bims-rebome Biomed News
on Management of bone metastases
Issue of 2026–09–13
ten papers selected by
Alberto Selvanetti, Azienda Ospedaliera San Giovanni Addolorata



  1. J Bone Oncol. 2026 Oct;60 100799
      Bone metastasis from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a marker of advanced disease and a potential cause of preventable functional loss. HCC skeletal lesions are commonly osteolytic and may be hypervascular, creating risks of pathological fracture, spinal instability, metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC), neurological deficit, and loss of ambulation. This structured narrative review integrates HCC-specific clinical evidence with established orthopedic and spine oncology frameworks to identify when specialist consultation should occur before irreversible skeletal or neurological deterioration. Retrospective HCC cohorts indicate that the spine is frequently involved, that surveillance-detected metastases were associated with a lower observed frequency of fracture or paralysis than symptom-detected metastases, and that hepatic reserve was associated with outcomes after skeletal surgery. Because direct HCC-specific comparative evidence remains limited, the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC)/Bilsky grading, the neurological, oncological, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) framework, prognostic scores, Patchell's MSCC evidence, and Mirels score are used as communication aids rather than disease-specific operative thresholds. We propose a conceptual four-pathway triage model for neurological emergency, spinal mechanical failure, long-bone fracture risk, and pelvic or acetabular weight-bearing failure, followed by a systemic-fitness assessment incorporating liver reserve, hemostatic status, prognosis, rehabilitation potential, and patient goals. The framework is intended to accelerate multidisciplinary assessment, not to prescribe surgery.
    Keywords:  Bone metastasis; Functional-risk triage; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Metastatic spinal cord compression; Orthopedic oncology; Spinal metastasis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2026.100799
  2. J Hosp Palliat Care. 2026 Sep 01. 29(3): 146-152
      Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is one of the most prevalent and disabling symptoms encountered in hospice and palliative care. Bone metastases are particularly common in patients with multiple myeloma, breast cancer, and prostate cancer, and may cause continuous background pain, movement-related breakthrough pain, pathologic fracture, malignant spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia of malignancy. CIBP results from a complex interplay of nociceptive, inflammatory, and neuropathic mechanisms driven by tumor-stroma interactions and central sensitization. Effective management requires careful differentiation between continuous background pain and movement-related incident pain. In the hospice setting, treatment must be aligned with the patient's goals of care, with an emphasis on maximizing comfort while minimizing treatment burden. Management should be grounded in systematic assessment and the WHO analgesic ladder, while recognizing that many hospice patients require early initiation of strong opioids, opioid rotation, rescue dosing, and selected adjuvant analgesics such as corticosteroids, gabapentinoids, and ketamine. Bone-modifying agents, including zoledronic acid and denosumab, can reduce skeletal-related events. A patient-centered, interdisciplinary approach, informed by the concept of "total pain," remains the cornerstone of effective bone pain management at the end of life.
    Keywords:  Bone density conservation agents; Bone neoplasms; Cancer pain; Hospices; Palliative care
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14475/jhpc.2026.29.3.146
  3. J Orthop Sci. 2026 Sep 10. pii: S0949-2658(26)00282-4. [Epub ahead of print]
       BACKGROUND: Bone metastasis is a leading cause of Cancer Locomo (locomotive syndrome in cancer patients). Although impaired ambulation is clinically important in patients with bone metastases, its association with patient-reported physical and mental quality of life remains insufficiently characterized. This study examined the cross-sectional association between ambulatory status and health-related quality of life using baseline data from patients with bone metastases.
    METHODS: This prospective observational study included patients with bone metastases referred for orthopaedic consultation. Ambulatory status was assessed using the Functional Ambulation Categories, and health-related quality of life was assessed using the Short Form-8. Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores were compared between non-ambulatory and ambulatory patients. Multivariable linear regression estimated adjusted mean differences in PCS and MCS scores according to ambulatory status, adjusting for age, sex, and primary tumor category. Sensitivity analyses additionally adjusted for spinal metastasis and painful spinal metastasis.
    RESULTS: Of 90 registered patients, 68 with complete baseline ambulatory status and Short Form-8 data were analyzed; 12 were non-ambulatory. After adjustment, non-ambulatory status was associated with lower PCS (β = -14.95, 95% CI -19.81 to -10.10, P < 0.001) and MCS scores (β = -6.26, 95% CI -11.44 to -1.07, P = 0.019). These associations were not materially changed after additional adjustment for spinal metastasis or painful spinal metastasis. In a descriptive 3-month follow-up of six non-ambulatory patients, five regained ambulatory ability with concurrent increases in PCS and MCS scores.
    CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional analysis of baseline data, non-ambulatory status was associated with lower physical and mental quality of life. Ambulatory status may help identify patients with lower health-related quality of life. However, reverse causation and residual confounding cannot be excluded. Further longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the temporal relationship between changes in ambulatory status and changes in quality of life.
    Keywords:  Ambulation; Bone metastasis; Cancer locomo; Locomotive syndrome; Quality of life
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2026.08.016
  4. Front Oncol. 2026 ;16 1915919
      Bone metastases are a major complication of advanced solid tumors and are associated with substantial morbidity and reduced survival. Imaging plays a central role in detection and monitoring, yet conventional modalities and qualitative risk scores remain limited by suboptimal specificity and inter-reader variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential tool to improve diagnostic accuracy and prognostic assessment. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between January 2008 and January 2026 evaluating AI-based models for the diagnosis and/or prognosis of bone metastases. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Studies reporting quantitative performance metrics were included. Logit-transformed area under the curve (AUC) values were pooled using a random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation. Twenty-two studies met the eligibility criteria, encompassing highly heterogeneous datasets ranging from small single-center cohorts to large population-based registries and multicenter imaging databases. Most were retrospective and single-center. The overall AUC was 0.911 (95% CI 0.868-0.940), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 98.8%) Radiomics-based models showed consistently high performance with minimal heterogeneity, after group stratification, whereas clinical-only models demonstrated lower discriminative ability. Prognostic studies were heterogeneous and were synthesized narratively. AI-based models demonstrate high diagnostic performance for bone metastases across imaging modalities. However, methodological variability and limited external validation currently restrict clinical translation, underscoring the need for prospective multicenter studies. Most included studies were retrospective, single-center investigations with limited external validation. Therefore, despite the encouraging diagnostic performance, prospective multicenter studies and standardized reporting remain necessary before routine clinical implementation. Unlike previous systematic reviews, this study provides a quantitative synthesis of diagnostic performance together with a structured appraisal of methodological quality and clinical translational readiness. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement and prospectively registered (CRD420261350260).Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261350260, identifier CRD420261350260.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; bone metastases; deep learning; machine learning; meta-analysis; radiomics; systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2026.1915919
  5. J Bone Oncol. 2026 Oct;60 100796
       Purpose: To compare implant failure, revision surgery, and overall patient survival following endoprosthetic reconstruction versus osteosynthesis in patients undergoing surgery for metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur (MBDf).
    Methods: This population-based cohort study included all patients treated surgically for MBDf at six institutions in the Greater Copenhagen area, Denmark, between 2013 and 2019. Implant failure and revision surgery were analysed using competing risk models, with death treated as a competing event. Overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
    Results: A total of 281 patients were included, of whom 81 underwent osteosynthesis and 200 underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction. Implant failure was more frequent following osteosynthesis than endoprosthetic reconstruction, with cumulative incidences of 5% (CI 0.2 to 10), versus 0.5% (CI 0 to 1.5) at three months, 7% (CI 2 to 13) versus 0.5% (CI 0 to 1.5) at six months, and 7% (CI 2 to 13) versus 1% (CI 0 to 2.4) at twelve months. Revision surgery rates were comparable between the groups with cumulative incidences of 5% (95% CI 0.2-10) versus 3% (95% CI 0.6-5) at three months, 7% (95% CI 2-13) versus 4% (95% CI 1-6) at six months, and 9% (95% CI 3-15) versus 4% (95% CI 2-7) at twelve months. Overall survival was lower in patients treated with osteosynthesis compared with endoprosthetic reconstruction (p = 0.01).
    Conclusion: Endoprosthetic reconstruction is superior in terms of risk of implant failure compared to osteosynthesis in patients treated for MBDf, but no difference was found in overall revision risk.
    Keywords:  Implant revision; Megaprotheses; Metastatic bone disease; Orthopaedic oncology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2026.100796
  6. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2026 Sep 05.
       PURPOSE: International guidelines recommend assessment for bone metastases in patients with high-risk prostate cancer (PC) and those with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease. These recommendations are largely based on studies using planar bone scintigraphy. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]sodium fluoride ([18F]NaF) PET/CT in newly diagnosed PC. We also evaluated the clinical utility of routine bone imaging in patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease and International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (ISUP GG) 3.
    METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included 734 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PC who underwent [18F]NaF PET/CT for primary staging. Patients were classified according to the current European Association of Urology risk classification, with the intermediate-risk subgroup restricted to patients with ISUP GG 3. All scan reports were retrospectively reviewed, and patient-level findings regarding bone metastases were validated against a reference standard based on follow-up imaging and clinical data. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated.
    RESULTS: Of the 734 patients, 607 (83%) had high-risk disease and 127 (17%) had intermediate-risk disease with ISUP GG 3. Overall, bone metastases were detected in 225 patients (31%). Among high-risk patients, 224 (37%) had bone metastases, whereas only 1 of 127 intermediate-risk patients (0.8%) had bone metastases on [18F]NaF PET/CT. Follow-up identified one additional potential false-negative case in the intermediate-risk group. Among patients with a conclusive reference standard (n = 689), sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 and 0.99, respectively.
    CONCLUSION: [18F]NaF PET/CT demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of bone metastases in newly diagnosed PC. However, given the very low prevalence of bone metastases, its clinical utility in patients with unfavourable intermediate-risk disease and ISUP GG 3 appears limited.
    Keywords:  Bone metastases; Diagnostic accuracy; Intermediate-risk; NaF PET/CT; Prostate cancer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-026-08148-y
  7. J Bone Oncol. 2026 Oct;60 100790
       Background: Patients with metastatic bone disease affecting the femur are at substantial risk of pathologic fracture, resulting in significant morbidity and frequently necessitating urgent surgical intervention. Accurate identification of lesions at imminent risk of fracture enables timely prophylactic fixation and improved patient outcomes. Although the Mirels score remains widely used, its limited specificity has prompted interest in CT-derived biomechanical approaches, including CT-based Structural Rigidity Analysis (CTRA) and Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Whole-femur CT is routinely obtained in some specialist orthopaedic oncology pathways, including our own, but this practice is not universal; many centres rely initially on clinical assessment and plain radiographs, with CT reserved for selected cases. We systematically reviewed the literature to compare evidence for Mirels, CTRA, and CT-based FEA in predicting pathologic femoral fractures.
    Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was performed for studies published between 2005 and 2025. Eligible studies evaluated Mirels scoring, CTRA, or CT-based FEA in adult patients with femoral metastatic disease and reported subsequent pathologic femoral fracture outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Potential cohort overlap was assessed by comparing authorship, recruiting institutions, enrolment periods, eligibility criteria, and descriptions of prior datasets. Management after fracture-risk assessment was examined to identify intervention-related bias. Due to heterogeneity in study design, imaging methods, and outcome reporting, a qualitative narrative synthesis was undertaken.
    Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising prospective and retrospective clinical cohorts, an implementation study, and one illustrative comparative case series. In studies reporting formal diagnostic estimates, Mirels sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 88%, while specificity ranged from 38% to 47.9%. In the principal prospective comparison, CTRA achieved 100% sensitivity and 60.6% specificity. Across formal FEA analyses, sensitivity ranged from 80% to 100% and specificity from 67% to 86%, although modelling methods, thresholds, and comparators varied. The evidence arose from small, partly overlapping cohorts, and prophylactic stabilization of lesions considered high risk limited observation of untreated outcomes and particularly the positive predictive value. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis.
    Conclusion: Mirels remains a useful, accessible, and sensitive first-line screening tool, particularly where plain radiography is the principal imaging modality. CTRA and CT-based FEA may offer additional specificity and objective mechanical information in selected patients where suitable calibrated CT imaging and technical expertise are available, but current evidence does not support replacing clinical assessment and radiography. Whole-femur CT is routine in some specialist pathways, including our own, but not across all centres. Further progress will require prospective multicentre validation, standardized methodologies, health-economic assessment, and integration within multidisciplinary team pathways.
    Keywords:  CT-based structural rigidity analysis; Femoral metastases; Fracture risk prediction; Mirels score; Pathologic fracture
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2026.100790
  8. Am J Cancer Res. 2026 ;16(8): 3488-3503
      Decisions about bone-imaging workup at initial diagnosis of prostate cancer often have to be made before PSMA-PET/CT or other specialized investigations are available, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Many recent prediction models rely on advanced imaging, radiomics, specialized biomarkers, or large registry infrastructures and may therefore be difficult to apply in this earlier decision context. We retrospectively reviewed records of 291 consecutive men with newly diagnosed, histopathologically confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University between March 2011 and November 2023. Starting from 93 candidate predictors, we applied a five-stage hybrid selection procedure (univariable screening, exploratory LASSO, clinical prescreening, data-quality review, and confirmatory LASSO) to derive the final variable set. The retained predictors were entered into a multivariable logistic regression and visualized as a nomogram. Model behavior was characterized through discrimination, calibration, decision curve analysis, and 1,000-iteration bootstrap optimism correction. Of the 291 patients, 113 (38.8%) had bone metastasis. The final 7-variable model included anemia status, alanine aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, age, Gleason score (three groups), and total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA). The apparent AUC was 0.736 (95% CI 0.674-0.799); the bootstrap bias-corrected AUC was 0.713 with a calibration slope of 0.933. This seven-variable model uses routinely available variables and showed moderate discrimination with stable calibration; external validation in independent samples is required before clinical use.
    Keywords:  Prostate cancer; bone metastasis; logistic regression; nomogram; prediction model; risk stratification
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.62347/CIEN9343
  9. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2026 ;18 588449
      The presence of bone metastasis represents one of the common and toughest complications of breast cancer that significantly increases the morbidity rate. Currently available therapies for treating breast cancer have been able to ameliorate symptoms, but still suffer from insufficient accumulation of the drugs in bone metastatic sites and severe side effects on the whole body. The use of drug delivery systems based on nanomedicine has been demonstrated to be a promising approach in improving drug accumulation and pharmacodynamics of drugs in pre-clinical models. Engineered nanoparticles could be tailored in order to improve accumulation in the tumor environment and provide the delivery of drugs to bone metastatic regions. Moreover, recent advances in nanotechnology have provided many new options for imaging and therapeutic experiments in metastatic cancers. Modulation of tumor‑associated macrophage (TAM) polarization represents one of the recently described strategies since M2-like phenotype contributes to tumor growth, immunosuppression and metastasis development, while induction of M1-like phenotype has been proven to be effective in enhancing anti-tumor immune response in pre-clinical models. In this review, we discuss recent advances in the nanomedicine approach that targets TAM polarization in breast cancer bone metastasis, the rationale of the proposed strategies, therapeutic potential and limitations.
    Keywords:  bone metastasis; chemotherapeutic nanocarriers; targeted drug delivery; tumor-associated macrophages
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/BCTT.S588449