Percutaneous ablation treats bone tumors safely, effectively

Ablation techniques have rapidly evolved and have been proved effective for treatment of benign skeletal lesions and, more recently, for palliation of painful metastatic skeletal disease. Treatment of primary bone lesions is largely restricted to benign lesions, such as osteoid osteomas, as a single-modality treatment or as an adjunct to surgical resection.^1-4 The use of ablation techniques for treatment of metastatic disease has developed because of the often disabling pain cancer patients experience. This pain can persist despite use of conventional therapies, including external-beam radiation and opioid analgesics.^5-8

- Benign skeletal lesions-osteoid osteoma. Treatment of benign skeletal lesions with percutaneous ablation methods is an attractive alternative to or replacement for surgical resection because of the high effectiveness and low morbidity associated with these techniques.

Osteoid osteomas are relatively common, accounting for approximately 10% of benign bone tumors.⁹ Prior to 1997, they were treated by surgical excision. Despite the typical small size of the lesion, the operative resection could be extensive but often incomplete.³ With improved precise localization using CT, the nidus of the lesion can be effectively located and the lesion completely treated with percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA).^1,2,10-12

Rosenthal has reported a 91% success rate as the initial treatment (107 of 117 procedures) and 60% for recurrent lesions (six of 10 procedures).⁴ Rosenthal also reported no significant difference in the rate of recurrence when osteoid osteoma lesions were treated with either surgical excision or percutaneous ablation.³ Because of the equal efficacy of surgery compared with RFA and in light of the relatively low morbidity and lower costs associated with the percutaneous method,¹³ most centers now consider RFA to be the standard treatment for osteoid osteoma.

- Malignant skeletal lesions-painful metastatic disease. Skeletal metastases are a common problem in cancer patients. They can have complications, including pain, fractures, and decreased mobility, that often reduce performance status, affect a patient's quality of life, and lead to depression and anxiety.^14,15

External-beam radiation therapy (RT) is the current standard of care for cancer patients who present with localized bone pain. This treatment results in a reduction in pain for the majority of these patients; however, 20% to 30% do not experience pain relief, and few options exist for these patients.^16-21

Pain relief from RT may be transient for more than 50% of patients at a median of 15 weeks after completion of RT therapy.²² Unfortunately, patients who have recurrent pain at a previously irradiated metastatic site are often not eligible for further RT secondary to limitations in normal tissue tolerance. Metastatic disease in this population is frequently refractory to standard chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Surgery, which is usually reserved for impending fracture, is not always an option when patients have advanced disease and poor functional status. Radiopharmaceuticals, which have known benefit in patients with diffuse painful bony metastases, are not considered standard of care for patients with isolated, painful lesions.

Analgesics remain the only alternative treatment option for many patients with painful metastatic disease. But obtaining sufficient pain control often involves side effects, such as constipation, nausea, and sedation, that can be significant.

PERCUTANEOUS RFA

A recent feasibility clinical trial and a subsequent international multicenter clinical trial of the use of percutaneous RFA for treatment of painful metastatic lesions involving bone found that this procedure is safe and provides significant relief of pain.^5,7,8 These patients had failed conventional treatments, including RT and chemotherapy. They reported durable significant decreases in worst pain in a 24-hour period and a high level of pain relief (Figure 1). A total of 59 of 62 patients (95%) experienced a decrease in pain that was considered clinically significant using a predefined validated end point (greater than or equal to two-point drop in worst pain in a 24-hour period).²³ Significant adverse events following the procedure were noted in four patients (6.5%).

Selection of patients for this treatment requires that they have significant pain (greater than or equal to 4/10 worst pain in a 24-hour period) and that the painful disease is limited to a few osteolytic metastases. The portions of metastatic tumors that are within 1 cm of critical structures, including bowel, bladder, spinal cord, or motor nerves, must be avoided to prevent damage to these structures. As an example, a patient with metastatic melanoma had a painful metastasis involving the proximal tibia (Figure 2). Two separate deployments of the RF electrode were performed, treating both the osseous metastasis and the metastasis overlying the tibia. Pain in the treated area was markedly improved over three to four weeks and completely eliminated after six weeks. Treatment response was durable over the 24-week follow-up period.

PERCUTANEOUS CRYOABLATION

Cryoablation has a long history of successful treatment of neoplasms in several organs, including prostate, kidney, liver, and uterus. First-generation devices were limited to intraoperative use because of their large diameter, the use of liquid nitrogen for tissue cooling, and the lack of well-insulated probes. Newly developed percutaneous cryoprobes are based on delivery of argon gas through a segmentally insulated probe, with rapid expansion of the gas resulting in rapid cooling, reaching -100 degrees C within a few seconds. Active thawing of the ice ball is achieved by actively instilling helium gas, instead of argon gas, into the cryoprobes.

As part of an ongoing prospective clinical trial, we have used cryoablation to treat 14 patients with painful metastatic disease involving bone. This effort involves patients who have one or two painful osteolytic lesions that cause greater than or equal to 4/10 pain in a 24-hour period. Patients' response to the treatment is assessed regularly over a two-year period using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI).

A 72-year-old man with metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the midshaft of the femur had 6/10 worst pain in a 24-hour period despite previous external-beam radiation and intramedullary rod placement. He was treated by percutaneous CT-guided placement of three cryoprobes (Figure 3). The ice ball that was generated was monitored with intermittent CT imaging to both treat the target lesion and avoid the adjacent femoral artery and vein and the sciatic nerve. Pain from the metastatic lesion was markedly reduced following treatment and, most important, the patient reported an improved quality of life with resumption of an active lifestyle.

Preliminary analysis of the patients treated to date is encouraging. Prior to cryoablation, the mean score for worst pain in a 24-hour period was 6.7/10 with a range of 5/10 to 10/10. Four weeks after cryoablation, the mean score for worst pain in a 24-hour period decreased to 3.8/10 (standard deviation = 0.5, p = 0.0003). During the follow-up, 86% of the treated patients reported at least a three-point drop in their worst pain, with 50% reporting complete relief of pain. All patients who were prescribed narcotics prior to the procedure reported a reduction in the use of narcotic analgesic medications at some time following cryoablation. No serious complications have been observed. Some lesions at risk for fracture may also be treated with ablation followed by cementoplasty the next day (Figure 4).

Dr. Callstrom is an assistant professor of radiology, and Dr. Charboneau is a professor of radiology at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, MN.

References

1. Rosenthal DI, Alexander A, Rosenberg AE, Springfield D. Ablation of osteoid osteomas with a percutaneously placed electrode: a new procedure. Radiology 1992;183:29-33.

2. Rosenthal DI, Springfield DS, Gebhardt MC, et al. Osteoid osteoma: percutaneous radio-frequency ablation. Radiology 1995;197:451-454.

3. Rosenthal DI, Hornicek FJ, Wolfe MW, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency coagulation of osteoid osteoma compared with operative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:815-821.

4. Rosenthal DI, Hornicek FJ, Torriani M, et al. Osteoid osteoma: percutaneous treatment with radiofrequency energy. Radiology 2003;229(1):171-175.

5. Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, Goetz MP, et al. Painful metastases involving bone: feasibility of percutaneous CT- and US-guided radio-frequency ablation. Radiology 2002; 224(1):87-97.

6. Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, Goetz MP, et al. Image-guided ablation of painful metastatic bone tumors: a new and effective approach to a difficult problem. Skel Radiol 2005:Accepted for publication.

7. Goetz M, Rubin J, Callstrom M, et al. Percutaneous US and CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of painful metastases involving bone. ASCO 2002;May 24-30:1544.

8. Goetz MP, Callstrom MR, Charboneau JW, et al. Percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation of painful metastases involving bone: a multicenter study. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(2):300-306.

9. Greenspan A. Benign bone-forming lesions: osteoma, osteoid osteoma, and osteoblastoma. Clinical, imaging, pathologic, and differential considerations. Skel Radiol 1993;22(7):485-500.

10. Barei DP, Moreau G, Scarborough MT, Neel MD. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma. Clin Orthop 2000(373):115-124.

11. Takeda A, Kikuchi S, Tajino T, et al. Basic and clinical studies of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of osteoid osteoma using a standard electrosurgical generator. J Orthop Sci 2003;8(3):301-305.

12. Ghanem I, Collet LM, Kharrat K, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency coagulation of osteoid osteoma in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Orthop B 2003;12(4): 244-252.

13. Lindner NJ, Scarborough M, Ciccarelli JM, Enneking WF. [CT-controlled thermocoagulation of osteoid osteoma in comparison with traditional methods]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 1997;135(6):522-527.

14. Nielsen OS, Munro AJ, Tannock IF. Bone metastases: pathophysiology and management policy. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:509-524.

15. Mercadante S. Malignant bone pain: pathophysiology and treatment. Pain 1997:69(1-2)1-18.

16. Massie MJ, Holland JC. The cancer patient with pain: psychiatric complications and their management. J Pain Symptom Manage 1992;7:99-109.

17. Spiegel D, Sands S, Koopman C. Pain and depression in patients with cancer. Cancer 1994;74:2570-2578.

18. Jeremic B, Shibamoto Y, Acimovic L, et al. A randomized trial of three single-dose radiation therapy regimens in the treatment of metastatic bone pain. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;42:161-167.

19. Price P, Hoskin PJ, Easton D, et al. Prospective randomised trial of single and multifraction radiotherapy schedules in the treatment of painful bony metastases. Radiother Oncol 1986:247-255.

20. Cole DJ. A randomized trial of a single treatment versus conventional fractionation in the palliative radiotherapy of painful bone metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 1989;1:59-62.

21. Gaze MN, Kelly CG, Kerr GR, et al. Pain relief and quality of life following radiotherapy for bone metastases: a randomised trial of two fractionation schedules. Radiother Oncol 1997:109-116.

22. Tong D, Gillick L, Hendrickson FR. The palliation of symptomatic osseous metastases: final results of the study by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Cancer 1982; 50(5):893-899.

23. Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, et al. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149-158.