Literature DB >> 34336201

Limitations and usefulness of biopsy techniques for the diagnosis of metastatic bone and soft tissue tumors.

Kazuhiko Hashimoto1, Shunji Nishimura1, Tomohiko Ito1, Naohiro Oka1, Masao Akagi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biopsies are widely used for diagnosing metastatic tumors in the bone and soft tissues; however, their usefulness and limitations remain unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Biopsies of patients (13 men, 8 women, mean age 76 years) with metastatic tumors in the bone (19 patients) and soft tissues (2 patients) were reviewed retrospectively. Investigators surveyed the lesion sites, medical histories, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS), biopsy sites, methods, comorbidities, diagnoses, treatments, and outcomes.
RESULTS: Five patients had multiple lesions, and 16 patients had one lesion. The ECOG PS scores were PS0 (11 patients), PS1 (7 patients), PS2 (2 patients), and PS3 (1 patient). Biopsy sites included pelvic bone (6 cases), rib bone (5 cases), spinal vertebra (7 cases), soft tissue of the shoulder (2 cases), and inner retroperitoneum (1 case). Diagnostic methods included open biopsy (8 patients), core needle biopsy under general (7 patients) or local (3 patients) anesthesia, and computed tomography-guided core needle biopsy under local anesthesia (3 patients). Histology indicated hematological malignancies (9 cases); breast cancer (3 patients); lung cancer, renal cell cancer, cancer of unknown primary (2 cases each); prostate cancer, endometrial (uterine) cancer, and myxoid liposarcoma (1 case each). The primary site identification rate was 90.5%. Outcomes included three patients "dead of disease."
CONCLUSION: Biopsies are useful for early diagnosis and for the scrutiny of primary lesions of metastatic bone and soft tissue tumors. If the primary tumor is still unknown after biopsy, evidence-based treatment should be initiated promptly.
© 2021 The Authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Bone and soft tissue tumors; Metastatic tumors

Year:  2021        PMID: 34336201      PMCID: PMC8318849          DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102581

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)        ISSN: 2049-0801


Introduction

Nearly one in three patients with advanced malignancy have distant metastases at the time of clinical diagnosis [1]. Bone is the third most frequent site of metastasis for a wide range of solid cancers, including lung, breast, prostate, colorectal, thyroid, gynecologic cancers, and melanoma. Approximately 70% of patients with metastatic prostate and breast cancers have bone metastases [2]. Additionally, soft tissue metastases are rare, but may present as an initial finding [3,4]. These facts indicate that the metastasis of cancer to musculoskeletal sites has clinical significance. Biopsies of the bone and soft tissues are often performed to confirm the primary site of cancer [4,5]. There are various types of biopsy techniques, including needle biopsy, incisional biopsy, and excisional biopsy [[5], [6], [7]]. Although some evidence exists on the effectiveness of biopsies for diagnosis, biopsies do not lead to definitive diagnoses [8]. Thus, the utility and limitations of biopsy procedures for the diagnosis of metastatic bone and soft tissue tumors have remained unclear [9]. In the current study, we conducted a retrospective analysis using data of patients treated at our department for bone or soft tissue metastases, wherein we clarified the clinical biopsy results in detail in an effort to determine the usefulness and limitations of using biopsy procedures as a diagnostic tool.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the cases of 21 patients at our hospital who had undergone biopsy procedures for metastatic tumors in the bone and soft tissues to confirm the diagnosis of the primary lesions. Data from 13 men and 8 women were included in the analysis. Biopsies had been performed on 19 metastatic bone lesions and 2 metastatic soft tissue lesions. The mean follow-up period was 6 months (range, 1–63 months). We surveyed lesion sites, lesion types, medical histories, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) [10], biopsy sites, biopsy methods, diagnoses, complications after biopsy, treatment modalities, and outcomes. Medical history was obtained by interviewing each patient during the outpatient visit. Imaging examinations were conducted at the main treatment department; additional imaging examinations, especially computed tomography (CT) imaging for biopsy, were conducted as necessary when the patient visited our department. All biopsies had been performed for confirming the diagnosis of the primary lesions.

Results

Patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. The mean age was 76 years (range: 43–92 years). Clinical images depicted 5 patients with multiple metastases, and 16 patients with single metastatic lesions. The biopsy sites were as follows: pelvic bone (5 cases), rib bone (5 cases), lumbar vertebra (5 cases), thoracic vertebra and soft tissue of the shoulder (2 cases each), and pubic bone and inner retroperitoneum (1 case each).
Table 1

Clinical characteristics of patients in the current study.

Patient no.SexAgeLesion siteLesion typeHistoryPSBiopsy siteBiopsy methodDiagnosisTreatmentOutcome
1M68Both ribsOsteolyticTuberculosis0Right ribOpen biopsyAdenocarcinomaCTp, RTDOD
279Right ribMixed0Right ribOpen biopsyPlasmacytomaCTpAWD
376Right 9th rib and left 9th ribOsteolytic0left 9th ribOpen biopsyMultiple myelomaCTpAWD
4783rd lumbar vertebraOsteolyticHT, Breast Cancer13rd lumbar vertebraNeedle (vertebra)Breast cancerCTpAWD
5M92Left soft tissue shoulderHT, DM, HT, Benign prostatic hyperplasia1Left soft tissue shoulderNeedleLung cancerRTAWD
6829th thoracic vertebraMixedMR29th thoracic vertebraNeedle (vertebra)DLBCLRTAWD
77612th thoracic vertebraMixed212th thoracic vertebraNeedle (vertebra)DLBCLRTAWD
8605th lumbar vertebraOsteolytic05th lumbar vertebraNeedle (vertebra)LCHCTpCDF
9F69Right 4th ribOsteolytic0Right 4th ribOpen biopsyMultiple myelomaCDF
10M74Right pubis, lung, lumbar vertebraOsteolyticHT, DM0Right pubisOpen biopsyRenal cancerImmunotherapyAWD
11M80PelvicOsteolyticHT, HL1PelvicCT-guided needle biopsyProstate cancerRTAWD
12F82pelvicOsteolyticHT, DM1PelvicOpen biopsyEndometrial cancerCTpAWD
13M75Left 9th ribOsteolyticDM0Left 9th ribOpen biopsyMultiple myelomaCTp, RTAWD
14F72Inner retroperitoneumOsteolyticHT, Breast Cancer1Inner retroperitoneumOpen biopsyBreast CancerCTpAWD
15F431st lumbar vertebraOsteolyticBreast Cancer Colon Cancer01st lumbar vertebraNeedle (vertebra)Breast CancerCTpAWD
16F77Left soft tissue of shoulderDM0Left soft tissue of shoulderNeedleDLBCLCTp, RTAWD
17M77Left pubisOsteoblasticHT1Left pubisCT-guided needle biopsyRenal cancerImmunotherapyAWD
18M72PelvicOsteolyticAppendicitis1PelvicCT-guided needle biopsyLiposarcomaHeavy ion beam therapyAWD
19723rd lumbar vertebraOsteolyticDM03rd lumbar vertebraNeedle (vertebra)Lung cancerDOD
2083Multiple pelvicOsteolyticHepatitis type C0PelvicOpen biopsyLymphomaRTAWD
21747th cervical vertebra, 1st and 2nd thoracic vertebra, pelvicOsteolyticHT, Uterus Cancer, pyelonephritis3PelvicNeedleCUPRTDOD

AWD, alive with disease; CUP, cancer of unknown primary; CT, computed tomography; CTp, chemotherapy; DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; DM, diabetes mellitus; DOD, dead of disease; F, female; HL, hyperlipidemia; HT, hypertension; LCH, Langerhans cell histiocytosis; M, male; MR, mitral valve regurgitation; PS, performance status; RT, radiation therapy.

Clinical characteristics of patients in the current study. AWD, alive with disease; CUP, cancer of unknown primary; CT, computed tomography; CTp, chemotherapy; DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; DM, diabetes mellitus; DOD, dead of disease; F, female; HL, hyperlipidemia; HT, hypertension; LCH, Langerhans cell histiocytosis; M, male; MR, mitral valve regurgitation; PS, performance status; RT, radiation therapy. Lytic lesions were observed in 15 cases, an osteoblastic lesion was observed in 1 case, mixed lesions were observed in 3 cases, and soft tissue lesions were observed in 2 cases. Histological findings included 3 cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 3 cases of multiple myeloma, 3 cases of breast cancer, 2 cases of lung cancer, 2 cases of renal cell cancer, 2 cases of cancer of unknown primary, 1 case of plasmacytoma, 1 case of Langerhans cell histiocytosis, 1 case of prostate cancer, 1 case of endometrial cancer of the uterus, and 1 case of myxoid liposarcoma. The ECOG PS scores were as follows: PS0, 11 patients; PS1, 7 patients; PS2, 2 patients; and PS3, 1 patient. The following biopsy techniques had been used: core needle biopsy under general anesthesia (6 cases), open biopsy (9 cases), core needle biopsy under local anesthesia (3 cases), and CT-guided core needle biopsy under local anesthesia (3 cases). No complications were observed following the biopsy. The primary site identification rate was 90.5%. The treatment instituted was chemotherapy for 7 cases, radiation therapy for 6 cases, chemotherapy and radiation therapy for 3 cases, immunotherapy for 2 cases, and heavy particle radiation for 1 case. The outcome was 2 cases of continuous disease free (CDF), 16 cases of alive with disease (AWD), and 3 cases of dead of disease (DOD). In two cases, the primary tumor could not be identified by biopsy; both were adenocarcinomas. In one of those cases, the patient's medical history and immunostaining of the primary lesion confirmed that the primary tumor was breast cancer (Patient 1, Table 1). The biopsy specimen showed sheet-like growth of atypical cells with a broad cytoplasm that was pale to acidophilic staining (Fig. 1a). Immunostaining analysis revealed estrogen- and progesterone-positive cells (Fig. 1b and c), cytokeratin 5/6–positive cells (Fig. 1d), and a high Ki-67 positivity rate (Fig. 1e). Three cases of DOD were observed as outcomes.
Fig. 1

Histological findings. (a) Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining. (b) Immunostaining shows estrogen receptor (ER)-positive cells, (c) progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive cells, (d) cytokeratin (CK)5/6–positive cells, and (e) Ki-67-positive cells (>30% positivity rate).

Histological findings. (a) Hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining. (b) Immunostaining shows estrogen receptor (ER)-positive cells, (c) progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive cells, (d) cytokeratin (CK)5/6–positive cells, and (e) Ki-67-positive cells (>30% positivity rate). One representative case of a single lesion and one of multiple lesions are described as follows. A 77-year-old woman underwent core needle biopsy of a soft tissue mass on her left shoulder (Fig. 2a: single lesion case; Patient 16, Table 1). Pathological results revealed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Fig. 2

Representative cases of a single lesion and multiple lesions. Patient 16, single lesion: accumulation can be observed on the left shoulder (a). Patient 10, multiple lesions: accumulation can be observed on the right pubis (b) and lumbar vertebra (c). Red arrows indicate the lesions. . (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

Representative cases of a single lesion and multiple lesions. Patient 16, single lesion: accumulation can be observed on the left shoulder (a). Patient 10, multiple lesions: accumulation can be observed on the right pubis (b) and lumbar vertebra (c). Red arrows indicate the lesions. . (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.) A 74-year-old man had lytic lesions on the right pubis and lumbar vertebra; an incisional biopsy was performed at the right pubis (Fig. 2b and c: multiple lesions case; Patient 10, Table 1). Pathological results revealed renal carcinoma.

Discussion

Metastases to the bone reportedly originate from the major sites of primary cancer (i.e., breast, prostate, lung, and thyroid) and most commonly affect the spine (36.0%), hip (32.8%), and long bones (18.3%) [11,12]. Core needle biopsy and fine needle aspiration are useful methods for diagnosing metastatic tumors, since they are safe, accurate, minimally invasive, and have high diagnostic significance [5]. Among bone metastases, the spine is the most frequently aspirated site (49%), followed by the ilium, sacrum, mandible, ribs, and femur [13]. Unfortunately, sample volumes obtained from needle biopsies are sometimes insufficient [11]. Another diagnostic method, CT-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy, is considered a safe and effective technique: only 3 complications (1.6%) have been previously reported, including fracture, paralysis with functional impairment, and needle breakage requiring surgical removal [11]. In contrast to the abovementioned techniques, incisional biopsies have been shown to increase the risk of lesion metastases [14]. In our study, ribs were a relatively common sample collection site (5/21 cases). In all cases, the sample volume was sufficient and useful for diagnosis. The PS scores before biopsy did not affect the choice of biopsy method nor were they associated with complications. Despite the lack of complications, we believe that less invasive biopsy methods should be considered. Previous studies have shown that the primary site identification rate for metastatic bone tumors is 94.1–98.4% [2,11,15], with breast (32.1%) and prostate (11.8%) being the most common primary sites [11]. In our study, the primary site identification rate for such tumors was 90.5% (19/21 cases). This is generally considered effective for the detection of primary lesions. Histological results indicated that the most common primary lesion was hematologic malignancy (9/21 cases). For soft tissue tumors, primary site identification faces certain issues. Histologically, the three most common types of epithelial malignancies are adenocarcinoma, undifferentiated carcinoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma. The remaining 10% are squamous cell carcinoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and rare histological types [16]. Definitive diagnosis of the primary tumor depends largely on the immunostaining technique used [17]. Although immunostaining with cytokeratin 7 and 20 can narrow down the list to some extent, it is often difficult to estimate the primary organ of adenocarcinoma from histology alone [17]. Similarly, in the current study, the primary site for two adenocarcinomas could not be confirmed via biopsy; in one of those cases, the primary site was confirmed by reviewing the patient's history. For such cases, the diagnosis should be based on clinical features and findings, including past medical history. Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) accounts for 2–3% of all epithelial malignancies [18]. Typical treatment for CUP includes a combination of platinum and paclitaxel; however, the level of evidence for this treatment strategy is low [18]. Gemcitabine (alone or in combination with platinum/paclitaxel) has recently been used as alternative therapy for the treatment of CUP [18]; nevertheless, the prognosis for CUP remains extremely poor [19]. In the current study, one patient was treated with chemotherapy consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel, but the outcome at the final follow-up period (49 months after biopsy) was DOD. The other DOD patient in the study had poor PS and had undergone palliative irradiation only, resulting in death from disease at 3 months following the biopsy. Therefore, CUP treatment should be initiated as early as possible.

Limitations

The current study's limitations include its small number of cases and the possibility of bias owing to its retrospective descriptive design. The follow-up period was short; however, considering the poor prognosis of metastatic bone tumors and that our median follow-up period was six months, we believe that the length of the study period was adequate for determining its objectives.

Conclusion

While some of our patients’ primary lesions were identified based on clinical rather than biopsy results, and although a few of the primary lesions remained unidentified, our findings do support that biopsies are generally useful for diagnosing bone and soft tissue metastases and for identifying their primary site. Therefore, we believe that tumor biopsies (together with close interdepartmental collaboration) can improve patient outcomes by enabling prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Future analytical studies are recommended to explore the full potential of this diagnostic tool.

Ethical approval

This case report was conducted according of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (revised in 2013), and approved by the Ethics Committee of Kindai University Hospital (approval number: 31–253; Osaka, Japan; and date of approval February 8, 2020).

Sources of funding

None.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: Kazuhiko Hashimoto, Shunji Nishimura, Tomohiko Ito, Masao Akagi. Methodology: Kazuhiko Hashimoto, Shunji Nishimura, Naohiro Oka, Masao Akagi. Software: Kazuhiko Hashimoto, Tomohiko Ito, Naohiro Oka, Shunji Nishimura. Validation: Shunji Nishimura, Tomohiko Ito, Naohiro Oka, Masao Akagi. Formal analysis: Shunji Nishimura, Naohiro Oka, Masao Akagi. Investigation: Kazuhiko Hashimoto, Tomohiko Ito, Naohiro Oka, Shunji Nishimura. Data curation: Kazuhiko Hashimoto, Shunji Nishimura, Tomohiko Ito, Masao Akagi. Writing – original draft: Kazuhiko Hashimoto, Shunji Nishimura, Tomohiko Ito, Naohiro Oka, Masao Akagi. Writing – review & editing: Kazuhiko Hashimoto, Shunji Nishimura, Tomohiko Ito, Naohiro Oka, Masao Akagi. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Registration of research studies

Name of the registry: The research to confirm prognosis of malignancies the Ethics Committee of Kindai University Hospital. Unique Identifying number or registration ID: approval number: 31-253. Hyperlink to your specific registration (must be publicly accessible and will be checked): https://www.med.kindai.ac.jp/rinsyo/

Guarantor

The Guarantor is Kazuhiko Hashimoto.

Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Declaration of competing interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
  19 in total

1.  Comparing Physician and Nurse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) Ratings as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cancer.

Authors:  Elad Neeman; Gillian Gresham; Navasard Ovasapians; Andrew Hendifar; Richard Tuli; Robert Figlin; Arvind Shinde
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2019-06-21

Review 2.  Diagnosis and management of metastatic neoplasms with unknown primary.

Authors:  Tilmann Bochtler; Harald Löffler; Alwin Krämer
Journal:  Semin Diagn Pathol       Date:  2017-11-26       Impact factor: 3.464

3.  Fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis and management of bone lesions: a study of 450 cases.

Authors:  K K Bommer; I Ramzy; D Mody
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1997-06-25       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  How to Diagnose and Treat a Cancer of Unknown Primary Site.

Authors:  Ciprian Tomuleasa; Florin Zaharie; Mihai-Stefan Muresan; Laura Pop; Zsolt Fekete; Delia Dima; Ioana Frinc; Adrian Trifa; Cristian Berce; Ancuta Jurj; Ioana Berindan-Neagoe; Mihnea Zdrenghea
Journal:  J Gastrointestin Liver Dis       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.008

Review 5.  Understanding the Bone in Cancer Metastasis.

Authors:  Jaime Fornetti; Alana L Welm; Sheila A Stewart
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 6.741

6.  Cancer of unknown primary site: review of consecutive cases at the National Cancer Center Hospital of Japan.

Authors:  Satomi Yakushiji; Masashi Ando; Kan Yonemori; Tsutomu Kohno; Chikako Shimizu; Noriyuki Katsumata; Yasuhiro Fujiwara
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-12-25       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Cytokeratin 7 and cytokeratin 20 expression in epithelial neoplasms: a survey of 435 cases.

Authors:  P Chu; E Wu; L M Weiss
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 7.842

8.  Diagnostic accuracy and charge-savings of outpatient core needle biopsy compared with open biopsy of musculoskeletal tumors.

Authors:  M C Skrzynski; J S Biermann; A Montag; M A Simon
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Metastases to soft tissue: a review of 118 cases over a 30-year period.

Authors:  Jose Antonio Plaza; Delia Perez-Montiel; Joel Mayerson; Carl Morrison; Saul Suster
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Potential impact of invasive surgical procedures on primary tumor growth and metastasis.

Authors:  Maria Alieva; Jacco van Rheenen; Marike L D Broekman
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 5.150

View more
  5 in total

1.  Trends in Diagnosis and Surgical Treatment of Bone Metastases among Orthopedic Surgeons.

Authors:  Dawid Ciechanowicz; Daniel Kotrych; Filip Dąbrowski; Tomasz Mazurek
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-23       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Modified Glasgow prognostic score predicts the prognosis of patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Chanjuan Cui; Xi Wu; Lei Deng; Wenqing Wang; Wei Cui; Yanfeng Wang
Journal:  Thorac Cancer       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 3.223

3.  Communicator-Driven Data Preprocessing Improves Deep Transfer Learning of Histopathological Prediction of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Raphael M Kronberg; Lena Haeberle; Melanie Pfaus; Haifeng C Xu; Karina S Krings; Martin Schlensog; Tilman Rau; Aleksandra A Pandyra; Karl S Lang; Irene Esposito; Philipp A Lang
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 4.  Systemic Effects Reflected in Specific Biomarker Patterns Are Instrumental for the Paradigm Change in Prostate Cancer Management: A Strategic Paper.

Authors:  Olga Golubnitschaja; Peter Kubatka; Alena Mazurakova; Marek Samec; Abdullah Alajati; Frank A Giordano; Vincenzo Costigliola; Jörg Ellinger; Manuel Ritter
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 6.639

5.  Comprehensive treatment outcomes of giant cell tumor of the spine: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Kazuhiko Hashimoto; Shunji Nishimura; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Kensuke Toriumi; Terumasa Ikeda; Masao Akagi
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 1.817

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.