Cheng, Edward Y.

Introduction: There are many treatment options for patients who have osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) and management strategies vary widely both among and within individual countries. Although many researchers have attempted to elucidate the optimal strategies for managing this disease, the lack of large-scale randomized control trials and the lack of agreement on disease staging have curtailed the development of clear-cut guidelines. Materials and Methods: The Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) group sought to address three questions for the management of patients who have ONFH: 1) What imaging studies are most sensitive and specific for the diagnostic evaluation of patients who have ONFH?; 2) What is the best treatment strategy for preventing disease progression in patients who have pre-collapse lesions?; and 3) What is the best treatment strategy for patients who have post-collapse disease? The Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) format was used to formulate the search strategy for each research question. A systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. ARCO participants have been allocated to three groups, each representing one of the PICO questions. After qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data extracted from studies pertaining to each of the three research questions, a set of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines will be proposed for the management of patients who have ONFH. Discussion: It is not always clear which treatment method is optimal for the management of ONFH. Thus, many surgeons have developed and performed various procedures based on patient-specific factors. As there is no consensus on the optimal treatment for various stages of disease, it was clear that developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines would provide more structure and uniformity to management of these patients. Therefore, the results of this systematic review will lead to the development guidelines that may improve patient-care strategies and result in better outcomes for patients who have ONFH.

Abstract Background: There are many treatment options for patients who have osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) and management strategies vary widely both among and within individual countries. Although many researchers have attempted to elucidate the optimal strategies for managing this disease, the lack of large-scale randomized control trials and the lack of agreement on disease staging have curtailed the development of clear-cut guidelines.Methods: The Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) group sought to address three questions for the management of patients who have ONFH: (1) What imaging studies are most sensitive and specific for the diagnostic evaluation of patients who have ONFH?; (2)What is the best treatment strategy for preventing disease progression in patients who have pre-collapse lesions?; and (3) What is the best treatment strategy for patients who have post-collapse disease? The PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) format was used to formulate the search strategy for each research question. A systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. ARCO participants have been allocated to three groups, each representing one of the PICO questions. After qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data extracted from studies pertaining to each of the three research questions, a set of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines will be proposed for the management of patients who have ONFH. Discussion: It is not always clear which treatment method is optimal for the management of ONFH. Thus, many surgeons have developed and performed various procedures based on various patient-specific factors. As there is no consensus on the optimal treatment for various stages of disease, it was clear that developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines would provide more structure and uniformity to management of these patients. Therefore, the results of this systematic review will lead to the development guidelines that may improve patient-care strategies and result in better outcomes for patients who have ONFH.Systematic Review Registration: Registration with PROSPERO has been submitted and is pending.

Abstract Purpose: Pathologic fractures could be prevented if reliable methods of fracture risk assessment were available. A multicenter prospective study was conducted to identify significant predictors of physicians' treatment plan for skeletal metastasis based on clinical fracture risk assessments and the proposed CT-based Rigidity Analysis (CTRA). Experimental Design: Orthopedic oncologists selected a treatment plan for 124 patients with 149 metastatic lesions based on the Mirels method. Then, CTRA was performed, and the results were provided to the physicians, who were asked to reassess their treatment plan. The pre- and post-CTRA treatment plans were compared to identify cases in which the treatment plan was changed based on the CTRA report. Patients were followed for a 4-month period to establish the incidence of pathologic fractures. Results: Pain, lesion type, and lesion size were significant predictors of the pre-CTRA plan. After providing the CTRA results, physicians changed their plan for 36 patients. CTRA results, pain, and primary source of metastasis were significant predictors of the post-CTRA plan. Follow-up of patients who did not undergo fixation resulted in 7 fractures; CTRA predicted these fractures with 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity, whereas the Mirels method was 71% sensitive and 50% specific. Conclusions: Lesion type and size and pain level influenced the physicians' plans for the management of metastatic lesions. Physicians' treatment plans and fracture risk predictions were significantly influenced by the availability of CTRA results. Due to its high sensitivity and specificity, CTRA could potentially be used as a screening method for pathologic fractures. Clin Cancer Res; 21(11); 2514–9. ©2015 AACR.