Other than the lung and the liver, the skeletal system, especially the spine, is the third most frequently involved organ by metastases (
3). With a worldwide increase of malignant tumor incidence and to a longer survival time of patients with cancer, a rise in the incidence of bone metastases is observed (
4-
7). The location of predilection is the thoracic vertebrae (60% to 80%), followed by the lumbar vertebrae (15% to 30%), and finally the cervical vertebrae (less than 10%) (
8). Spinal metastases are most often observed in patients with cancer of the breast, lung, liver, and prostate (
8,
9).
The clinical features of spinal metastases range from asymptomatic lesions to radicular pain, pathologic fractures, disability, and sensory deficits caused by radicular, spinal cord damage (
10). Various therapies have been used for treatment of spinal metastases, including bed rest, pain killers, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and/or surgery (
11-
13). However, conservative measures, such as bracing and pain medications always have limited pain control (
14). Pain relief from radiation therapy is not always complete and often delayed. Due to the limited life expectancy and the generally poor condition, surgery is not a better option in these patients. There are many reports about interventional treatment of spinal metastases in the literature. Vertebroplasty or TACE are common means of treatment. PVP has been widely used as a minimal invasive treatment of metastases and has achieved satisfactory therapeutic effects (
15,
16). Currently, pain relief is the mainly evaluation of the treatment efficacy of vertebroplasty on spinal metastases, which mostly result from tumor necrosis, increased spine consolidation and destruction of sensory nerve endings. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) not only has antitumor effects but also acts as an analgesic. Space-occupying effects from bone cement block tumor cell growth. Heat and cytotoxic effects during PMMA polymerization are the main factors that destroy tumor feeding arteries and small nerve fibers and lead to tumor necrosis (
17). In our study, the mean VAS was respectively 7.7 ± 0.8, 5.3 ± 0.6, 3.4 ± 0.8, 2.0 ± 0.6, and 1.5 ± 0.6 at pre-operative, 1-day, 1-week, 1-month, 3-months post-operative time points, which showed a considerable improvement in pain between the pre- and post-operative time points (
Figure 3). Our results are in accordance with those previously published in the literature as regards to the analgesic efficacy of PVP for this indication (
18). The analgesic effect also persisted after PVP throughout the 3-month follow-up period. Cortet et al. reported that PVP achieves an immediate and long time analgesic effect persisting for at least 6 months (
19). However, PVP also has a limited antitumor effect due to limited and incomplete antitumor effect.
Feldman et al. first reported the use of selective arterial embolization for treating bone tumors in 1975 (
20). Arterial embolization was initially performed preoperatively to reduce bleeding surgery. It has been then used as a treatment for various kinds of tumors, which are invalid to conventional treatments. By increasing the local concentration of chemotherapeutic agents, prolonging the action time, and reduction of tumor blood supply, the growth of the tumor was inhibited. By shrinking the size of the tumor, which resulted in nerve root or spinal cord compression, pain relief is achieved (
21). Some authors have demonstrated that chemoembolization alone may significantly alleviate pain resulting from bone metastases (
21-
25). The pain relief begins several hours or days after embolization. Pain relief may result from decreased pressure on the periosteum and tumor shrinkage (
21).
Although vertebroplasty or transarterial chemoembolization alone caused pain relief and antitumor effects, each treatment has different emphasis and mechanism. For pain relief, PVP depends on PMMA to increase spine stability and heat effect to destruct sensory nerve ending. As for transarterial embolization, pain relief may result from tumor shrinkage and decreased pressure on the periosteum. If soft tissue mass is not evident, the effect may not be significant. For antitumor effects, in terms of PVP, space-occupying cement blocks tumor cell growth, as well as cytotoxic and chemical effects of PMMA polymerization. But it has a limited antitumor effect, the distribution of PMMA is not uniform, where PMMA does not disseminate, the remaining tumors will not be killed. While transarterial chemoembolization can obstruct blood supply of the tumor to make tumor ischemia and necrosis, and directly transport chemotherapy drugs to inside the tumors to kill tumor cells. In this way, transarterial chemoembolization kills tumors more thoroughly compared to PVP. For patients with bone metastases, pain relief and improvement of the quality of life is considerably not easy in such limited life span. People always die of all kinds of complications, so we seek to use the combination of PVP and TAI/TACE to make people have a high quality of life in the limited life span. To our knowledge, there are no reports about PVP combined with transarterial chemoembolization in English literature so far. In China, there are few reports about the combination of two therapies. He et al. think that TACE plus PVP is an effective and safe procedure in the treatment of severe painful vertebral and paravertebral metastatic tumors (
26). In this study, the improvement of VAS is respectively 1.4 ± 0.8, 1.8 ± 0.7 at post-operative 1 month, and 3 months. The difference in the VAS was statistically significant between 1m post-op and 1w post-op, which suggests that pain improved after PVP combined with TAI/TACE. The difference in the VAS was statistically significant between 3 m post-op and 1w post-op, which suggests pain relief persisted within 3 months. The difference in the VAS was statistically significant between 1m post-op and 3 m post-op, which suggests that pain further improved after PVP combined with TAI/TACE. The results demonstrated that the combination of PVP and TACE has a definite analgesic effect in treating spinal metastasis. At the same time, preoperative and postoperative 3 months Barthel index was 45.3 ± 12.5 and 85.6 ± 14.2, respectively, indicating that the ability of daily life for patients improved to a great extent. There were no further bone invasion and soft tissue mass increasing on 3months post-operative CT scan, which suggests that the tumor had no recurrence.
Our study had some limitations. First of all, the small sample size made the data inconvincible. Second, the rapid progression of disease and the relatively short time follow-up could mask both benefits and risks of this treatment. In fact, intraarterial chemotherapy could have little effect in the quality of life and pain relief in short term. Third, the limitation relates to the limited number of CT scan and MR images, available to us. Ideally, it would be better to have both types of images available for every patient to better judge the degree of bone destruction. In addition, we did not have a control group for example PVP only or TAI/TACE only to compare the results. A control group with a larger sample size may be more meaningful. However, our study can serve as a scaffold for the design of future researches.
In conclusion, PVP combined with TAI/TACE is a safe and effective technique for treatment of spinal metastases. PVP is effective for pain relief but has a limited antitumor effect, while TACE kills tumors more thoroughly compared to PVP. The combination of two therapies can make up for the shortcomings of each other and obtain definite effect, which markedly improves the living quality of patients.