Radical intraoperative thermal ablation of osteogenic sarcoma: clinical observation

Introduction. Difficult diagnosis, aggressive progression, and absence of an increase in treatment effectiveness (especially in patients with osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma) make malignant tumors of the bones a significant medical problem. Use of traditional therapy methods is often associated with development of drug resistance and frequent recurrences. Therefore, there is a need for new treatment strategies and overcoming of the limitations of traditional methods through their improvement, combination or substitution to achieve higher survival, lower recurrence rate, and wider availability for patients with bone tumors.

Aim. To present a clinical observation of the use of a new method of radical intraoperative thermal ablation for bone tumors, assess exposure tolerance, long-term oncological and functional results.

Clinical observation. This article presents a clinical case of the use of a new radical treatment method for a patient with tibial osteosarcoma who underwent intraoperative thermal ablation using a new domestic complex of local hyperthermia “Phoenix-2”.

Results. A session of intraoperative thermal ablation was performed in the operating room under anesthesia directly in the wound for 48 minutes. Access to the tumor-affected bone was performed with the standard oncological approach (en-block), the bone was not transected or removed. A constant heating mode of 90 °С was used, assuming a gradual increase in temperature. Thus, 60 °С reached 20 minutes, and the temperature at the end of high-temperature exposure was 78 °С (inside the medullary canal). The operation time was 2 hours 30 minutes. The postoperative period proceeded without complications. After 38 months of follow-up, examinations did not reveal any recurrence or progression in the patient.

Conclusion. The technique of radical intraoperative thermal ablation using a local hyperthermia complex Phoenix-2 is effective and allows to widen the toolkit of treatment methods for patients with bone tumors. It can serve as an alternative or addition to organ-preserving surgical treatment without costly reconstruction stages.

1. Aliyev M.D. Malignant bone tumors. Sarkomy kostei miagkikh tkanei i opukholi kozhi = Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas, Tumors of the Skin 2010;(2):3–8. (In Russ.).

2. Bartelstein M.K., Boland P.J. Fifty years of bone tumors. J Surg Oncol 2022;126(5):906–12. DOI: 10.1002/jso.27027

3. Luetke A., Meyers P.A., Lewis I., Juergens H. Osteosarcoma treatment – where do we stand? A state-of-the-art review. Cancer Treat Rev 2014;40(4):523–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.11.006

4. Valiev A.K., Teplyakov V.V., Musaev E.R et al. Practical recommendations for the treatment of primary malignant bone tumors. Zlokachestvennye opuholi: Prakticheskie rekomendacii RUSSCO #3s2 = Malignant Tumors: Practice Guidelines RUSSCO #3s2 2022;12:307–29. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2022-12-3s2-307-329

5. Kurilchik A.A., Starodubtsev A.L., Zubarev A.L. et al. Endoprosthesis revision in cancer patients. MRRC experience Sarkomy kostei miagkikh tkanei i opukholi kozhi = Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas, Tumors of the Skin 2019;11(3):35–41. (In Russ.).

6. Sergeev P.S., Teplyakov V.V., Shaposhnikov V.A. et al. Joint replacement in patients with bone tumors: a modern view. Sarkomy kostei miagkikh tkanei i opukholi kozhi = Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas, Tumors of the Skin 2017;1:12–9. (In Russ.).

7. Panagopoulos G.N., Mavrogenis A.F., Mauffrey C. et al. Intercalary reconstructions after bone tumor resections: a review of treatments. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2017;27(6):737–46. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-017-1985-x

8. Streitbürger A., Hardes J., Nottrott M. et al. Reconstruction survival of segmental megaendoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of 28 patients treated for intercalary bone defects after musculoskeletal tumor resections. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022;142(1):41–56. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03583-4

9. Bădilă A.E., Rădulescu D.M., Niculescu A.G. et al.. Recent advances in the treatment of bone metastases and primary bone tumors: an up-todate review. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13(16):4229. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13164229

10. Siegel R.L., Mph K.D.M., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA A Cancer J Clin 2020;70(1):7–30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21590

11. Thanindratarn P., Dean D.C., Nelson S.D. et al. Advances in immune checkpoint inhibitors for bone sarcoma therapy. J Bone Oncol 2019;15:100221. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbo.2019.100221

12. Prasad S.R., Kumar T.S.S., Jayakrishnan A. Nanocarrier-based drug delivery systems for bone cancer therapy: a review. Biomed Mater 2021;16(4). DOI: 10.1088/1748-605X/abf7d5

13. Kok H.P., Cressman E.N.K., Ceelen W. et al. Heating technology for malignant tumors: a review. Int J Hyperthermia 2020;37(1):711–41. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2020.1779357

14. Kroesen M., Mulder H.T., Van Holthe J.M.L. et al. Confirmation of thermal dose as a predictor of local control in cervical carcinoma patients treated with state-of-the-art radiation therapy and hyperthermia. Radiother Oncol 2019;140:150–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.06.021

15. Bakker A., Van der Zee J., Van Tienhoven G. et al. Temperature and thermal dose during radiotherapy and hyperthermia for recurrent breast cancer are related to clinical outcome and thermal toxicity: a systematic review. Int J Hyperthermia 2019;36(1):1024–39. DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2019.1665718

16. Prakash P., Diederich C.J. Considerations for theoretical modelling of thermal ablation with catheter-based ultrasonic sources: implications for treatment planning, monitoring and control. Int J Hyperthermia. 2012;28(1):69–86. DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2011.630337

17. Thompson S.M., Schmitz J.J., Schmit G.D. et al. Image-guided thermal ablative therapies in the treatment of sarcoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2017;18(4):25. DOI: 10.1007/s11864-017-0465-1

18. Kurup A.N., Schmit G.D., Morris J.M. et al. Avoiding complications in bone and soft tissue ablation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2016;40(2):166–76. DOI: 10.1007/s00270-016-1487-y

19. Manabe J., Ahmed A.R., Kawaguchi N. et al. Pasteurized autologous bone graft in surgery for bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;419:258–66. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200402000-00042

20. Singh V.A., Nagalingam J., Saad M., Pailoor J. Which is the best method of sterilization of tumour bone for reimplantation? A biomechanical and histopathological study. BioMedical Engineering OnLine 2010;9:48. DOI: 10.1186/1475-925Х-9-48

21. Anisimova N.Yu., Kiselevsky M.V., Abdullaev A.G. et al. Effect of hyperthermia on the viability and proliferative activity of tumor cells. Rossijskij onkologicheskij zhurnal = Russian Journal of Oncology 2016;21(5): 250–2. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18821/1028-9984-2016-21-5-250-252

22. Pakhmurin D.O., Pakhmurina V.V., Anisenya I.I., Sitnikov P.K. Experimental study of the temperature distribution in long tubular bones with a periossal arrangement of heaters. Sibirskij onkologicheskij zhurnal = Siberian Journal of Oncology 2023;22(2):65–75. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21294/1814-4861-2023-22-2-65-75

23. Pakhmurin D., Pakhmurina V., Kostyuchenko E. et al. Compressive strength characteristics of long tubular bones after hyperthermal ablation. Symmetry 2022;14(2):303. DOI: 10.3390/sym14020303

24. Pakhmurin D., Pakhmurina V., Kashin A.[et al. Mechanical and Histological Characteristics of Human Tubular Bones after Hyperthermal Treatment. Symmetry 2023;15:156. DOI: 10.3390/sym15010156