Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Primary malignant tumors of the bone represent less than 1% of all cancer cases in the European population. The world age-standardized incidence rate is in the range of 0.5–2/100,000/year [ ]. In 2020, an estimated 3600 new cases and 17,200 deaths are expected, with 5-year relative survival of 66% [ ]. The age-standardized incidence rate is 0.249 for osteosarcoma, 0.064 for chondrosarcoma and chordoma, and 0.071 for Ewing's sarcoma [ ]. Other entities described in the WHO classification include pleomorphic sarcoma, fibrosarcoma, and giant cell tumors of bone [ ].
The vast majority of bone cancers are sporadic. Risk factors for bone cancer include Paget disease, exposure to ionizing radiation, or chemical carcinogens. A small percentage occurs in the context of a genetic predisposition to cancer whom most frequent syndrome are Li–Fraumeni (LFS) and hereditary retinoblastoma. LFS, linked to germline mutations in the TP53 gene, is diagnosed in approximately 5% of patients under the age of 30 with osteosarcoma [ ]. Osteosarcoma is also the most common type of sarcoma to develop in individuals with LFS, who are generally at a very high lifetime risk of cancer [ ]. Hereditary retinoblastoma is an autosomal dominant syndrome caused by germline mutation in the RB1 gene, leading to a high risk of retinal tumor in early ages. Survivors also have an increased risk of other malignancies, including bone and soft-tissue sarcoma, especially osteosarcoma. Other bone tumor predisposition syndromes include Bloom syndrome, multiple osteochondromas (alterations of genes EXT1 or EXT2 ), and tuberous sclerosis (genes TSC1 , TSC2 , or TSC3 ). Recognizing tumors that occur in the context of cancer predisposition is crucial, as the risk of higher long-term toxicity, especially of second malignant neoplasms, with cytotoxic agents (including chemotherapy and ionizing radiation) has repeatedly been shown in patients with LFS and hereditary retinoblastoma [ , ].
Complete surgery is the cornerstone of local treatment for bone tumors. Radiation therapy (RT) is systematically considered in Ewing's sarcoma and chordoma, and discussed for the other entities, especially in case of incomplete resection. Over the past century, several irradiation techniques have been developed and used for the treatment of bone cancer, from conventional RT (using X-rays/photons) to hadrontherapy (heavy ions), going through neutron therapy.
The aim of this chapter is to provide details of the role of RT in the treatment of bone tumors, considering radiobiology knowledge, irradiation techniques, and the most frequent histologies. We also discuss the indications for hadrontherapy, and expose the implications of irradiation in the care of patients with LFS, one of the most common cancer predisposition syndromes.
Response to ionizing radiation depends on several factors related to the tumor cells but also to the tumor microenvironment.
One key factor is the intrinsic radiosensitivity of the tumor cells. Clonogenic survival assay of cell lines is an in vitro technique considered as the gold standard to assess radiosensitivity. The radiosensitivity of cell lines is expressed by the surviving fraction of cells after 2 Gy referred as SF2. The unit of ionizing radiation dose is the Gray and is defined as 1 J of absorbed energy per kilogram of matter.
When irradiated with photons, bone cancer cells' intrinsic radiosensitivity is heterogeneous. Ewing's sarcoma is considered as a radiosensitive tumor with low SF2 [ , ]. On the contrary, osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and chordoma are considered as radioresistant tumors as they exhibit higher surviving fraction after irradiation [ ]. Intrinsic radiosensitivity may also vary between cell lines from the same type of tumor; this may be explained by the variability in the biological characteristics of the cells. For instance, chondrosarcoma tumor cells exhibiting mutation in the pRb pathway were found to be more resistant to irradiation than the ones with no alteration [ ]. One advantage of hadrontherapy, especially with the use of carbon ions, is its higher biological efficacy against tumors cells in comparison to photons and protons at equivalent physical dose [ ]. Indeed the use of this irradiation technique may enable to overcome the radioresistance (to photon) of bone tumor cells, and is promising for the treatment of this type of tumor as discussed below.
Other important factors that influence the tumor response to irradiation are host in the microenvironment. Hypoxia is a common feature of tumor especially of bone tumors and has been known as a detrimental factor for irradiation efficacy for decades. Different mechanisms have been suggested to explain this effect. One of the most accepted hypotheses is that DNA damages due to the reactive oxygen species induced by ionizing radiation are less frequent in hypoxic conditions [ ]. Other mechanisms may be involved. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) is a transcription factor accumulating in hypoxic cell essential for maintaining cellular oxygen homeostasis and adapting hypoxia. HIFs allow cells to survive under hostile conditions. Not only HIFs aid to preserve cell function but also promote tumor progression and the formation of metastases [ ].
To conclude, bone tumors are usually considered as low sensitive tumors to irradiation with photon, which explains the high doses that are usually recommended for treating these tumors. Current developments to overcome this resistance include the use of particles with higher relative biological effectiveness, and strategies to reduce the negative impact of hypoxia.
Irradiation treatment aims to expose the tumor to ionizing radiations to induce cellular damages and death. Several techniques of irradiation delivery are available. The election made by the radiation oncologist depends on the treatment strategy (curative or palliative intent), the tumor type, prescribed dose, and the localization of the tumor and surrounding organs at risk. The most routinely used technique irradiation is photontherapy, delivered as conformal RT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), or stereotactic RT, with varied fractionation, from normofractionated irradiation using a dose of 1.8–2 Gy per fraction, five fraction a week, to hypofractionated treatment using a limited number of fractions with a dose above 2 Gy. Other particles have been used for the treatment of bone tumors including neutrons, protons, and carbons. Neutrons showed good local control in this indication but have been largely underused with respect to concerns about radioprotection [ ].
This technique aims to match the volume irradiated to the volume of the tumor, sparing the surrounding healthy tissue as much as possible. To do this, beam orientations can be used so that the shape of the irradiated field is adapted to the shape of the tumor volume thanks to multiple leaf collimators.
IMRT is a radiation technique that is characterized by a nonuniform intensity of the radiation beams, and a computerized inverse planning. IMRT makes it possible to modulate the dose delivered by each beam in order to protect healthy tissues. This modulation is provided by a multileaf collimator that moves back and forth to target the tumor with the best possible dose.
The patient's organs may move slightly during the session, mainly as a result of breathing. This will also be the case for a tumor located in a mobile organ such as the lungs. In order to improve the precision of the irradiation, innovative techniques take in account respiratory movements in order to reduce the dose to surrounding organs, such as with bilateral pulmonary irradiation [ ].
Stereotactic RT, which involved the technique referred as radiosurgery, is a high-precision image-guided RT technique. In this context, treatment is performed using microbeams of photons that converge at the center of the target. This makes it possible to deliver a high dose of radiation to small lesions. Hypofractionated stereotactic RT have been tested as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of pulmonary metastases of sarcomas and showed a particularly good local control rate (90% at 24 months) [ ].
Hadrontherapy, or particle therapy, means irradiating tumors with heavy particles (protons, alpha particles, carbon ions, etc.). The main advantage of particle therapy is characteristic energy distribution in depth. While photons deliver dose further than the target volume passing through the patient's body, hadrons' loss of kinetic energy results in dose deposit at the so-called Bragg Peak, which is spread out to cover the tumor thickness but deposits almost no dose beyond the tumor [ ]. This technique makes it possible to deliver the dose to the tumor while better sparing the surrounding healthy tissues, and also makes it possible to prescribe equal or higher doses with a favorable toxicity profile. Carbon ion therapy is one of the hadrontherapy technique with on-going development but limited access, with 12 centers installed worldwide as of July 2020. Carbon ions have the additional benefit over protontherapy of reducing lateral scattering, which could lead to further improvement in sparing the organs at risk. Moreover, carbon ions have a higher linear energy transfer with damages to the DNA grouped into clusters exceeding the cellular repair system [ ]. This explains the higher relative biological effectiveness of carbon over proton and photon. Carbon ion therapy is a promising technique for providing high doses to target volumes with optimal sparing of the organs at risk. Nevertheless, the access to this modality of treatment is still limited by its cost.
Ewing's sarcoma is characterized by a specific somatic gene alteration involving the fusion of the EWS gene with several other genes, ETS family being the most common [ ]. Ewing's sarcoma is the third most common primary malignant bone tumor and typically occurred in adolescents and young adults [ ]. Five-year overall survival among patients with localized tumors is about 60% whereas in metastatic patients, 5-year overall survival may drop to 20%–40% in case of lung metastases and to less than 20% in case of multiple bone metastases [ ].
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is frequently favored over frontline local treatment with surgery and/or RT ( Table 51.1 ). Local treatment is followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Consolidation chemotherapy may be proposed in case of poor response or a high tumor volume. Today, three to six cycles of chemotherapy are usually administered before local therapy, followed by 6 to 10 cycles. Most efficient chemotherapy incorporates doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, vincristine, d-actinomycin, and etoposide [ ]. In patients younger than 18 years, dose dense regimens have demonstrated better outcomes [ ]. In patients with a poor response to induction chemotherapy with more than 10% viable cells, or a tumor volume of more than 200 ml at diagnosis, high-dose chemotherapy with busulfan and melphalan was shown to improve 8-year overall survival [ ].
Trial | Years | Indication of RT | RT total dose (Gy) | Dose per fraction (Gy) | Volume | 5-year local control (%) | 5-year survival (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[ ] | 1973–78 | NeoA RT | <5 years: 45 Gy 5–15 years:50 Gy > 15 years 55 Gy followed by boost 10 Gy |
2 Gy | Entire involved bone | 60 | |
NeoA RT + BPR + CT with ADR | BPR: 15–18 Gy |
1.5–2 Gy | BPR after RT for primary tumor | 24 | |||
NeoA RT + BPR + CT without ADR | 44 | ||||||
[ ] | 1978–82 | Tumor biopsy or IS and pelvic tumor | 55 | 55 | 63 | ||
[ ] | 1981–85 | IS | 36 | 1.8–2 | Tumor bed and the remaining part of the bone | 66 | 50 |
RT alone for extremity | 46 | 1.8–2 | Whole bone 36 Gy/primary tumor +5 cm 50 Gy/primary tumor + 2 cm 60 Gy | 28 both (differences between 46 and 60 Gy NR) | |||
60 | 1.8–2 | ||||||
[ ] | 1986–91 | NoP | 60 | Tumor bulk | 70 | 70 | |
44.8 | Whole tumor-bearing compartment | ||||||
IS, poor histological response to CT | 44.8 | ||||||
[ ] | 1987–93 | 62 | |||||
[ ] | 1981–99 | CESS 81 RT alone |
48–60 | 1.8–2 | Initial tumor extent and additional 5 cm margin after 36 Gy | 47 | |
CESS 81 IS |
36 | Whole tumor-bearing compartment | 61 | ||||
CESS 86 RT alone |
60 | Randomized 2 Gy fraction each day or 1.6 Gy twice daily | Pretherapeutic tumor size +5 cm margin, boost > 44 Gy pretherapeutic tumor size +2 cm margin | 47 | |||
CESS 86 IS |
44 | 2 Gy fraction each day or 1.6 Gy twice daily | Pretherapeutic tumor size +5 cm margin | 61 | |||
CESS 86 IS |
60 | 2 Gy fraction each day or 1.6 Gy twice daily | Pretherapeutic tumor size + 5 cm margin, boost > 44 Gy: Pretherapeutic tumor size +2 cm margin | 47 | |||
EICESS 92 RT alone |
54 | Randomized 2 Gy fraction each day or 1.6 Gy twice daily | Pretherapeutic tumor size + 5 cm margin, boost > 44 Gy: Pretherapeutic tumor size +2 cm margin | 47 | |||
EICESS 92 IS |
44 | 2 Gy fraction each day or 1.6 Gy twice daily | Pretherapeutic tumor size + 5 cm margin | 61 | |||
EICESS 92 postoperative RT marginal resection and poor histological response or intralesional resection | 54 | Randomized 2 Gy fraction each day or 1.6 Gy twice daily | Pretherapeutic tumor size +5 cm margin, boost > 44 Gy: Pretherapeutic tumor size +2 cm margin | 61 | |||
EICESS 92 NeoA RT wide resection anticipated |
44 | Split course 1.6 Gy twice daily and 10-day break after 22.4 Gy | Pretherapeutic tumor size +5 cm margin | 59 | |||
EICESS 92 NeoA RT marginal or intralesional resection anticipated |
54 | Split course 1.6 Gy twice daily and 10-day break after 22.4 Gy | Pretherapeutic tumor size +5 cm margin, boost > 44 Gy: Pretherapeutic tumor size +2 cm margin | 59 | |||
[ ] | 1991–97 | NoP or IS | 60,8 | 1.6 Gy twice daily | 44.8 Gy to the entire initial tumor volume +5 cm margin with 16 Gy boost and 2 cm margin around the initial bony disease | ||
44,8 | 1.6 Gy twice daily | ||||||
[ ] | 1995–98 | RT alone | 45 | Initial tumor volume +3 cm margin | 79 | ||
55.8 boost | Postchemotherapy volume avoiding epiphysis | ||||||
Adjuvant RT for microscopic residual disease | 45 | Original volume +1 cm margin | |||||
[ ] | 1995–98 | Postoperative with close (<1 cm) or positive margins | 45 | 1.8 | Original volume +2 cm margin | 78.6 | 49 |
Gross residual disease | 55.8 | 1.8 | |||||
[ ] | 1999–2006 | IS | 42 | 1.5 Gy twice daily | 75 | ||
NoP | 54 | 1.5 Gy twice daily | |||||
[ ] | 1995–98 | IS | 45 | Initial tumor volume +2 cm | 71.1 | 78 | |
55.8 | Boost | ||||||
Extraosseous tumor in complete resection | 45 | Initial tumor volume +2 cm | |||||
50.4 | Boost with +1 cm margin | ||||||
Postoperative with close (<1 cm) or positive margins | 45 | Initial tumor volume +2 cm | |||||
50.4 | Boost with +1 cm margin | ||||||
[ ] | 2008–15 | RT alone | 55.8 | 79.6 | 88 | ||
IS | 50.4 | ||||||
[ ] | 1988–92 | 45 | Initial tumor volume +3 cm margin | 69 | 72 | ||
RT alone | 55.8 | Volume postchemotherapy or pre-RT, smaller margin to the epiphysis | |||||
IS | 45 | Original volume +1 cm margin | |||||
[ ] | 2000–10 | 86 (3y) | |||||
[ ] | 2001–05 | NoP | 45 | 1.8 | Pre-CT volume | 83 (3y) | |
55.8 | 1.8 | Post-CT volume | |||||
Extraosseous tumors with a complete response to chemotherapy | 50.4 | 1.8 | |||||
Vertebral bony primary tumor | 45 | 1.8 | |||||
Pathological involved lymph node areas | 45 | 1.8 | |||||
NeoA RT | 45 | 1.8 | |||||
Chest wall primary tumors and ipsilateral pleura | 15 | 1.8 | Hemithorax | ||||
36.6 | 1.8 | Unresected gross pleural tumor |
For patients with metastases at diagnosis, the chemotherapy regimen is similar to that used for localized disease. Local treatment for primary tumor is performed in case of control of the metastatic disease ( Table 51.2 ). In recurrent Ewing's sarcoma, chemotherapy often excludes doxorubicin because of the cumulative dose.
Trial | Years | Indication of RT | RT total dose (Gy) | Dose per fraction (Gy) | Volume | 5-year local control (%) | 5-year survival (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[ ] | 2002–13 | RT depends on resection and histological response | 54 | 3y:11 | 3y:22 | ||
RT on primary tumor | |||||||
[ ] | 1981–97 | Adjuvant RT or RT on primary tumor | 4y:27 | 4y:32 | |||
Complete remission | 12 | 2 doses per day/3 days | Total body irradiation | ||||
Pulmonary, pleural, or thoracic bone metastases | 15–18 | BPR | |||||
[ ] | 1999–2005 | Surgery ± RT or RT on primary tumor | 3y:27 | 3y:34 | |||
[ ] | 1991–99 | RT alone or IS | 45 | Entire tumor-bearing bone, one epiphyseal center spared | 38 | 37 | |
55–60 | Bony tumor volume and residual mass +2 cm margin | ||||||
[ ] | 1988–92 | RT alone | 45 | Initial tumor volume +3 cm margin | 22 | 35 | |
55.8 | Post-CT volume (reduction margin to the epiphysis) | ||||||
Adjuvant RT for positive margins | 45 | Initial tumor volume +1 cm | |||||
[ ] | 1999–2005 | NoP | 54 | 1.5 (twice daily) | 43 | 52 | |
IS | 42 | ||||||
54 | Boost if intralesional surgery or marginal margin | ||||||
Lung metastases | 15 | 1.5 | BPR | ||||
[ ] | 2000–14 | 3y:55.7 | 3y:55.9 |
The aim of local treatment is to treat the entire volume of tissue involved at diagnosis. Surgery and RT are the two local treatment modalities. There are no randomized studies comparing surgery versus RT. Nevertheless, complete surgery, when possible, is viewed as the best strategy for local control, given the higher risk of local recurrence when RT is delivered alone. Secondary analysis of prospective trials showed that combined treatment (R0 conservative surgery and RT) resulted in better local control [ , ]. Anyways, there was no impact of local control strategies (surgery, RT, or surgery plus RT) on event-free survival and overall survival. Surgery should be performed with the excision of all affected tissues at diagnosis (referred as ghost resection), and is not limited to the residual tumor after chemotherapy. Obviously, limb-salvage surgery is always considered, but amputation might be an alternative particularly for younger patients with tumors of the fibula, tibia, and foot. Surgery may not be performed for some localizations needing major reconstructive techniques and leading to significant morbidity such as pelvic tumor [ ]. Intralesional surgery is not better than RT alone and should be avoided [ ].
Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles
If you are a member. Log in here