Introduction: Sending intramedullary reamings for histology in patients with metastaic bone disease (MBD) is routinely done in many centres. However, whether the results of these reamings help in the diagnosis of MBD remains unclear. Recent studies have shown that on the basis of biopsy of the metastases alone, only 35% of the primary tumours are detected. British Orthopaedic Oncology Society guidelines recommend further investigations and a bone biopsy if the primary disease is unknown.

Aim:The aim of this study was to correlate clinical, radiological and histological findings for patients with metastatic bone disease and assess the diagnostic accuracy of the reamings in MBD.

Method: Demographic details, clinical evaluation, radiological findings and the histology results of the bone biopsy or reamings were reviewed retrospectively for all patients admitted in the year 2003 with suspected MBD.

Results:Records and x-rays were identified of 50 patients admitted in 2003 with suspected primary or MBD of a long bone and pain or pathological fracture. . 56% were male. Average age was 69.2years (range 10–98years).

6 patients had primary bone tumour and were referred to the tumour specialist. Of the remaining patients with suspected MBD all required fixation and in all cases intramedullary reamings were sent for histology. 18 patients had a known primary tumour of which 8 (44%) had no evidence of malignancy on histology. 22 patients had an unknown primary tumour of which 19 (86%) had no evidence of malignancy on histology.

Conclusion: Reamings, are a poor method of diagnosis, even in cases where the primary is known the histology is still less than 50 % accurate in confirming malignancy. Therefore, in patients with MBD the diagnostic accuracy of reamings should be re-evaluated due to the high false negative results.

Introduction: Mirels scoring system is a recognised method of assessing the risk of fracture in metastatic bone disease (MBD) based on radiological and clinical risk factors. Although reproducible, there are overlaps in the outcome of the scores.

Aim: The aim of this study is look at the association between the tumour volume and ratio, and the incidence of pathological fracture.

Method: Mirels score was calculated retrospectively from the patient notes. X-rays were scanned and analysed using the IMAGICA program. All tumours were measured twice on two views to the closest 0.1mm. The average of the two readings were used for the final calculations. Tumour volume was measured using 3 axis readings on the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral views of the tumour. The AP and lateral width of the tumour and the long bone shaft was measured to obtain the AP and Lateral Tumour Ratio (APTR and LTR respectively).

Results: 58 patients were admitted in 2003 with suspected primary or MBD of a long bone. 50 patients were included. 28(56%) were male. Average age was 69.2years (range 10–98years). 6(12%) patients had a lytic lesion with no fracture and 18(36%) with pathological fracture. We were unable to measure Mirels score due to poor documentation. Patients with lytic lesion and no fracture had lower APTR and LTR, 0.88 and 0.85 respectively compare with the patients with lytic fractures (APTR 0.98 and LTR 0.91). This trend was not seen in tumours with sclerotic and mixed features.

The average tumour volume was higher in the patients with lytic lesion and associated fracture than those with no fracture, 27.3 and 20.7cm³. 17(85%) of the lytic lesions, with volume larger than 10 cm³ had pathological fracture.

Conclusion: The fracture rate is higher in presence of larger tumour with higher AP and lateral tumour ratio. A single measurement of the tumour volume may be more appropriate in the assessment of a lytic lesion for pathological fracture.

Introduction: Current guidelines from the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society indicate that the role of the orthopaedic surgeon in the management of the meta-static bone disease (MBD) of the long bones falls into two principal categories; prophylactic fixation of meta-static deposits at risk of fracture and stabilisation following pathological fractures. Bone biopsy and MRI scan is advocated if the primary tumour is not identified.

Aim: The aim of this study is to audit at the current practice in the South Trent region.

Method: A postal questionnaire with three case scenarios was sent to all orthopaedic consultants and SpR’s in the South Trent region. They were asked how they would manage a patient with a fracture and; a single bone metastasis and a known primary tumour, a single bone metastasis and an unknown primary tumour, and multiple metastases of unknown origin.

Results: 80 % of the questionnaires were completed and returned. In the presence of a known primary tumour and a single metastasis, 75 % would send intra-medullary reamings for histology at the time of fixation. In the presence of a single metastasis and an unknown primary tumour, 38 % would perform a biopsy prior to fracture fixation. In the event of multiple metastases with an unknown primary, 15 % would perform a biopsy.

Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus among the orthopaedic surgeons sampled about the management of the MBD. Intramedullary reamings sent during fixation have a high rate of false negative results but are still preferred by many surgeons to aid diagnosis in MBD. Thorough clinical and radiological assessments are probably more useful in the diagnosis of the primary tumour.