Malignant giant cell tumor of bone: possibilities of diagnosis and monitoring of the process when using the denosumab

Introduction. Giant cell tumor (GCT) of bone is a relatively rare neoplasm. Its malignant transformation in the form of sarcomatous changes occurs in 8–10 % of cases. The literature lacks data on radiological signs and differential diagnostic criteria of primary malignant GCT of bone. Clear guidelines on the density range of the affected area  for differential diagnosis are also absent.

 Aim. To analyze dynamics of tumor density changes in patients with malignant GCT of bone using computed tomography densitometry.

 Materials and methods. Ten patients (mean age 45.8 ± 4.2 years, range 28–58 years) with malignant GCT of bone were examined. All underwent treatment with denosumab with subsequent surgical intervention. Bone changes were assessed visually. Densitometric analysis was performed in accordance with a method developed by us involving determination of tumor density in Housefield units (HU) and relative tumor density index (k) (ratio between tumor density and density of the unaffected limb at the same level).

 Results. After 6 injections of denosumab, a clear sclerotic rim appeared at the tumor periphery containing thin lines of ossification. Analysis of densitometric parameters showed that tumor density after denosumab administration increased from 46.3 (median (Мe) 35.0; interquartile range (IQR) 51.4) HU to 88.8 (Мe 84.8; IQR 118.4) HU, while relative tumor density index increased from 0.33 (Me 0.22; IQR 0.45) to 0.68 (Me 0.62; IQR 0.89). Earlier we have published threshold values of these parameters (≥139.5 HU and ≥0.97, respectively) at which probability of residual tumor is lowered (sensitivity 81.8 %, specificity 96.6 %). Taking into account these values, 9 of 10 patients required continuation of therapy.

 Conclusion. Computed tomography densitometry allows to evaluate changes caused by denosumab therapy in patients with malignant GCT of bone. According to radiological data, progression of this disease has unique features. Taking into account histological types of malignant GCT, longer periods of observation and denosumab administration or changes in treatment tactics at the preoperative stage can be considered, as well as potential use of this drug in other primary bone tumors.

1. Lopez-Pousa A., Martıґn Broto J., Garrido T., Vaґzquez J. Giant cell tumour of bone: new treatments in development. Clin Transl Oncol 2015;17(6):419–30. DOI: 10.1007/s12094-014-1268-5

2. Unni K.K., Inwards C. Dahlin’s bone tumours: general aspects and data on 10165 cases. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2010.

3. Nagano A., Urakawa H., Tanaka K., Ozaki T. Current management of giant-cell tumor of bone in the denosumab era. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2022;52(5):411–6. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyac018

4. Kito M., Matusmoto S., Tanizawa K. et al. Pulmonary metastasis from giant cell tumor of bone: clinical outcome prior to the introduction of molecular target therapy. Jap J Clin Oncol 2017;6(47):529–34. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyx033

5. Tahir I., Andrei V., Pollock R., Saifuddin A. Malignant giant cell tumour of bone: a review of clinical, pathological and imaging features. Skeletal Radiol 2022;51(5):957–70. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-021-03913-6

6. Bertoni F., Bacchini P., Staals E.L. Malignancy in giant cell tumor of bone. Cancer 2003;97(10):2520–9. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11359

7. Domovitov S.V., Healey J.H. Primary malignant giant-cell tumor of bone has high survival rate. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17(3):694–701. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0803-z

8. Palmerini E., Picci P., Reichardt P., Downey G. Malignancy in giant cell tumor of bone: a review of the literature. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2019;18:1533033819840000. DOI: 10.1177/1533033819840000

9. Kransdorf M.J., Murphey M.D. Giant cell tumor. In: Imaging of bone tumors and tumor-like lesions, techniques and applications. Springer, 2009. Pp. 321–365.

10. Amanatullah D.F., Clark T.R., Lopez М.J. et al. Giant cell tumor of bone. Orthopedics 2014;3(37):112–20. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20140124-08

11. Dydykina P.S., Petrova E.V., Dydykina I.S. Dynamics of clinical and radiological parameters on the background of denosumab therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving glucocorticoids: preliminary results. Nauchno-prakticheskaya revmatologiya = Scientific and Practical Rheumatology 2015;53(4):397–402. DOI: 10.14412/1995-4484-2015-397-402

12. Gershtein E.S., Timofeev Yu.S., Zuev A.A., Kushlinsky N.E. The ligand-receptor system RANK/RANKL/OPG and its role in primary bone neoplasms (literature analysis and own results). Uspekhi molekulyarnoy onkologii = Advances in Molecular Oncology 2015;3(2):51–9. DOI: 10.17650/2313-805X-2015-2-3-51-59

13. Basu Mallick A., Chawla S.P. Giant cell tumor of bone: an update. Curr Oncol Rep 2021;23(5):51. DOI: 10.1007/s11912-021-01047-5

14. Huvos A.G., Rosen G., Marcove R.C. Primary osteogenic sarcoma: pathologic aspects in 20 patients after treatment with chemotherapy en bloc resection, and prosthetic bone replacement. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1977;101(1):14–8.

15. Tabakaev S.A., Frolova I.G., Anisenya I.I. et al. Analysis of density characteristics of giant cell bone tumor in denosumab treatment according to computed tomography. Onkologicheskij zhurnal: luchevaya diagnostika, luchevaya terapiya. Oncological Journal: Radiation Diagnostics, Radiation Therapy 2021;4(1):31–41. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.37174/2587-7593-2021-4-1-31-41

16. Tabakaev S.A., Frolova I.G., Anisenya I.I. et al. Comparative analysis of quantitative computed tomography and morphological examination data in patients with giant cell bone tumor treated with denosumab. Sibirskiy onkologicheskiy zhurnal = Siberian Oncological Journal 2021; 20(2):22–8. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21294/1814-4861-2021-20-2-22-28