Gangi, Afshin

Interventional oncology (IO) employs image-guided techniques to perform minimally invasive procedures, providing lower-risk alternatives to many traditional medical and surgical therapies for cancer patients. Since its advent, due to rapidly evolving research development, its role has expanded to encompass the diagnosis and treatment of diseases across multiple body systems. In detail, interventional oncology is expanding its role across a wide spectrum of disease sites, offering a potential cure, control, or palliative care for many types of cancer patients. Due to its widespread use, a comprehensive review of the new indications for locoregional procedures is mandatory. This article summarizes the expert discussion and report from the “MIOLive Meet SIO” (Society of Interventional Oncology) session during the last MIOLive 2022 (Mediterranean Interventional Oncology Live) congress held in Rome, Italy, integrating evidence-reported literature and experience-based perceptions. The aim of this paper is to provide an updated review of the new techniques and devices available for innovative indications not only to residents and fellows but also to colleagues approaching locoregional treatments.

12086 Background: Patients with bone metastases may experience pain and decreased quality of life. Standard of care therapies such as radiation therapy could take weeks for pain relief and carry a risk of radiation induced fracture. Minimally invasive percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have been shown in small observational studies to be an alternative treatment for bone metastases. We report the results of the OPuS One trial evaluating RFA for the palliative treatment of patients with painful bone metastases. Methods: OPuS One (NCT03249584) was a multicenter prospective trial. 218 subjects with painful bone metastases (≥ 4/10 worst pain scores, Brief Pain Inventory [BPI], at target treated site) were enrolled from 15 sites. RFA was performed under image guidance at one or two locations. Vertebral augmentation was followed based on physician’s discretion. Subjects’ pain (BPI) and quality of life (EQ-5D) scores were calculated in subjects at three days, one week, and one, three, six, and 12 months post RFA. Rate of complete (0 pain score at treated site with no concomitant analgesic increase) and partial responders (≥ 2 pain score reduction without analgesic increase or analgesic reduction of ≥ 25% from baseline) were calculated. Device-, procedure-, and/or therapy-related adverse events (AEs) were collected. Results: 206 subjects, 113 (55%) female and 93 (45%) males (mean age was 63.7 years) were treated with RFA. Most common primary cancers were breast (23%), lung (23%), and kidney (10%). 184 (89%) subjects were treated for metastatic lesions involving the thoracolumbar spine and 22 (11%) subjects were treated for iliac crest, periacetabulum, sacrum or mixed vertebral and pelvic location. 99% (262/264) of RFA procedures were technically successful and 97% were followed by vertebral augmentation. Subjects reported significant improvement in worst pain from baseline at 7.8 to 5.5, 4.7, 3.6, 3.2, 2.4, and 2.6 at three days, one week and one, three, six, and 12 months post RFA, respectively (p < 0.0001 for all visits). Significant improvements were also seen in average pain (p < 0.0001 for all visits), pain interference (p < 0.0001 for all visits), and quality of life scores (p < 0.0001 for all visits). Overall response rates were 53%, 58%, 61%, 63%, 70%, and 75% at three days, one week, one month, three months, six months, and twelve months post RFA, respectively. Six AEs were reported with three as serious: intra-abdominal fluid collection, pneumonia and respiratory failure. 82 deaths were reported during the study, none were related to the device, therapy, and/or procedure. No skeletal related events were reported. Conclusions: In a large prospective multicenter trial, OPuS One, RFA provided rapid, significant, and durable improvements in pain relief and quality of life up to 12 months. Clinical trial information: NCT03249584.

AbstractThe Metastatic Spine Disease Multidisciplinary Working Group consists of medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons, and interventional radiologists from multiple comprehensive cancer centers who have developed evidence- and expert opinion-based algorithms for managing metastatic spine disease. The purpose of these algorithms is to facilitate interdisciplinary referrals by providing physicians with straightforward recommendations regarding the use of available treatment options, including emerging modalities such as stereotactic body radiation therapy and percutaneous tumor ablation. This consensus document details the evidence supporting the Working Group algorithms and includes illustrative cases to demonstrate how the algorithms may be applied.Implications for Practice:The Metastatic Spine Disease Multidisciplinary Working Group algorithms can facilitate interdisciplinary referrals by providing physicians with straightforward recommendations regarding available treatment options, including emerging modalities such as stereotactic body radiation therapy and percutaneous tumor ablation.