National guidelines recommend that trauma centres have a designated consultant for managing metastatic bone disease (MBD). No such system exists in Scotland. We compared MBD cases in a trauma hospital to a national bone tumour centre to characterise differences in management and outcome. Consecutive patients with metastatic proximal femoral lesions referred to a trauma unit and a national sarcoma centre were compared over a seven-year period (minimum follow-up one year). From Jan 2010-Dec 2016, 195 patients were referred to the trauma unit and 68 to the tumour centre. The trauma unit tended to see older patients (mean 72 vs. 65 years, p<0001) with cancers of poorer prognosis (e.g. 31% 61/195 vs. 13% 9/68 lung primary, p<0.001). Both units had similar operative rates but patients referred to the tumour centre were more likely to have endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR 44% tumour vs. 3% trauma centre, p<0.001). Patients with an EPR survived longer than those with other types of fixation (81% 17/21 vs. 31% 35/112 one-year survival, p<0.001). Patients undergoing EPR were more likely to have an isolated metastasis (62% 13/21 vs. 17% 4/24, p<0.001). One patient from each centre had a revision for failed metalwork. There was a difference in caseload referred to both units, with the tumour centre seeing younger patients with a better prognosis. Patients suitable for endoprostheses were more likely to have isolated metastatic disease and a longer survival after surgery. An MBD pathway is required to ensure such patients are identified and referred for specialist management where appropriate

Introduction. The rising incidence of metastatic bone disease (MBD) in the UK poses a significant management problem. Poorly defined levels of service provision have meant that improvements in patient prognosis have been mediocre at best. For that reason the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) in conjunction with the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society (BOOS) issued guidelines in 2002 on good practice in the management of MBD. Despite the availability of these standards, there is very little robust data available for audit. The aim of this study was to conduct a regional survey of how these guidelines are being used in the management of MBD. Methods. A questionnaire was designed with 9 multiple choice questions representing the most common MBD scenarios. This was posted to 106 Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeons in 12 NHS Trusts in the South East of England. Results. The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 44%. There was considerable variation in the management of solitary femoral diaphyseal lesions, pathological subtrochanteric and intertrochanteric femoral neck fractures and vertebral metastases. Furthermore only 2 out of the 12 Trusts surveyed had a designated MBD lead as per the BOA/BOOS guidelines. Discussion. Our study reflects the variation in the management of MBD throughout the region, which may in turn be linked to poorer clinical outcomes. The results demonstrate the possibility of (i) inappropriate initial treatment, (ii) subsequent late tertiary referral and (iii) poor understanding of the biomechanical basis of orthopaedic implants, with the potential for inappropriate choice of prostheses and high failure rates. Streamlining cancer care will involve establishing regional MBD units within large centres where multidisciplinary services are available. Consequently all surrounding hospitals will need a designated MBD lead that can function as a conduit to this integrated care for selected patients