Is the association of electrochemotherapy and bone fixation rational in patients with bone metastasis?

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundBone metastases are frequent in patients with cancer. Electrochemotherapy (ECT) is a minimally invasive treatment based on a high‐voltage electric pulse combined with an anticancer drug. Preclinical and clinical studies supported the use of ECT in patients with metastatic bone disease, demonstrating that it does not damage the mineral structure of the bone and its regenerative capacity, and that is feasible and efficient for the treatment of bone metastases. Year 2014 saw the start of a registry of patients with bone metastases treated with ECT, whose data are recorded in a shared database.Questions/Purposes(1) Among patients who underwent ECT and internal fixation for bone metastasis, how many experienced a reduction of pain? (2) How many cases showed a radiological response? (3) How many patients presented local or systemic complication after ECT and fixation?Patients and MethodsPatients were treated in Bologna at Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute between March 2014 and February 2022 and recorded in the REINBONE registry (a shared database protected by security passwords): clinical and radiological information, ECT session, adverse events, response, quality of life indicators, and duration of follow‐up were registered. We consider only cases treated with ECT and intramedullary nail during the same surgical session. Patients included in the analysis were 32: 15 males and 17 females, mean age 65 ± 13 years (median 66, range 38–88 years), mean time since diagnosis of primary tumor 6.2 ± 7.0 years (median 2.9, range 0–22 years). Nail was indicated in 13 cases for a pathological fracture in, 19 for an impending fracture. Follow‐up was available for 29 patients, as 2 patients were lost to follow‐up and 1 was unable to return to controls. Mean follow‐up time was 7.7 ± 6.5 months (median 5, range 1–24), and 16 patients (50%) had a follow‐up longer than 6 months.ResultsA significant decrease in pain intensity was observed at the mean Visual Numeric Scale after treatment. Bone recovery was observed in 13 patients. The other 16 patients remained without changes, and one presented disease progression. One patient presented a fracture occurrence during the ECT procedure. Among all patients, bone recovery was observed in 13 patients: complete recovery in 1 patient (3%) and partial recovery in 12 patients (41%). The other 16 patients remained without changes, and one presented disease progression. One patient presented a fracture occurrence during the ECT procedure. However, healing was possible with normal fracture callus quality and healing time. No other local or systemic complications were observed.ConclusionWe found that pain levels decreased after treatment in 23 of the 29 cases for a pain relief rate of 79% at final follow‐up. Pain is one of the most important indicators of quality of life in patients that undergo palliative treatments. Even if conventional external body radiotherapy is considered a noninvasive treatment, it presents a dose‐dependent toxicity. ECT provides a chemical necrosis preserving osteogenic activity and structural integrity of bone trabeculae; this is a crucial difference with other local treatments and allows bone healing in case of pathological fracture. The risk of local progression in our patient population was small, and 44% experienced bone recovery while 53% of the cases remained unchanged. We observe intraoperative fracture in one case. This technique, in selected patients, improves outcome in bone metastatic patients combing both the efficacy of the ECT in the local control of the disease and the mechanical stability with the bone fixation to synergize their benefits. Moreover, the risk of complication is very low. Although encouraging data, comparative studies are required to quantify the real efficacy of the technique. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.