Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Supportive care interventions in metastatic bone disease: scoping review
  1. Samuel K Simister1,
  2. Rahul Bhale1,
  3. Amy M Cizik2,
  4. Barton L Wise1,3,
  5. Steven W Thorpe1,
  6. Betty Ferrell4,
  7. R Lor Randall1 and
  8. Alex Fauer5,6
  1. 1 Department of Orthopaedics, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA
  2. 2 Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
  3. 3 Department or Internal Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA
  4. 4 Nursing Research and Education, City of Hope, Duarte, California, USA
  5. 5 Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA
  6. 6 Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alex Fauer; ajfauer{at}ucdavis.edu

Abstract

Background Patients with secondary metastatic involvement of the musculoskeletal system due to primary cancers are a rapidly growing population with significant risks for health-related end-of-life morbidities. In particular, bone metastases or metastatic bone disease (MBD) imparts significant adversity to remaining quality of life. No rigorous review of clinical trials on the use of supportive care interventions for MBD has been conducted. The objective of this review was to examine the characteristics of supportive care interventions for MBD and critically appraise study designs, key findings, and quality of evidence of the research.

Methods We searched for published clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in PubMED, CINAHL and Google Scholar for articles published between September 2017 and September 2022. Some examples of Medical Subject Headings terms were: ‘secondary neoplasm’, ‘metastatic bone disease’, ‘palliative care’ and ‘supportive care intervention’. Quality of published evidence was evaluated based on treatment types and study design.

Results After reviewing 572 publications, 13 articles were included in the final review and evaluation including seven clinical trials, two trial protocols and four systematic reviews. Feasible interventions included enhanced palliative care consultation, palliative radiotherapy and alternative medicines. Interventions addressed primary endpoints of fatigue (N=4, 31%), pain (N=3, 23%) or cancer-related symptoms (N=3, 23%) with patient-reported outcome instruments. No interventions reported on fracture complications or endpoints, specifically. The quality of most studies was moderate to strong.

Conclusion Supportive care interventions for MBD are feasible and the impact is measurable via patient-reported outcome measures. While the evidence for interventions was moderate to strong, there are very few specific controlled trials for skeletal-related events and impacts of social determinants of health. Further clinical trials are needed to define supportive care interventions for MBD that demonstrate reduced risk of fracture and that mitigate the reduced quality of life when negative musculoskeletal outcomes arise.

  • Palliative Care
  • Supportive care
  • Bone
  • Spiritual care
  • Fatigue
  • Pain

Data availability statement

Data are available upon request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors SKS and RB: conceptualisation, data collection, data analysis, drafting, review and editing; AMC, BLW, SWT, BF and RLR: conceptualisation, data analysis, drafting, review and editing, supervision. AF: conceptualisation, data collection, data analysis, drafting, guarantor, review and editing, supervision.

  • Funding RB, AMC, BF, RLR, SKS, SWT and BLW have no relevant disclosures or funding to contribute. AF: supported in part by the UC Davis Paul Calabresi Career Development Program for Clinical Oncology funded by the National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health (5K12-CA138464).

  • Competing interests AF is supported in part by the UC Davis Paul Calabresi Career Development Program for Clinical Oncology funded by the National Cancer Institute/National Institutes of Health (5K12-CA138464).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer-reviewed.