Scheduling surgery after transarterial embolization: does timing make any difference to intraoperative blood loss for renal cell carcinoma bone metastases?

State-of-the-art of multidisciplinary approach of bone metastasis-directed therapy: review and challenging questions for preparation of a GEMO practice guidelines

Bone is a common secondary site of dissemination during the course of cancer. Bone metastases (BM) can be associated with skeletal-related events (SRE) such as disabling pain, hypercalcemia, and bone instability that leads to pathological fractures or spinal cord compression. SRE contribute to high morbidity as well as, mortality, and have a negative economic impact. Modern management of BM integrates focal treatments (such as radiotherapy, surgery, and interventional radiology), orthoses, and antiresorptive and systemic oncological treatment. The choice of a metastasis-directed therapy depends on the objective of the treatment, the patient characteristics, and the complete assessment of the bone lesion (pain, neurological risk, and instability). In the narrative review present herein, we aim to provide an updated summary of the literature, with description of the advantages and disadvantages of current and emerging strategies in the multimodal treatment of BM and, based on these data, an updated algorithm for the management of BM.

How Arterial Embolization Is Transforming Treatment of Oncologic and Degenerative Musculoskeletal Disease

BACKGROUND

Arterial embolization is a minimally invasive treatment that occludes blood vessels supplying pathological tissue. Developed to control bleeding without surgery, it has evolved over decades and is now applied in musculoskeletal oncology as a preoperative treatment, palliative care, or standalone therapy for select tumors. Recently, its use has expanded globally in treating chronic pain syndromes and osteoarthritis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the literature on arterial embolization in various musculoskeletal conditions. The focus was on established oncologic indications for primary and metastatic bone or soft tissue tumors, and emerging evidence on degenerative diseases like osteoarthritis, inflammatory musculoskeletal pathology, and intractable pain. Emphasis was placed on leading studies regarding efficacy, complications, and recurrence rates.

DISCUSSION

Arterial embolization has progressed from bleeding control to a versatile therapeutic option in musculoskeletal medicine. It offers symptom relief, reduces tumor size, and improves quality of life. Applications include oncologic interventions and management of degenerative and inflammatory conditions. Despite its benefits, variations in complications and recurrence rates highlight the need for standardized protocols and further research.

CONCLUSIONS

Arterial embolization is a safe and effective minimally invasive tool in the multidisciplinary management of a wide range of musculoskeletal pathologies. Ongoing research is crucial to understand long-term efficacy, optimize protocols, and broaden its applications.

The application of interventional methods in control of blood loss during giant upper extremity tumor resection

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine the efficacy of interventional methods in control of intraoperative blood losses and investigate the perioperative complications.

METHODS

The cases of 44 patients in whom a giant upper extremity tumor had been operated between 2008 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Of these, 29 patients were treated with interventional methods (Group A) and 15 were treated without (Group B). Group A was further divided based on the intervention methodss: Group C (combination of balloon occlusion and transarterial embolization [TAE], n = 11) and Group D (single TAE, n = 18). Within Group D, patients were categorized based on the timing of TAE relative to surgery into Group E (TAE on the same day as surgery) and Group F (TAE performed days before surgery). We compared demographic features, blood loss, ICU admission rates, and use of vasopressors during surgery.

RESULTS

We collected clinical records from 44 patients diagnosed with a giant upper extremity tumor who underwent surgery. Group sizes were as follows: A (29), B (15), C (11), D (18), E (7), and F (11). Tumor volumes in the interventional and non-interventional groups were similar (704.19 ± 812.77 cm³ vs. 1224.53 ± 1414.01 cm³, P = 0.127). Blood plasma transfusion was significantly higher in Group B compared to Group A (425.33 ± 476.20 ml vs. 155.90 ± 269.67 ml, P = 0.021). Although overall blood loss did not significantly differ between Group A and Group B (467.93 ± 302.08 ml vs. 1150 ± 1424.15 ml, P = 0.087), the rate of massive bleeding (defined as blood loss over 1000 ml) was lower in Group A (6.9% vs. 46.47%, P = 0.004). The proportion of minors (patients aged less than 18) in Group C was significantly higher than in Group D (27.7% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.045). The amount of RBC transfusion was also significantly higher in Group C compared to Group D (458.18 ± 292.22 ml vs. 164.44 ± 224.03 ml, P = 0.021). No significant perioperative complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional techniques have been shown to reduce both blood loss and the necessity for blood transfusions in patients with large upper extremity tumors. Furthermore, no significant perioperative complications have been observed.

Management of metastatic bone disease of the pelvis: current concepts

PURPOSE

Metastatic disease of the pelvis is frequently associated with severe pain and impaired ambulatory function. Depending on the patient's characteristics, primary tumor, and metastatic pelvic disease, the treatment choice may be varied. This study aims to report on the current management options of metastatic pelvic disease.

METHODS

We comprehensively researched multiple databases and evaluated essential studies about current concepts of managing a metastatic bone disease of the pelvis, focusing on specific indications as well as on the result of treatment.

RESULTS

Pelvic metastases not in the periacetabular region can be managed with modification of weight-bearing, analgesics, bisphosphonates, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Minimally invasive approaches include radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, embolization, percutaneous osteoplasty, and percutaneous screw placement. Pathological or impending periacetabular fracture, excessive periacetabular bone defect, radioresistant tumor, and persistent debilitating pain despite non-surgical treatment and/or minimally invasive procedures can be managed with different surgical techniques. Overall, treatment can be divided into nonoperative, minimally invasive, and operative based on specific indications, the expectations of the patient and the lesion.

CONCLUSION

Different treatment modalities exist to manage metastatic pelvic bone disease. Decision-making for the most appropriate treatment should be made with a multidisciplinary approach based on a case-by-case basis.

The effect of timing between preoperative embolization and surgery: A retrospective analysis of hypervascular bone metastases

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The optimal timing between preoperative embolization of hypervascular metastatic bone lesions and surgery has yet to be established. Our analysis sought to evaluate embolization timing impacts blood loss, transfusion risk, and operative time in patients with hypervascular primary tumors.

METHODS

We identified patients with renal cell (RCC) or thyroid carcinoma undergoing surgery between 1992 and 2023. Patients were segregated into the following cohorts: (1) no embolization preoperatively, (2) surgery <24 h of embolization, and (3) surgery >24 h after embolization. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the effect of embolization timing while controlling for confounding variables.

RESULTS

No differences were seen in all evaluated outcomes between immediate and delayed embolization cohorts. No differences in estimated blood loss were seen between the immediate (OR: 0.685, 95% CI: 0.159-2.949; p = 0.611) and delayed (OR: 0.568, 95% CI: 0.093-3.462; p = 0.539) surgery cohorts compared with patients without embolization. Surgery >24 h after embolization was not associated with a higher risk of prolonged operative time (OR: 13.499, 95% CI: 0.832-219.146; p = 0.067).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that surgery may be safely delayed beyond 24 h from embolization without a higher risk of bleeding. In appropriately selected cohorts, embolization may not be needed preoperatively.

Spinal tumor embolization: benefit for surgical resection

The embolization of hypervascular spinal tumors preoperatively has shown to be a worthwhile adjunctive procedure to minimize the elevated risks associated with surgical resection, such as intraoperative blood loss and its associated complications. Resection of these hypervascular tumors is necessary for local tumor control, reduction in patient-reported pain, improved neurological functioning, and spinal stability. This adjunctive procedure has been associated with improved surgical outcomes and easier facilitation of surgical resection. As such, we provide a review of the current literature examining the employment of this technique. Specifically, this article (a) reviews the techniques of embolization, with anatomical considerations of the arterial framework of the spinal network; (b) relativizes and outlines the post-embolization management of spinal tumor resection; (c) provides a critical outlook on the reported benefit of preoperative embolization before surgical resection with support from clinical studies in the literature; and (d) discusses the efficacy and reliability of provocative testing and post-procedural management and follow-up. Ultimately, a thorough and updated review of preoperative spinal tumor embolization and its clinical benefits will summarize the current fund of knowledge and encourage future research toward continued improvements in patient outcomes for those needing to undergo surgical resection of spinal lesions.

Minimally Invasive Interventional Procedures for Metastatic Bone Disease: A Comprehensive Review

Metastases are the main type of malignancy involving bone, which is the third most frequent site of metastatic carcinoma, after lung and liver. Skeletal-related events such as intractable pain, spinal cord compression, and pathologic fractures pose a serious burden on patients’ quality of life. For this reason, mini-invasive treatments for the management of bone metastases were developed with the goal of pain relief and functional status improvement. These techniques include embolization, thermal ablation, electrochemotherapy, cementoplasty, and MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound. In order to achieve durable pain palliation and disease control, mini-invasive procedures are combined with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, or analgesics. The purpose of this review is to summarize the recently published literature regarding interventional radiology procedures in the treatment of cancer patients with bone metastases, focusing on the efficacy, complications, local disease control and recurrence rate.