed and because pathological fractures are associated with impaired bone-healing. The latter problem is attributed to extensive bone loss and destruction and to the postoperative radiation given to most patients27,28,35,36. These unique features of the operative treatment of metastatic bone disease led to high rates of failure when standard fixation techniques were used. Yazawa et al. reported that 8.8% (thirteen) of 147 patients with a total of 166 metastatic lesions of the femur or humerus had a failure of operative treatment37. The reasons for failure included poor initial fixation, improper implant selection, and progression of disease within the operative field. Similarly, Wedin et al. reported a failure of operative treatment, requiring a reoperation, of 11% (twenty-six) of 228 metastatic lesions in 192 patients36.

The present review summarizes the principles by which patients who require operative treatment of metastatic bone disease are evaluated and managed. Adequate preoperative evaluation and adherence to surgical strategy may decrease the high rate of complications and reoperations in patients with metastatic bone disease.


   Indications
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Indications
Operative Technique
 Postoperative Care
 Functional and Oncological...
 References
 
Although planned operative treatment for patients with metastatic bone disease should not be delayed, establishing the diagnosis and preoperative evaluation and staging must not be rushed. This process, which must be thorough, should allow delineation of the osseous and soft-tissue extents of the lesion and their relationship to adjacent structures. It is also necessary to determine the overall skeletal involvement of the tumor, to detect any other metastases that may require concomitant operative treatment, and to evaluate the patient's overall prognosis. Since the majority of patients who present with multiple skeletal metastases have an established diagnosis of cancer, clinical and radiographic evaluations are usually aimed at evaluating the extent of the disease and its complications rather than at identifying its site of origin3,38. However, a systemic and detailed workup is required for patients who present with metastatic bone disease without an established diagnosis of cancer. Patients with a history of cancer who have a solitary bone lesion should not be assumed to have metastatic disease, or treated as if they do, unless a histological diagnosis has been obtained (Fig. 1).


Figure 1
View larger version (34K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1 Algorithm for evaluation of a patient with a known history of cancer and an aggressive bone lesion.

 
The medical history should include the current oncological status and related treatments and medications. In cases of spinal metastases, the medical history should focus on sensory and motor dysfunctions, walking ability, and urinary and/or bowel incontinence. The physical examination should include an evaluation of the principal symptomatic area as well as other symptomatic sites. It should focus on the extent of soft-tissue tumor extension and its relationship to the neurovascular bundle of the extremity, the neurovascular status of the affected extremity, the presence of limb edema, muscle strength, and the range of motion of the adjacent joints. Assessment of the sphincter is mandatory for patients who have spinal metastases.

Laboratory studies should include complete hematologic and metabolic evaluations. Patients who have metastatic bone disease are often treated with chemotherapy and may have anemia and low platelet counts that must be addressed prior to an operation. Hypercalcemia most often develops in patients with squamous-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, kidney cancer, and certain hematologic cancers (particularly multiple myeloma and lymphoma). The signs and symptoms of hypercalcemia are nonspecific, and the clinician should have a high index of suspicion for this condition. Common symptoms include fatigue, anorexia, and constipation. If untreated, a progressive increase in the serum calcium level will likely result in deterioration of renal function and mental status. Death ultimately results from renal failure and cardiac arrhythmias.

Secretion of humoral and paracrine factors by tumor cells stimulates osteoclast activity and proliferation, and there is a marked increase in the markers of bone turnover7,39. Numerous biochemical markers have been identified as correlating with bone turnover and resorption, although the value of these markers for monitoring the response to therapy or for the detection of bone metastases is still under investigation. Levels of bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, osteocalcin, and type-I procollagen C-propeptide in serum are indicators of osteoblast activity, whereas serum levels of C-terminal telopeptide of type-I collagen and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase and urinary levels of type-I-collagen cross-linked N-telopeptides are markers of osteoclast activity40-42.

When the diagnosis of metastatic bone disease is strongly considered, plain radiographs should be made of the affected site as well as of any other site at which the patient reports bone or joint pain. A computed tomography scan may also be required to detect metastases located in the shoulder girdle, spine, and pelvis because of the complex anatomy of these sites. Metastases located in long bones require biplanar radiographs because a single view may not provide enough information with which to evaluate the full extent of bone involvement (Figs. 2-A and 2-B). The combined results of these imaging studies will define the extent of bone destruction and soft-tissue extension. The latter may be relevant when the tumor is located in close proximity to a major neurovascular bundle. Metastases located in long bones require plain radiographs of the entire extent of the bone in order to exclude the possibility of additional metastases for the purpose of surgical planning. Missed metastases proximal or distal to the level of fixation could cause pathological fractures on weight-bearing on the operatively treated extremity. Computed tomography scanning of the chest should also be routinely done as a screening study to rule out lung metastases or, alternatively, to determine whether the lung is the site of a heretofore unknown primary lesion.


Figure 2
Figure 2
View larger version (135K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2-A Fig. 2-B Anteroposterior (Fig. 2-A) and lateral (Fig. 2-B) radiographs showing metastatic breast carcinoma of the distal part of the femoral diaphysis. While the anteroposterior radiograph gives the impression of relatively intact cortices, the lateral radiograph shows clear cortical destruction with tumor extension into the surrounding soft tissues.

 
A total-body bone scintigraphic evaluation with technetium-99m methylene diphosphonate is recommended prior to operative intervention. It allows detection of additional metastases that may require simultaneous surgical treatment. Bone scanning is highly sensitive for most bone lesions. Tracer uptake, however, is not specific for metastatic bone disease and may spuriously display a large variety of inflammatory, infectious, posttraumatic, and other benign conditions. Therefore, a plain radiograph should be made of any site that is found to be positive on the bone scan. It should be borne in mind that bone scanning is not a substitute for plain radiographs of the entire affected bone or other sites with bone pain because some tumors (such as renal cell carcinoma, multiple myeloma, metastatic melanoma, and thyroid carcinoma) may not be evident on a bone scan.

A sagittal, as well as axial and coronal, multilevel T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scan with gadolinium enhancement is a useful screening tool for patients who have spinal metastasis. It allows evaluation of the extent of medullary and extraspinal disease and spinal cord and nerve root compression. This information is essential when one is deciding whether to perform an operation or to treat the patient nonoperatively and, if the decision is to operate, which levels require decompression and fixation.

Operative treatment of metastatic bone disease cannot be carried out without an established histological diagnosis. When a patient has no previous histological diagnosis of metastatic bone disease, a biopsy is required to establish the diagnosis and exclude tumors that predictably respond to nonoperative treatment (e.g., lymphoma) or that require a different treatment strategy (e.g., sarcoma). Core-needle biopsies have been shown to have higher diagnostic accuracy than fine-needle aspirations for determining the type, grade, and specific diagnosis of musculoskeletal tumors43. Examination of osseous material obtained after reaming a bone lesion may not contribute to an accurate diagnosis, and the results of such an evaluation should be interpreted with caution and an understanding of its limited value.

The indications for operative treatment of long-bone and pelvic girdle metastases include impending and pathological fractures and intractable pain27-29,44. Patients with certain types of cancer who had a solitary bone metastasis were shown to have better survival than patients with similar types of cancer and multiple bone metastases45-47. However, resection of such lesions was not shown to improve the outcome48. Operative treatment of spinal metastases is indicated for patients with spinal instability or spinal cord compression49-53. Patients with a very short life expectancy would not benefit from an operation because of the rapid general deterioration of their functional and physiological status and because of their inability to execute a minimal rehabilitation protocol. Considerations regarding the expected survival, the overall medical status and quality of life, and the magnitude of the operation and rehabilitation potential all contribute to the decision-making process54,55. It is difficult and impractical to set a rigid time frame, but six to twelve weeks of expected survival is generally the minimum required for relatively simple procedures such as intramedullary nailing, and a minimum of six months is necessary for more complex procedures such as acetabular or endoprosthetic reconstruction.

The mere presence of lung metastases is not a contraindication to operative intervention since certain groups of patients with lung metastases have a relatively prolonged survival with reasonable respiratory function56. In a prospective study of 460 patients in whom a fracture or an impending fracture of the acetabulum or a long bone had been treated operatively, as documented in the skeletal metastasis registry of the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group, several clinical variables were recognized as being prognostically important in identifying patients who are at high risk of dying in the first few months after an operation57. Pathological fracture, visceral metastases, a hemoglobin level of <7 mmol/L, and lung cancer were independent negative prognostic factors for one-year survival, whereas myeloma was found to be the only positive prognostic factor57. Similar results were reported by Nathan et al., who studied 191 patients who had undergone surgery for metastatic bone disease; they found that the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of bone metastases, presence of visceral metastases, and hemoglobin level were independent predictors of survival58. It is, therefore, advisable to collaborate with the responsible medical oncologist throughout the decision-making process to evaluate the patient's oncological status and life expectancy and to coordinate the planned operation with any other treatments planned for that patient.

Impending Pathological Fractures and Spinal Instability
Pathological fracture of a long weight-bearing bone has always been a consistent and clear indication for operative intervention. Identifying an impending fracture (i.e., identifying a metastatic lesion of a bone that is at risk of fracture) and recommending its prophylactic fixation in a patient with metastatic bone disease is an important issue. Elective fixation prevents the intense pain and the loss of function associated with a pathological fracture, and it is easier to perform than fixation of an existing pathological fracture. In addition, Ward et al. documented that patients who had prophylactic fixation of an impending fracture had a shorter hospital stay (mean, 5.6 compared with 7.8 days) and a higher likelihood of being discharged home rather than to a nursing home or rehabilitation facility (77% compared with 36%) as compared with patients who were treated surgically for an existing pathological fracture59. It should be noted that that study was nonrandomized and retrospective, the patients did not undergo open curettage of the metastatic lesion, and polymethylmethacrylate was not used for fixation.

A common conception is that lytic metastases are likely to cause a pathological fracture while the new bone that is laid down by blastic metastases actually may increase cortical strength and make the bone locally harder28. Saad et al. retrospectively reviewed the cases of 3049 patients with bone metastases and found that those with breast cancer, who usually have lytic bone metastases, had a higher rate of pathological fractures (35%; 393 of 1130) than did patients who had prostate cancer (19%; 122 of 640), in whom metastatic lesions are more often blastic60. Recent studies indicate that the risk of skeletal complications in both patients with breast cancer and those with prostate cancer is strongly related to the rate of bone resorption61,62.

Because of anatomical considerations, the definition of an impending fracture differs among the three major anatomical sites (long bones, acetabulum, and vertebrae) at which operative intervention for metastatic bone disease is often performed.

Numerous reports in the English-language literature describe attempts to identify impending fractures in long bones. Harrington's classic definition of an impending pathological fracture of a long bone includes cortical bone destruction of ≥50%, a lesion of ≥2.5 cm in the proximal part of the femur, a pathological avulsion fracture of the lesser trochanter, or persistence of stress pain despite radiation therapy28.

An avulsion fracture of the lesser trochanter in the absence of known antecedent trauma may be the initial manifestation of unrecognized metastatic bone disease. Phillips et al. hypothesized that these fractures occur when metastatic involvement of the intertrochanteric region becomes so marked that the normal pull of the iliopsoas muscle results in avulsion63. Bertin et al. described four patients in which this occurred; the fractures healed, but a pathological subtrochanteric fracture subsequently occurred in three of the patients64.

Mirels's scoring system is based on four parameters (site, radiographic appearance, size, and related pain) for predicting the risk of fracture and for recommending appropriate treatment (Tables I and II)65. Mirels's system has the advantage of being relatively simple. It is based on clinical evaluation and plain radiographs and has been shown to be reproducible, valid, and more sensitive than clinical judgment across experience levels66,67. It is important, however, to realize that some patients with an impending fracture may not experience pain. Fidler reported that nine of nineteen patients who underwent prophylactic fixation of an impending fracture had not experienced pain before the impending fracture had been diagnosed68.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE I Mirels's Scoring System for Risk of Pathological Fracture65

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE II Mirels's Scoring-Based Treatment Recommendations65

 
Because of the complex anatomy of the acetabulum and the vertebrae, a simple definition of impending or pathological fracture is neither possible nor useful for planning surgical reconstruction at those sites. Instead, the location and extent of cortical destruction are used to evaluate the biomechanical impact on function.

Although the pelvis is a very common site of bone metastases, operative treatment of lesions in this area has not attracted as much attention as that in long bones or vertebrae. Operations are rarely required for pathological fractures of the pelvis other than those involving the acetabulum. In his 1981 report on fifty-eight patients who had a pathological fracture or cortical destruction of the acetabulum because of metastatic disease, Harrington classified the fractures on the basis of specific biomechanical deficiencies in the periacetabular bone44. Class I indicates that the lateral cortices and superior and medial walls are structurally intact; Class II, that the medial wall is deficient; Class III, that the lateral cortices and superior wall are deficient (Fig. 3); and Class IV, that there is extensive acetabular involvement (of the lateral cortices and superior and medial walls)44. Destruction of the superior and medial walls is usually considered to constitute mechanical compromise, thus necessitating operative intervention29.


Figure 3
View larger version (106K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3 A plain radiograph showing a Class-III acetabular metastasis, according to the Harrington classification, which includes deficiency of the lateral cortices and the superior wall44. A computed tomography scan is required to determine the exact extent of bone and cortical destruction.

 
The debate about prophylactic fixation for the prevention of pathological fractures of long bones can also be applied to spinal metastases. Spinal instability is presumed if there is transitional deformity, vertebral body collapse of >50%, tumor involvement of two of three columns, or involvement of the same column at two or more adjacent levels69-71. Kostuik et al. attempted to define spinal stability using a two-column concept of spinal architecture72. According to their concept, the anterior column consists of the entire vertebral body whereas the posterior column consists of the pedicles, laminae, and spinous process. The anterior column is further divided into anterior and posterior halves as well as right and left sides, which results in four quadrants of the vertebral body. The posterior column is divided into right and left sides, for a total of six vertebral segments. Kostuik et al. considered the spine to be stable when no more than two segments were destroyed, and they considered it to be unstable when three or more segments were destroyed. More recently, Tomita et al. grouped spinal tumors into three anatomical categories: intracompartmental (confinement of the tumor to the osseous elements of the vertebra), extracompartmental (occurrence of cortical breakthrough and tumor extension into the surrounding tissues), and metastases at multiple levels51. These parameters as well as the grade of the lesion, the presence of visceral metastases, and the extent of metastatic bone disease elsewhere in the skeleton allowed the determination of a prognostic score, a general treatment plan, and a specific surgical strategy51.

Spinal cord compression is a devastating complication of metastatic bone disease; it is defined as a mass lesion caused by tumor extension into the epidural space or a pathological spine fracture with displacement of the cord. It may present as a surgical emergency, with a rapidly evolving neurological deficit, or more subtly, with slowly progressive neurological dysfunction and pain49,73. The expected recovery of patients with neurological dysfunction is related to the acuity of the symptom onset. Patchell et al. performed a randomized, nonblinded multi-institutional study to evaluate the efficacy of operative treatment and radiation therapy compared with that of radiation therapy alone in patients with spinal metastasis and spinal cord compression74. The patients included in their study had an epidural mass compressing the cord with at least one neurological sign or symptom (including pain), good performance status, and a life expectancy of three months or more74. The primary end point in that study was the ability to walk, and secondary end points were urinary continence, muscle strength, functional status, the need for steroid and/or analgesic medications, and survival. After an interim analysis, the study was ended because the criterion of a predetermined early stopping rule was met: significantly more patients were able to walk after treatment in the surgery group (forty-two of fifty; 84%) than in the radiation-therapy group (twenty-nine of fifty-one; 57%) (odds ratio 6.2 [95% confidence interval, 2.0 to 19.8]; p = 0.001). When the analysis included only the thirty-two patients who had been unable to walk when they entered the study, it was found that significantly more patients in the surgery group than in the radiation group regained the ability to walk (ten of sixteen compared with three of sixteen; p = 0.01). Operative treatment also resulted in substantial differences in continence (156 compared with seventeen days), survival time (126 compared with 100 days), muscle strength, functional ability, and reduction in steroid and opioid use. The authors concluded that direct decompressive surgery and postoperative radiation therapy is superior to treatment with radiation therapy alone for patients who have spinal metastases and spinal cord compression.

Intractable Pain and Solitary Metastases
Operative intervention may be required for relief of intractable pain associated with bone metastasis that has caused extensive bone destruction and has responded poorly to chemotherapy, narcotics, and radiation therapy27,29,75.

A controversial issue is the operative management of a solitary bone metastasis and whether its removal has an impact on the patient's survival. Operative treatment may be considered for tumors that are slow-growing, that are associated with a good two-year survival rate, and for which there is no dependable oncological treatment. Metastatic renal cell and thyroid carcinomas are probably the only solitary bone metastases for which resection has been shown to be beneficial in terms of patient survival29,56,76-80.


   Operative Technique
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Indications
 Operative Technique
Postoperative Care
 Functional and Oncological...
 References
 
The aims of operative management of bone metastases, regardless of the anatomical site, are relief of pain and restoration of function by achieving local tumor control and immediate mechanical stability. Local tumor control is usually accomplished by postoperative radiation therapy, with or without prior operative removal of the tumor. Tumor removal requires adequate exposure and should include curettage, drilling with a high-speed burr, and occasionally resection of the affected bone segment. Tumor removal may be associated with increased blood loss, an increased risk of infection, and local tumor seeding. These risks should be considered when local tumor progression cannot be controlled by nonoperative means and operative treatment is planned. For example, it may not be necessary to remove metastatic tumors, such as multiple myeloma and breast cancer, that are responsive to radiation therapy. Structural stability is achieved by using orthopaedic implants, with or without cement, and usually not with allografts or allograft-prosthesis composites, which rely on bone-healing27-29,35,81-83. Bone cement augments structural stability and enables the patient to withstand the stress of immediate motion and function.

Goetz et al. reported on a series of forty-three patients with painful osteolytic bone metastases that had not responded to previous chemotherapy or radiation therapy and were treated with image-guided, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of the tumor site84. Twenty-four (56%) of the forty-three lesions were located in the pelvic girdle. Following radiofrequency ablation, 95% (forty-one) of the forty-three patients reported a clinically relevant decrease in pain. Although it has the advantage of being a minimally invasive treatment option for patients with intractable pain, radiofrequency ablation does not provide mechanical reinforcement of the tumor cavity, and operative treatment should be considered when such stability is required.

Selective arterial embolization within twenty-four hours before the operation is recommended for patients who have a metastatic renal cell or thyroid carcinoma since surgical manipulation of these hypervascular tumors may cause extensive bleeding29,85,86.

Long Bones
Operative treatment of long-bone metastases usually consists of closed nailing, but wide exposure, tumor removal, and fixation with cemented hardware may be required. Closed nailing is done in the case of an impending or actual pathological fracture with minimal bone destruction and fragment displacement4,59,81,87. Open exposure may be required in cases of pathological fracture with considerable bone destruction27-29,77,82. The following approach, which is our preference, entails adequate exposure of the tumor site with use of a large cortical window and tumor removal with handheld curets and drilling with a high-speed burr. Reconstruction begins with the introduction of an intramedullary nail. After the proper positioning and length are verified, the nail is partially withdrawn and the entire tumor cavity is filled with polymethylmethacrylate. The nail is then pushed back into the medullary canal and fixed with interlocking screws (Figs. 4 and 5). Intramedullary fixation devices are preferable for pathological fractures because of their superior ability to withstand mechanical loads, because they support the entire length of the affected bone, and because normal bone-healing cannot be expected88,89. For example, a traumatic intertrochanteric fracture would be treated appropriately with a compression hip screw and side-plate device, whereas a pathological fracture in the same anatomical site would be best treated with a cephalomedullary nail. The use of side-plates for fixation is appropriate for lesions located in the upper extremity (for example, the humeral diaphysis), which is not subjected to considerable weight-bearing, or in places where it is difficult to use an intramedullary device (for example, the proximal tibial metaphysis).


Figure 4
View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4 Illustration showing reconstruction of a tumor cavity with a cemented intramedullary nail.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (91K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5 Plain radiograph showing the reconstructed tumor cavity.

 
Cases of extreme cortical destruction in which the remaining cortices cannot support a fixation device, and particularly in which the adjacent joint is destroyed, should be treated with resection and reconstruction with a cemented tumor prosthesis (Figs. 6-A, 6-B, and 6-C).


Figure 6A
View larger version (87K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6-A Anteroposterior plain radiograph showing metastatic renal cell carcinoma of the entire proximal part of the humerus with extensive bone destruction and pathological fractures along the proximal part of the diaphysis and the surgical neck.

 

Figure 6B
View larger version (99K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6-B Intraoperative photograph showing a modular tumor endoprosthesis used to reconstruct the defect created by resection of the proximal part of the humerus.

 

Figure 6C
View larger version (83K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6-C Anteroposterior plain radiograph showing the cemented proximal humeral endoprosthesis.

 
Amputations are rarely required but should be considered for palliation in cases in which bone destruction and tumor extension into the surrounding soft tissues are too extensive to allow reconstruction following wide tumor resection and in cases of neurovascular compromise of the affected extremity90-92.

Acetabulum and Spine
In accordance with the classification system that he developed, Harrington also developed specialized operative techniques to ensure adequate support and fixation of the acetabular component of a total hip prosthesis in its normal anatomical position and to allow transmission of weight-bearing forces into bone that is functionally capable of withstanding the load44. According to Harrington, patients with a Class-I lesion have sufficient periacetabular bone for conventional fixation of the cemented acetabular component. More recently, trabecular metal acetabular components have been used for that purpose in patients treated preoperatively with therapeutic pelvic radiation93. Because of loss of medial structural continuity, Class-II lesions require the use of a protrusio acetabuli cup. Class-III lesions, in which all three elements of the acetabular cavity are violated, require a complex reconstruction of the missing cavity with cemented Steinmann pins or cannulated screws as reinforcement bars to support the protrusion cage. Class-IV lesions require internal hemipelvectomy for tumor removal, which leaves major bone loss and pelvic discontinuity. So-called saddle prostheses have been used effectively for reconstruction in these Class-IV cases94. These prostheses, which articulate with the posterior part of the ilium, were originally designed for reconstruction in patients with a large acetabular bone deficiency, with or without infection, following total hip arthroplasty. Harrington et al. performed total hip arthroplasty in all of their patients35, and a similar surgical strategy was reported by others75,85,95,96. It is possible, however, that some patients with a Class-I lesion who have sufficient bone stock over the acetabular roof do not require joint replacement and can be treated with intralesional curettage and internal fixation with cement (Figs. 7-A and 7-B).


Figure 7A
View larger version (68K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7-A Coronal view of a computed tomography scan showing a Harrington Class-I44 acetabular metastasis from renal cell carcinoma.

 

Figure 7B
View larger version (124K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7-B Plain radiograph showing reconstruction of the acetabular cavity with cemented Steinmann pins. The articular cartilage remained intact.

 
Like bone metastases elsewhere, spinal metastases often respond favorably to nonoperative treatment modalities. Operative treatment of spinal metastases is usually indicated when a patient has spinal instability, a progressive neurological deficit, intractable pain that is unresponsive to nonoperative treatment, or a lesion that is not responsive to radiation therapy50,97,98. Harrington devised a five-category classification scheme for the management of spinal metastases based on the extent of bone destruction and neurological compromise50. He recommended nonoperative treatment for patients who had (1) no important neurological compromise, (2) bone involvement without collapse or instability, or (3) major sensory or motor neurological compromise without substantial bone involvement. Operative treatment was recommended for patients who had either (1) vertebral collapse with pain resulting from a mechanical cause, but with no important neurological compromise, or (2) vertebral collapse or instability combined with major neurological compromise50. Recently, treatment options have been tailored according to the status of the tumor and the overall oncological stage. Tomita et al. developed a scoring system on the basis of a retrospective survival analysis of sixty-seven patients51. This system includes three major parameters: (1) grade of malignancy, (2) presence and possibility of treatment of visceral metastases, and (3) presence and extent of bone metastases. A numerical value is assigned to each category to calculate a prognostic score of 2 to 10 points. A prognostic score of 2 or 3 points suggests survival for more than two years and a recommendation for aggressive treatment (i.e., wide excision and fixation), and a score of 8, 9, or 10 points is indicative of short-term survival and a recommendation for nonoperative and supportive care. Palliative decompressive surgery can also be considered for the latter group. This scoring system was shown to be reliable, with a strong correlation with survival, in a prospective study of sixty-one patients51.

Tokuhashi et al. used a system that included six categories: general condition, number of extraspinal bone metastases, number of vertebral body metastases, metastasis to major internal organs, primary site of malignancy, and neurological compromise99. A numerical value was assigned to each category, and a strong correlation was shown between predicted and actual survival99. Enkaoua et al. retrospectively evaluated this scoring system in a study of seventy-one patients who had spinal metastasis and confirmed its reliability as a prognostic tool100. They recommended, however, that patients who have metastasis of unknown origin should receive a lower score. Tokuhashi et al. subsequently revised their original system and reported that the correlation between the scores derived with that system and the actual patient survival was better than that with the previous version101. Ulmar et al. compared the validity of the scoring systems of Tokuhashi et al. and Tomita et al. with regard to their ability to predict the prognosis of patients who have spinal metastases of renal cell carcinoma and found the former to be superior102.

Historically, laminectomy has been the surgical option for treatment of spinal cord compression, but laminectomy by itself does not address the anterior pathological involvement and thus may not suffice for cord decompression. Moreover, removal of the posterior elements may worsen the existing instability and deformity caused by tumor-related destruction of the vertebral body. Indeed, studies performed in the early 1980s showed that a combination of surgery and radiation was no better than radiation alone103,104. Operative treatment was, therefore, abandoned for more than two decades, during which spinal cord compression was usually treated with high-dose corticosteroids and radiation therapy, yielding an approximately 50% overall rate of ambulatory function105-107.

Improvements in operative techniques and implants have enabled the development of comprehensive decompression and fixation. Weigel et al. analyzed the surgical outcomes and quality of life of patients who had undergone operative treatment consisting primarily of anterior decompression and stabilization52. They reported neurological improvement in twenty-six (58%) of forty-five patients, and fourteen (70%) of twenty patients who had been unable to walk before the operation were able to walk postoperatively. Pain relief was reported by sixty-eight (89%) of seventy-six patients. Other retrospective studies on direct tumor removal with efficient cord decompression and spinal fixation have shown neurological recovery in 70% to 90% of patients and improvement in pain control and the quality of life in 80% to 90%49,74,108,109.

Operative treatment of spinal metastases should include removal of the tumor, and fixation should restore as much of the normal architecture, alignment, and stability as possible. Vertebrectomy has been shown to achieve mechanical stability and good clinical outcomes110-112. It may be accomplished through either an anterior approach (with use of a thoracotomy for the thoracic vertebrae or a retroperitoneal approach for the lumbar vertebrae) or a posterolateral approach113. Fixation with cages and anterior plates is the preferred technique in most instances. Circumferential fixation is advisable when posterior elements are also involved.

The precise role of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty in the treatment of spinal metastases is still undetermined. Vertebroplasty involves direct injection of polymethylmethacrylate into the affected vertebral body to support its frame and induce immediate stability. Kyphoplasty involves the use of an inflatable balloon to restore the vertebral body height and correct the kyphotic deformity followed by the injection of polymethylmethacrylate. Both procedures may be done with the use of local anesthesia, and both require fluoroscopic guidance. These procedures are indicated for patients who have spinal metastasis and either are in poor medical condition or have a short life expectancy, have intractable pain, or have spinal instability without a neurological deficit. The benefits of injection of polymethylmethacrylate into a fractured vertebral body with a metastatic tumor include stabilization, correction of about 45% of the kyphotic deformity and vertebral compression, and most importantly excellent and immediate pain control in about 85% of treated patients105-109. Many patients can walk immediately after the procedure. Although rare, potential complications of the procedures include asymptomatic leakage of cement into the spinal canal (occurring in approximately 10% of patients), particularly in the presence of a defect of the posterior wall of the vertebral body, and epidural spinal cord compression114-118.


   Postoperative Care
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Indications
 Operative Technique
 Postoperative Care
Functional and Oncological...
 References
 
If mechanical stability has been achieved, full weight-bearing on the affected extremity and passive and active range-of-motion exercises of the adjacent joints should be performed as soon as possible as determined on the basis of the wound-healing and the patient's ability. Early discharge from the hospital will generally enhance the patient's morale and minimize the interruption of an ongoing oncological program of treatment.

Following wound-healing, patients are referred for adjuvant radiation therapy to decrease the likelihood of local tumor recurrence. This usually consists of 3000 to 3500 Gy of external beam radiation given in several fractions, usually beginning no earlier than two weeks after the operation119. In one study, patients with metastatic bone disease who underwent an operation and were given postoperative radiation therapy had higher rates of normal functional status and required fewer subsequent orthopaedic procedures than those treated with an operation alone120. However, the better survival in that group might have been due to a referral bias consisting of patients with a better prognosis and medical status being assigned to that group. Adjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy are given on the basis of the specific tumor type and the relevant treatment protocol.


   Functional and Oncological Outcomes
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Indications
 Operative Technique
 Postoperative Care
 Functional and Oncological...
References
 
The survival of patients with cancer is usually determined more by the metastatic load in other sites than it is by metastases in the skeleton. Local tumor control, pain relief, and function are, therefore, the most appropriate criteria for evaluating the efficacy of operations done for metastatic bone disease. Although operative treatment is often carried out for metastatic bone disease, there have been only a few reports on the functional and oncological outcomes, which have demonstrated the ability to walk or good-to-excellent function in >50% of the patients who have undergone surgery27,29,44,49,50,74,75,82,85,121. Major resection of metastatic lesions with prosthetic reconstruction has been shown to be associated with tolerable morbidity and to be rewarding in terms of functional results and local tumor control27,122-126.

The above studies vary considerably with regard to the outcome parameters used to evaluate success. Instruments used for this assessment have included the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score scales, which were designed to evaluate function following limb-sparing tumor resection. Also used were the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale, designed to evaluate progression of disease and its impact on daily living abilities, as well as the Short Form-36 questionnaire for evaluating general health status54,127-129. The most consistent result of operative intervention for metastatic bone disease is the alleviation of pain, which was described by Bremner and Jelliffe in 1958 to be the most striking benefit of operative treatment34. Similar observations of postoperative pain relief have been consistently made by others27,59,75,85,130-136. A reoperation because of either local tumor progression or failure of fixation has been reported in less than 10% of patients27,29,36,49,76.Formula


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Indications
 Operative Technique
 Postoperative Care
 Functional and Oncological...
 References
 

  1. Manoso MW, Healey JH. Metastatic cancer to the bone. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer. Principles and practice of oncology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2005. p 2368-80.

  2. Dorfman HD. Metastatic tumors in bone. In: Dorfman HD, Czerniak B, editors. Bone tumors. St. Louis: Mosby; 1998. p 1009-40.

  3. Hage WD, Aboulafia AJ, Aboulafia DM. Incidence, location, and diagnostic evaluation of metastatic bone disease. Clin Orthop North Am. 2000;31:515-28, vii.[CrossRef]

  4. Bauer HCF. Controversies in the surgical management of skeletal metastases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:608-17.[CrossRef][Medline]

  5. Geschickter CF, Maseritz IH. Skeletal metastasis in cancer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1939;21:314-22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  6. Toma CD, Dominkus M, Nedelcu T, Abdolvahab F, Assadian O, Krepler P, Kotz R. Metastatic bone disease: a 36-year single centre trend-analysis of patients admitted to a tertiary orthopaedic surgical department. J Surg Oncol. 2007;96:404-10.[CrossRef][Medline]

  7. Roodman GD. Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1655-64.[Free Full Text]

  8. Schulman KL, Kohles J. Economic burden of metastatic bone disease in the U.S. Cancer. 2007;109:2334-42.[CrossRef][Medline]

  9. Franzius C, Schuck A, Bielack SS. High-dose samarium-153 ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate: low toxicity of skeletal irradiation in patients with osteosarcoma and bone metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1953-4.[Free Full Text]

  10. Houston SJ, Rubens RD. The systemic treatment of bone metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;312:95-104.[Medline]

  11. Janjan NA. Radiation for bone metastases: conventional techniques and the role of systemic radiopharmaceuticals. Cancer. 1997;80(8 Suppl):1628-45.[CrossRef][Medline]

  12. Thurman SA, Ramakrishna NR, DeWeese TL. Radiation therapy for the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2001;15:423-43.[CrossRef][Medline]

  13. Chia SK, Speers CH, D'yachkova Y, Kang A, Malfair-Taylor S, Barnett J, Coldman A, Gelmon KA, O'Reilly SE, Olivotto IA. The impact of new chemotherapeutic and hormone agents on survival in a population-based cohort of women with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2007;110:973-9.[CrossRef][Medline]

  14. Ryan CJ, Elkin EP, Cowan J, Carroll PR. Initial treatment patterns and outcome of contemporary prostate cancer patients with bone metastases at initial presentation. Cancer. 2007;110:81-6.[CrossRef][Medline]

  15. Buzdar A, Jonat W, Howell A, Jones SE, Blomqvist C, Vogel CL, Eiermann W, Wolter JM, Azab M, Webster A, Plourde PV. Anastrozole, a potent and selective aromatase inhibitor, versus megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of overview analysis of two phase III trials. Arimidex Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:2000-11.

  16. Kaufmann M, Bajetta E, Dirix LY, Fein LE, Jones SE, Zilembo N, Dugardyn JL, Nasurdi C, Mennel RG, Cervek J, Fowst C, Polli A, di Salle E, Arkhipov A, Piscitelli G, Miller LL, Massimini G. Exemestane is superior to megestrol acetate after tamoxifen failure in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of phase III randomized double-blind trial. The Exemestane Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1399-411.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  17. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, Fuchs H, Paton V, Bajamonde A, Fleming T, Eiermann W, Wolter J, Pegram M, Baselga J, Norton L. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:783-92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  18. O'Shaughnessy J, Miles D, Vukelja S, Moiseyenko V, Ayoub JP, Cervantes G, Fumoleau P, Jones S, Lui WY, Mauriac L, Twelves C, Van Hazel G, Verma S, Leonard R. Superior survival with capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer: phase III trial results. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2812-23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  19. Diel IJ, Solomayer EF, Costa SD, Gollan C, Goerner R, Wallwiener D, Kaufmann M, Bastert G. Reduction in new metastases in breast cancer with adjuvant clodronate treatment. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:357-63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  20. Lipton A, Theriault RL, Hortobagyi GN, Simeone J, Knight RD, Mellars K, Reitsma DJ, Heffernan M, Seaman JJ. Pamidronate prevents skeletal complications and is effective palliative treatment in women with breast carcinoma and osteolytic bone metastases: long term follow-up of two randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Cancer. 2000;88:1082-90.[CrossRef][Medline]

  21. Lipton A, Cook R, Saad F, Major P, Garnero P, Terpos E, Brown JE, Coleman RE. Normalization of bone markers is associated with improved survival in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and elevated bone resorption receiving zoledronic acid. Cancer. 2008;113:193-201.[CrossRef][Medline]

  22. Rosen LS, Gordon D, Tchekmedyian S, Yanagihara R, Hirsh V, Krzakowski M, Pawlicki M, De Souza P, Zheng M, Urbanowitz G, Reitsma D, Seaman JJ. Zoledronic acid versus placebo in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer and other solid tumors: a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial—the Zoledronic Acid Lung Cancer and Other Solid Tumors Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3150-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  23. Coleman RE. Risks and benefits of bisphosphonates. Br J Cancer. 2008;98:1736-40.[CrossRef][Medline]

  24. Jadu F, Lee L, Pharoah M, Reece D, Wang L. A retrospective study assessing the incidence, risk factors and comorbidities of pamidronate-related necrosis of the jaws in multiple myeloma patients. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:2015-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  25. Motzer RJ, Michaelson MD, Redman BG, Hudes GR, Wilding G, Figlin RA, Ginsberg MS, Kim ST, Baum CM, DePrimo SE, Li JZ, Bello CL, Theuer CP, George DJ, Rini BI. Activity of SU11248, a multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:16-24.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  26. Gainor BJ, Buchert P. Fracture healing in metastatic bone disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;178:297-302.[Medline]

  27. Bickels J, Kollender Y, Wittig JC, Meller I, Malawer MM. Function after resection of humeral metastases: analysis of 59 consecutive patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;437:201-8.[Medline]

  28. Harrington KD. Impending pathologic fractures from metastatic malignancy: evaluation and management. Instr Course Lect. 1986;35:357-81.[Medline]

  29. Kollender Y, Bickels J, Price WM, Kellar KL, Chen J, Merimsky O, Meller I, Malawer MM. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma of bone: indications and technique of surgical intervention. J Urol. 2000;164:1505-8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  30. de la Monte SM, Moore GW, Hutchins GM. Metastatic behavior of prostate cancer. Cluster analysis of patterns with respect to estrogen treatment. Cancer. 1986;58:985-93.[CrossRef][Medline]

  31. Toyoda Y, Shinohara N, Harabayashi T, Abe T, Akino T, Sazawa A, Nonomura K. Survival and prognostic classification of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma of bone. Eur Urol. 2007;52:163-8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  32. Scheid V, Buzdar AU, Smith TL, Hortobagyi GN. Clinical course of breast cancer patients with osseous metastasis treated with combination chemotherapy. Cancer. 1986;58:2589-93.[CrossRef][Medline]

  33. Sherry MM, Greco FA, Johnson DH, Hainsworth JD. Breast cancer with skeletal metastases at initial diagnosis. Distinctive clinical characteristics and favorable prognosis. Cancer. 1986;58:178-82.[CrossRef][Medline]

  34. Bremner RA, Jelliffe AM. The management of pathological fracture of the major long bones from metastatic cancer. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1958;40:652-9.[Medline]

  35. Harrington KD, Johnston JO, Turner RH, Green DL. The use of methylmethacrylate as an adjunct in the internal fixation of malignant neoplastic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1972;54:1665-76.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  36. Wedin R, Bauer HCF, Wersäll P. Failures after operation for skeletal metastatic lesions of long bones. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;358:128-39.[Medline]

  37. Yazawa Y, Frassica FJ, Chao EY, Pritchard DJ, Sim FH, Shives TC. Metastatic bone disease. A study of the surgical treatment of 166 pathologic humeral and femoral fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;251:213-9.[Medline]

  38. Esther RJ, Bos GD. Management of metastatic disease of other bones. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31:647-59, ix.

  39. Grill V, Ho P, Body JJ, Johanson N, Lee SC, Kukreja SC, Moseley JM, Martin TJ. Parathyroid hormone-related protein: elevated levels in both humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy and hypercalcemia complicating metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991;73:1309-15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  40. Coleman RE. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:6243s-9s.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  41. Costa L, Demers LM, Gouveia-Oliveira A, Schaller J, Costa EB, de Moura MC, Lipton A. Prospective evaluation of the peptide-bound collagen type I cross-links N-telopeptide and C-telopeptide in predicting bone metastases status. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:850-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  42. Tamada T, Sone T, Tomomitsu T, Jo Y, Tanaka H, Fukunaga M. Biochemical markers for the detection of bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer: diagnostic efficacy and the effect of hormonal therapy. J Bone Miner Metab. 2001;19:45-51.[CrossRef][Medline]

  43. Yang YJ, Damron TA. Comparison of needle core biopsy and fine needle aspiration for diagnostic accuracy in musculoskeletal lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:759-64.[Medline]

  44. Harrington KD. The management of acetabular insufficiency secondary to metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981;63:653-64.[Free Full Text]

  45. Althausen P, Althausen A, Jennings LC, Mankin HJ. Prognostic factors and surgical treatment of osseous metastases secondary to renal cell carcinoma. Cancer. 1997;80:1103-9.[CrossRef][Medline]

  46. Koizumi M, Yoshimoto M, Kasumi F, Ogata E. Comparison between solitary and multiple skeletal metastatic lesions of breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:1234-40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  47. Sugiura H, Yamada K, Sugiura T, Hida T, Mitsudomi T. Predictors of survival in patients with bone metastasis of lung cancer. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:729-36.[CrossRef][Medline]

  48. Fuchs B, Trousdale RT, Rock MG. Solitary bone metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: significance of surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;431:187-92.[Medline]

  49. Bauer HC. Posterior decompression with stabilization for spinal metastases. Analysis of sixty-seven consecutive patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:514-22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  50. Harrington KD. Metastatic disease of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1110-5.[Free Full Text]

  51. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine. 2001;26:298-306.[CrossRef][Medline]

  52. Weigel B, Maghsudi M, Neumann C, Kretschmer R, Müller FJ, Nerlich M. Surgical management of symptomatic spinal metastases. Postoperative outcome and quality of life. Spine. 1999;24:2240-6.[CrossRef][Medline]

  53. Sundaresan N, Rothman A, Manhart K, Kelliher K. Surgery for solitary metastases of the spine: rationale and results of treatment. Spine. 2002;27:1802-6.[CrossRef][Medline]

  54. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649-55.[Medline]

  55. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984;3:187-93.

  56. Lin PP, Mirza AN, Lewis VO, Cannon CP, Tu SM, Tannir NM, Yasko AW. Patient survival after surgery for osseous metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1794-801.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  57. Hansen BH, Keller J, Laitinen M, Berg P, Skjeldal S, Trovik C, Nilsson J, Walloe A, Kalén A, Wedin R. The Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Skeletal Metastasis Register. Survival after surgery for bone metastases in the pelvis and extremities. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 2004;75:11-5.[Medline]

  58. Nathan SS, Healey JH, Mellano D, Hoang B, Lewis I, Morris CD, Athanasian EA, Boland PJ. Survival in patients operated on for pathologic fracture: implications for end-of-life orthopedic care. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6072-82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  59. Ward WG, Holsenbeck S, Dorey FJ, Spang J, Howe D. Metastatic disease of the femur: surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415 Suppl:S230-44.

  60. Saad F, Lipton A, Cook R, Chen YM, Smith M, Coleman R. Pathologic fractures correlate with reduced survival in patients with malignant bone disease. Cancer. 2007;110:1860-7.[CrossRef][Medline]

  61. Berruti A, Dogliotti L, Bitossi R, Fasolis G, Gorzegno G, Bellina M, Torta M, Porpiglia F, Fontana D, Angeli A. Incidence of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastatic prostate cancer and hormone refractory disease: predictive role of bone resorption and formation markers evaluated at baseline. J Urol. 2000;164:1248-53.[CrossRef][Medline]

  62. Brown JE, Thomson CS, Ellis SP, Gutcher SA, Purohit OP, Coleman RE. Bone resorption predicts for skeletal complications in metastatic bone disease. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:2031-7.[CrossRef][Medline]

  63. Phillips CD, Pope TL Jr, Jones JE, Keats TE, MacMillan RH 3rd. Nontraumatic avulsion of the lesser trochanter: a pathognomonic sign of metastatic disease? Skeletal Radiol. 1988;17:106-10.[CrossRef][Medline]

  64. Bertin KC, Horstman J, Coleman SS. Isolated fracture of the lesser trochanter in adults: an initial manifestation of metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:770-3.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  65. Mirels H. Metastatic disease in long bones. A proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;249:256-64.[Medline]

  66. Damron TA, Morgan H, Prakash D, Grant W, Aronowitz J, Heiner J. Critical evaluation of Mirels' rating system for impending pathologic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415 Suppl:S201-7.[CrossRef][Medline]

  67. Damron TA, Ward WG. Risk of pathologic fracture: assessment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415 Suppl:S208-11.

  68. Fidler M. Prophylactic internal fixation of secondary neoplastic deposits in long bones. Br Med J. 1973;1:341-3.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  69. Denis F. The three column spine and its significance in the classification of acute thoracolumbar spine injuries. Spine. 1983;8:817-31.[Medline]

  70. DeWald RL, Bridwell KH, Prodromas C, Rodts MF. Reconstructive spinal surgery as palliation for metastatic malignancies of the spine. Spine. 1985;10:21-6.[Medline]

  71. Kem MB, Malone DG, Benzel EC. Evaluation and surgical management of thoracic and lumbar instability. Contemp Neurosurg. 1996;18:1-8.

  72. Kostuik JP, Errico TJ, Gleason TF, Errico CC. Spinal stabilization of vertebral column tumors. Spine. 1988;13:250-6.[CrossRef][Medline]

  73. Wise JJ, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Montgomery D, Kurz LT. Complication, survival rates, and risk factors of surgery for metastatic disease of the spine. Spine. 1999;24:1943-51.[CrossRef][Medline]

  74. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio RJ, Mohiuddin M, Young B. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366:643-8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  75. Vena VE, Hsu J, Rosier RN, O'Keefe RJ. Pelvic reconstruction for severe periacetabular metastatic disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;362:171-80.[Medline]

  76. Baloch KG, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM. Radical surgery for the solitary bony metastasis from renal-cell carcinoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:62-7.[CrossRef][Medline]

  77. Jung ST, Ghert MA, Harrelson JM, Scully SP. Treatment of osseous metastases in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;409:223-31.[CrossRef][Medline]

  78. Sampson E, Brierley JD, Le LW, Rotstein L, Tsang RW. Clinical management and outcome of papillary and follicular (differentiated) thyroid cancer presenting with distant metastasis at diagnosis. Cancer. 2007;110:1451-6.[CrossRef][Medline]

  79. Stojadinovic A, Shoup M, Ghossein RA, Nissan A, Brennan MF, Shah JP, Shaha AR. The role of operations for distantly metastatic well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Surgery. 2002;131:636-43.[CrossRef][Medline]

  80. van der Poel HG, Roukema JA, Horenblas S, van Geel AN, Debruyne FM. Metastasectomy in renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Eur Urol. 1999;35:197-203.[CrossRef][Medline]

  81. Frassica FJ, Frassica DA. Evaluation and treatment of metastases to the humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415 Suppl:S212-8.

  82. Kay PR. Cement augmentation of pathological fracture fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71:702.[Medline]

  83. Kunec JR, Lewis RJ. Closed intramedullary rodding of pathologic fractures with supplemental cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;188:183-6.[Medline]

  84. Goetz MP, Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, Farrell MA, Maus TP, Welch TJ, Wong GY, Sloan JA, Novotny PJ, Petersen IA, Beres RA, Regge D, Capanna R, Saker MB, Grönemeyer DH, Gevargez A, Ahrar K, Choti MA, de Baere TJ, Rubin J. Percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation of painful metastases involving bone: a multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:300-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  85. Marco RA, Sheth DS, Boland PJ, Wunder JS, Siegel JA, Healey JH. Functional and oncological outcome of acetabular reconstruction for the treatment of metastatic disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:642-51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  86. Roscoe MW, McBroom RJ, St Louis E, Grossman H, Perrin R. Preoperative embolization in the treatment of osseous metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;238:302-7.[Medline]

  87. Bashore CJ, Temple HT. Management of metastatic lesions of the humerus. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31:597-609.[CrossRef][Medline]

  88. Brumback RJ, Toal TR Jr, Murphy-Zane MS, Novak VP, Belkoff SM. Immediate weight-bearing after treatment of a comminuted fracture of the femoral shaft with a statically locked intramedullary nail. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1538-44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  89. Hardy DC, Descamps PY, Krallis P, Fabeck L, Smets P, Bertens CL, Delince PE. Use of an intramedullary hip-screw compared with a compression hip-screw with a plate for intertrochanteric femoral fractures. A prospective, randomized study of one hundred patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:618-30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  90. Malawer MM, Buch RG, Thompson WE, Sugarbaker PH. Major amputations done with palliative intent in the treatment of local bony complications associated with advanced cancer. J Surg Oncol. 1991;47:121-30.[CrossRef][Medline]

  91. Merimsky O, Kollender Y, Inbar M, Lev-Chelouche D, Gutman M, Issakov J, Mazeh D, Shabat S, Bickels J, Meller I. Is forequarter amputation justified for palliation of intractable cancer symptoms? Oncology. 2001;60:55-9.[CrossRef][Medline]

  92. Wittig JC, Bickels J, Kollender Y, Kellar-Graney KL, Meller I, Malawer MM. Palliative forequarter amputation for metastatic carcinoma to the shoulder girdle region: indications, preoperative evaluation, surgical technique, and results. J Surg Oncol. 2001;77:105-14.[CrossRef][Medline]

  93. Rose PS, Halasy M, Trousdale RT, Hanssen AD, Sim FH, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG. Preliminary results of tantalum acetabular components for THA after pelvic radiation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:195-8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  94. Aboulafia AJ, Buch R, Mathews J, Li W, Malawer MM. Reconstruction using the saddle prosthesis following excision of primary and metastatic periacetabular tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;314:203-13.[Medline]

  95. Patterson FR, Peabody TD. Operative management of metastases to the pelvis and acetabulum. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31:623-31.[CrossRef][Medline]

  96. Walker RH. Pelvic reconstruction/total hip arthroplasty for metastatic acetabular insufficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;294:170-5.[Medline]

  97. McAfee PC, Zdeblick TA. Tumors of the thoracic and lumbar spine: surgical treatment via the anterior approach. J Spinal Disord. 1989;2:145-54.[Medline]

  98. Siegal T, Siegal T. Current considerations in the management of neoplastic spinal cord compression. Spine. 1989;14:223-8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  99. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Toriyama S, Kawano H, Ohsaka S. Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine. 1990;15:1110-3.[CrossRef][Medline]

  100. Enkaoua EA, Doursounian L, Chatellier G, Mabesoone F, Aimard T, Saillant G. Vertebral metastases: a critical appreciation of the preoperative prognostic Tokuhashi score in a series of 71 cases. Spine. 1997;22:2293-8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  101. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine. 2005;30:2186-91.[CrossRef][Medline]

  102. Ulmar B, Naumann U, Catalkaya S, Muche R, Cakir B, Schmidt R, Reichel H, Huch K. Prognosis scores of Tokuhashi and Tomita for patients with spinal metastases of renal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:998-1004.[CrossRef][Medline]

  103. Findlay GF. Adverse effects of the management of malignant spinal cord compression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1984;47:761-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  104. Young RF, Post EM, King GA. Treatment of spinal epidural metastases. Randomized prospective comparison of laminectomy and radiotherapy. J Neurosurg. 1980;53:741-8.[Medline]

  105. Byrne TN. Spinal cord compression from epidural metastases. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:614-9.[Medline]

  106. Greenberg HS, Kim JH, Posner JB. Epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic tumor: results with a new treatment protocol. Ann Neurol. 1980;8:361-6.[CrossRef][Medline]

  107. Martenson JA Jr, Evans RG, Lie MR, Ilstrup DM, Dinapoli RP, Ebersold MJ, Earle JD. Treatment outcome and complications in patients treated for malignant epidural spinal cord compression (SCC). J Neurooncol. 1985;3:77-84.[Medline]

  108. Chen YJ, Chang GC, Chen HT, Yang TY, Kuo BI, Hsu HC, Yang HW, Lee TS. Surgical results of metastatic spinal cord compression secondary to non-small cell lung cancer. Spine. 2007;32:E413-8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  109. Falicov A, Fisher CG, Sparkes J, Boyd MC, Wing PC, Dvorak MF. Impact of surgical intervention on quality of life in patients with spinal metastases. Spine. 2006;31:2849-56.[CrossRef][Medline]

  110. Holman PJ, Suki D, McCutcheon I, Wolinsky JP, Rhines LD, Gokaslan ZL. Surgical management of metastatic disease of the lumbar spine: experience with 139 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2:550-63.[Medline]

  111. Gokaslan ZL, York JE, Walsh GL, McCutcheon IE, Lang FF, Putnam JB Jr, Wildrick DM, Swisher SG, Abi-Said D, Sawaya R. Transthoracic vertebrectomy for metastatic spinal tumors. J Neurosurg. 1998;89:599-609.[Medline]

  112. Hall DJ, Webb JK. Anterior plate fixation in spine tumor surgery. Indications, technique, and results. Spine. 1991;16 (3 Suppl):S80-3.[Medline]

  113. Graham AW 3rd, Mac Millan M, Fessler RG. Lateral extracavitary approach to the thoracic and thoracolumbar spine. Orthopedics. 1997;20:605-10.[Medline]

  114. Alvarez L, Pérez-Higueras A, Quiñones D, Calvo E, Rossi RE. Vertebroplasty in the treatment of vertebral tumors: postprocedural outcome and quality of life. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:356-60.[CrossRef][Medline]

  115. Fourney DR, Schomer DF, Nader R, Chlan-Fourney J, Suki D, Ahrar K, Rhines LD, Gokaslan ZL. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for painful vertebral body fractures in cancer patients. J Neurosurg. 2003;98(1 Suppl):21-30.[Medline]

  116. Hadjipavlou AG, Tzermiadianos MN, Katonis PG, Szpalski M. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures and osteolytic tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1595-604.[CrossRef][Medline]

  117. Singh K, Samartzis D, Vaccaro AR, Andersson GBJ, An HS, Heller JG. Current concepts in the management of metastatic spinal disease. The role of minimally-invasive approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:434-42.[CrossRef][Medline]

  118. Pflugmacher R, Beth P, Schroeder RJ, Schaser KD, Melcher I. Balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of pathological fractures in the thoracic and lumbar spine caused by metastasis: one-year follow-up. Acta Radiol. 2007;48:89-95.[CrossRef][Medline]

  119. Frassica DA. General principles of external beam radiation therapy for skeletal metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415 Suppl:S158-64.

  120. Townsend PW, Smalley SR, Cozad SC, Rosenthal HG, Hassanein RE. Role of postoperative radiation therapy after stabilization of fractures caused by metastatic disease. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:43-9.[CrossRef][Medline]

  121. Sundaresan N, Digiacinto GV, Hughes JE, Cafferty M, Vallejo A. Treatment of neoplastic spinal cord compression: results of a prospective study. Neurosurgery. 1991;29:645-50.[CrossRef][Medline]

  122. Chan D, Carter SR, Grimer RJ, Sneath RS. Endoprosthetic replacement for bony metastases. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1992;74:13-8.[Medline]

  123. Eckardt JJ, Kabo JM, Kelly CM, Ward WG Sr, Cannon CP. Endoprosthetic reconstructions for bone metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415 Suppl:S254-62.

  124. Lane JM, Sculco TP, Zolan S. Treatment of pathological fractures of the hip by endoprosthetic replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:954-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  125. Selek H, Basarir K, Yildiz Y, Saglik Y. Cemented endoprosthetic replacement for metastatic bone disease in the proximal femur. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:112-7.[CrossRef][Medline]

  126. Wedin R, Bauer HC. Surgical treatment of skeletal metastatic lesions of the proximal femur: endoprosthesis or reconstruction nail? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:1653-7.[CrossRef][Medline]

  127. Davis AM, Wright JG, Williams JI, Bombardier C, Griffin A, Bell RS. Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:508-16.[CrossRef][Medline]

  128. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawer M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:241-6.[Medline]

  129. Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:903-12.[CrossRef][Medline]

  130. Algan SM, Horowitz SM. Surgical treatment of pathologic hip lesions in patients with metastatic disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;332:223-31.[CrossRef][Medline]

  131. Atesok K, Liebergall M, Sucher E, Temper M, Mosheiff R, Peyser A. Treatment of pathological humeral shaft fractures with unreamed humeral nail. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1493-8.[CrossRef][Medline]

  132. Behr JT, Dobozi WR, Badrinath K. The treatment of pathologic and impending pathologic fractures of the proximal femur in the elderly. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:173-8.[Medline]

  133. Manoso MW, Frassica DA, Lietman ES, Frassica FJ. Proximal femoral replacement for metastatic bone disease. Orthopedics. 2007;30:384-8.[Medline]

  134. Samsani SR, Panikkar V, Venu KM, Georgiannos D, Calthorpe D. Breast cancer bone metastasis in femur: surgical considerations and reconstruction with Long Gamma Nail. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:993-7.[Medline]

  135. Talbot M, Turcotte RE, Isler M, Normandin D, Iannuzzi D, Downer P. Function and health status in surgically treated bone metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:215-20.[Medline]

  136. Van Geffen E, Wobbes T, Veth RP, Gelderman WA. Operative management of impending pathological fractures: a critical analysis of therapy. J Surg Oncol. 1997;64:190-4.[CrossRef][Medline]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow CME: Take the activities for this article:
 CME 2: April, May, June 2009 (publication date July 6, 2009; expiration dat...
Oncology Test 8: Winter 2010 (publication date February 16, 2010; expiratio...
Trauma Test 27: Summer 2009 (publication date August 14, 2009; expiration d...
Right arrow [FREE Spanish Translation]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bickels, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lidar, Z.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bickels, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lidar, Z.
Related Collections
Right arrow Current Concepts Review
Right arrow Oncology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?