Lung cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed, the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, and bone metastases occurs in 20–40% of lung cancer patients. They often present symptomatically with pain or skeletal related events (SREs), which are independently associated with decreased survival. Bone modifying agents (BMAs) such as Denosumab or bisphosphonates are routinely used, however no specific guidelines exist from the National Comprehensive Cancer Center or the European Society of Medical Oncologists. Perhaps preventing the formation of guidelines is the lack of a high-quality quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data to determine the optimal treatment for the patient important outcomes of 1) Overall survival (OS), 2) Time to SRE, 3) SRE incidence, and 4) Pain Resolution. The objective of this study was to perform the first systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the best BMA for treatment of metastatic lung cancer to bone. We conducted our study in accordance to the PRISMA protocol. We performed a librarian assisted search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library and Chinese databases including CNKI and Wanfang Data. We included studies that are RCTs reporting outcomes specifically for lung cancer patients treated with a bisphosphonate or Denosumab. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE were performed in duplicate. The NMA was performed using a Bayesian probability model with R. Results are reported as relative risks, odds ratios or mean differences, and the I2 value is reported for heterogeneity. We assessed all included articles for risk of bias and applied the novel GRADE framework for NMAs to rate the quality of evidence supporting each outcome. We included 132 RCTs comprising 11,161 patients with skeletal metastases from lung cancer. For OS, denosumab was ranked above zoledronic acid (ZA) and estimated to confer an average of 3.7 months (95%CI: −0.5 – 7.6) increased survival compared to untreated patients. For time to SRE, denosumab was ranked first with an average of 9.1 additional SRE-free months (95%CI: 4.0 – 14.0) compared to untreated patients, while ZA conferred an additional 4.8 SRE-free months (2.4 – 7.0). Patients treated with the combination of Ibandronate and systemic therapy were 2.3 times (95%CI: 1.7 – 3.2) more likely to obtain successful pain resolution, compared to untreated. Meta-regression showed no effect of heterogeneity length of follow-up or pain scales on the observed treatment effects. Heterogeneity in the network was considered moderate for overall survival and time to SRE, mild for SRE incidence, and low for pain resolution. While a generally high risk of bias was observed across studies, whether they were from Western or Chinese databases. The overall GRADE for the evidence underlying our results is High for Pain control and SRE incidence, and Moderate for OS and time to SRE. This study represents the most comprehensive synthesis of the best available evidence guiding pharmacological treatment of bone metastases from lung cancer. Denosumab is ranked above ZA for both overall survival and time to SRE, but both treatments are superior to no treatment. ZA was first among all bisphosphonates assessed for odds of reducing SRE incidence, while the combination of Ibandronate and radionuclide therapy was most effective at significantly reducing pain from metastases. Clinicians and policy makers may use this synthesis of all available RCT data as support for the use of a BMA in MBD for lung cancer

The spine is one of the most common sites of bony metastasis, with 80% of prostate, lung, and breast cancers metastasizing to the vertebrae resulting in significant morbidity. Current treatment modalities are systemic chemotherapy, such as Doxorubicin (Dox), administered after resection to prevent cancer recurrence, and systemic antiresorptive medication, such as Zolendronate (Zol), to prevent tumor-induced bone destruction. The large systemic doses required to elicit an adequate effect in the spine often leads to significant side-effects by both drugs, limiting their prolonged use and effectiveness. Recently published work by our lab has shown that biocompatible 3D-printed porous polymer scaffolds are an effective way of delivering Dox locally over a sustained period while inhibiting tumor growth in vitro. Our lab has also generated promising results regarding antitumor properties of Zol in vitro. We aim to develop 3D-printed scaffolds to deliver a combination of Zol and Dox that can potentially allow for a synergistic antitumor activity while preventing concurrent bone loss locally at the site of a tumor, avoiding long systemic exposure to these drugs and decreasing side effects in the clinical setting. The PORO Lay polymer filaments are 3D-printed into 5mm diameter disks, washed with deionized water and loaded with Dox or Zol in aqueous buffer over 7 days. Dox or Zol-containing supernatant was collected daily and the drug release was analyzed over time in a fluorescence plate reader. The polymer-drug (Dox or Zol) release was tested in vitro on prostate and lung cancer cell lines and on prostate- or lung-induced bone metastases cells. Alternatively, direct drug treatment was also carried out on the same cells in vitro. Following treatment, all cells were subject to proliferation assay (MTT and alamar blue), viability assay (LIVE/DEAD), migration assay (Boyden chamber) and invasion assay (3D gel matrix). 3D-printed scaffolds loaded with both Dox and Zol will also be tested on cells. We have established an effective dose (EC50) for prostate and lung cancer cell lines and bone metastases cells with direct treatment with Zol or Dox. We have titrated the drug loading of scaffolds to allow for a release amount of Dox at the EC50 dose over 7 days. In ongoing experiments, we are testing the release of Zol. We have shown Dox releasing scaffolds inhibit cancer cell growth in a 2D culture over 7 days using the above cellular assays and testing the scaffolds with Zol is currently being analyzed. 3D-printed porous polymers like the PORO Lay series of products offer a novel and versatile opportunity for delivery of drugs in future clinical settings. They can decrease systemic exposure of drugs while at the same time concentrating the drugs effect at the site of tumors and consequently inhibit tumor proliferation. Their ability to be loaded with multiple drugs can allow for achieving multiple goals while taking advantage of synergistic effects of different drugs. The ability to 3D-print these polymers can allow for production of custom implants that offer better structural support for bone growth

Surgical management for acute or impending pathologic fractures in metastatic bone disease (MBD) places patients at high-risk for post-operative venous thromboembolism (VTE). Due to the combination of malignancy, systemic cancer treatment, and surgical treatment, VTE-risk is increased 7-fold in patients with MBD compared to non-cancer patients undergoing the same procedure. The extent and duration of post-operative hypercoagulability in patients with MBD remains unknown and thromboprophylaxis guidelines were developed for non-cancer patients, limiting their applicability to address the elevated VTE-risk in cancer patients. Thrombelastography (TEG) analysis is a point-of-care test that measures clot formation, stabilization, and lysis in whole blood samples. The TEG parameter, maximal amplitude (MA), indicates clot strength and the threshold of ≥65 mm has been used to define hypercoagulability and predict VTE events in non-cancer patients requiring orthopaedic surgery. Therefore, this study aims to quantify the extent and duration of post-operative hypercoagulability in patients with MBD using serial TEG analysis. Consecutive adults (≥18 years) with MBD who required orthopaedic surgery for acute or impending pathologic fractures were enrolled into this single-centre, prospective cohort study. Serial TEG analysis was performed onsite using a TEG®6s haemostasis analyzer (Haemonetics Corporation, Boston, MA) on whole blood samples collected at seven timepoints: pre-operatively; on post-operative day (POD) 1, 3, and 5; and at 2-, 6-, and 12-weeks post-operatively. Hypercoagulability was defined as MA ≥65 mm. Participants received standardized thromboprophylaxis for four weeks and patient-reported compliance with thromboprophylaxis was recorded. VTE was defined as symptomatic DVT or PE, or asymptomatic proximal DVT, and all participants underwent a screening post-operative lower extremity Doppler ultrasound on POD3. Descriptive statistics were performed and difference between pre-operative MA values of participants with VTE versus no VTE was evaluated using Student's t-test (p≤0.05). Twenty-one participants (10 female; 47.6%) with a mean age of 70 ± 12 years were enrolled. Nine different primary cancers were identified amongst participants, with breast (23.8%), colorectal (19.0%), and lung cancer (14.3%) most frequently reported. Most participants (57.1%) were hypercoagulable pre-operatively, and nearly half remained hypercoagulable at 6- and 12-weeks post-operatively (47.1 and 46.7%, respectively). VTE occurred in 5 patients (23.8%) and mean MA was 68.1 ± 4.6 mm at the time of diagnosis. Mean pre-operative MA values were significantly higher (p=0.02) in patients who experienced VTE (68.9 ± 3.5 mm) compared to those who did not (62.7 ± 6.5 mm). VTE incidence was highest in the first week post-operatively, during which time four VTE events (80%) occurred. The proportion of patients in a hypercoagulable state increased at three consecutive timepoints, beginning on POD3 (85.0%), increasing on POD5 (87.5%), and peaking at 2-weeks post-operatively (88.9%). Current thromboprophylaxis guidelines do not consider cancer-associated risk factors that contribute to increased VTE incidence and prescription duration may be inadequate to address prolonged post-operative hypercoagulability in patients with MBD. The high rate of VTE events observed and sustained hypercoagulable state indicate that thromboprophylaxis may be prematurely terminated while patients remain at high risk for VTE. Therefore, extending thromboprophylaxis duration beyond 4-weeks post-operatively in patients with MBD warrants further investigation

Aims. Bone is a common site of metastatic disease. Skeletal complications include disabling pain and pathological fractures. Palliative surgery for incurable metastatic bone lesions aims to preserve quality of life and function by providing pain relief and stable mobility with fixation or replacement. Current literature has few treatment studies. We present a 5 year longitudinal cohort study of surgery for metastatic bone disease at our large teaching hospital reviewing our complication and mortality rates. Methods. Patients that underwent palliative surgery for metastatic bone lesions were identified from operative records. Demographics, clinical details and outcomes were recorded. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate survivorship. Results. 43 patients were treated for 44 bone metastases (34 IM Nails, 9 prosthetic replacements, 1 plate). The median age at primary diagnosis was 66 (33–92). Lung cancer was the most common primary. 56% presented with complete fractures and 44% with impending fractures (median Mirel score of 10). Pertrochanteric bone lesions were the most common (74%). Two out of 43 patients died within one day of surgery. 30 day mortality was 12% and 45% at 1 year. In those surviving the 30 day perioperative period, we report a complication rate of 14%. One patient had a dislocated prosthesis. Two patients had delayed or non union and two patients had failure of metalwork. No patient required re operation. Conclusion. Our series observed a 5% fixation failure rate and significant perioperative mortality. Whilst surgery may offer benefit in the non moribund patient with pathological fracture the decision to offer prophylactic surgery is more difficult in light of the high perioperative mortality seen in our study. Indeed, the patients in our study who died within 24 hours of surgery had prophylactic fixations. We conclude that surgical intervention must be carefully considered with realistic expectations of outcomes

Aims

As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment.