ReviewCancers2026
Orthopaedic Management of Bone Metastases from Lung Cancer.
Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesBone metastases from lung cancer can cause pain, pathological fracture, spinal instability, metastatic spinal cord compression and loss of independence. Lung cancer-specific evidence for orthopaedically relevant local management remains fragmented. This review assessed outcomes across spinal, appendicular and pelvic skeletal disease, while explicitly examining the anatomical distribution and limitations of the evidence.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Europe PMC and Scopus were searched for original studies published from January 2015 to December 2025. Eligible studies evaluated orthopaedic, surgical, minimally invasive or percutaneous skeletal interventions, including radiotherapy when combined with or directly compared with an orthopaedically relevant local strategy. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and completed the full Joanna Briggs Institute checklist applicable to each design. Findings were synthesised narratively, with evidence certainty assessed using GRADE.
resultsThirty-three studies comprising 3585 participants with lung cancer were included; 26 were retrospective observational studies. Thirty studies predominantly evaluated axial disease, mainly spinal metastases, whereas only six included appendicular lesions; these categories were not mutually exclusive. Local interventions were associated with pain relief, maintenance or recovery of ambulation, neurological improvement and local symptom control in selected patients. Comparative survival findings were inconsistent and vulnerable to selection bias and confounding by indication; no causal survival benefit of surgery was established. Complication patterns differed by intervention type. Overall certainty was low to very low and was weakest for appendicular and pelvic disease.
conclusionsOrthopaedic management can be clinically important for preserving function and controlling mechanical or neurological complications, but the evidence is substantially stronger for spinal than for extraspinal disease. Treatment should remain multidisciplinary and individualised. The proposed decision frameworks are conceptual and guideline-informed rather than validated treatment algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.