Shin, John H.

Objective The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is a metric that measures frailty among patients in large national datasets using ICD-10 codes. While other metrics have been utilized to demonstrate the association between frailty and poor outcomes in spine oncology, none have examined the HFRS. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of frailty using the HFRS on complications, length of stay, cost of admission, and discharge disposition in patients undergoing surgery for primary tumors of the spinal cord and meninges. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2018. Adult patients undergoing surgery for primary tumors of the spinal cord and meninges were identified using ICD-10-CM codes. Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts based on HFRS score: Non-Frail (HFRS<5) and Frail (HFRS≥5). Patient characteristics, treatment, perioperative complications, LOS, discharge disposition, and cost of admission were assessed. Results Of the 5955 patients identified, 1260 (21.2%) were Frail. On average, the Frail cohort was nearly 8 years older ( P < .001) and experienced more postoperative complications ( P = .001). The Frail cohort experienced longer LOS ( P < .001), a higher rate of non-routine discharge ( P = .001), and a greater mean cost of admission ( P < .001). Frailty was found to be an independent predictor of extended LOS ( P < .001) and non-routine discharge ( P < .001). Conclusion Our study is the first to use the HFRS to assess the impact of frailty on patients with primary spinal tumors. We found that frailty was associated with prolonged LOS, non-routine discharge, and increased hospital costs.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: The influence that race has on mortality rates in patients with spinal cord tumors is relatively unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of race on the outcomes of patients with primary malignant or nonmalignant tumors of the spinal cord or spinal meninges. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registry was used to identify all patients with a code for primary malignant or nonmalignant tumor of the spinal cord (C72.0) or spinal meninges (C70.1) from 1973 through 2016. Racial groups (African-American/Black vs. White) were balanced using propensity-score (PS) matching using a non-parsimonious 1:1 nearest neighbor matching algorithm. Overall survival (OS) estimates were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared across non-PS-matched and PS-matched groups using log-rank tests. Associations of survival with clinical variables was assessed using doubly robust Cox proportional-hazards (CPH) regression analysis. Results: There were a total of 7,498 patients identified with 648 (6.8%) being African American. African-American patients with primary intradural spine tumors were more likely to die of all causes than were White patients in both the non-PS-matched [HR: 1.26, 95% CI: (1.04, 1.51), P = 0.01] and PS-matched cohorts [HR: 1.64, 95% CI: (1.28, 2.11), P < 0.0001]. On multivariate CPH regression analysis age at diagnosis [HR: 1.03, 95% CI: (1.02, 1.05), P < 0.0001], race [HR: 1.82, 95% CI: (1.22, 2.74), P = 0.004), and receipt of RT [HR: 2.62, 95% CI: (1.56, 4.37), P = 0.0002) were all significantly associated with all-cause mortality, when controlling for other demographic, tumor, and treatment variables. Conclusions: Our study provides population-based estimates of the prognosis for patients with primary malignant or nonmalignant tumors of the spinal cord or spinal meninges and suggests that race may impact all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVE Oncological resection of primary spine tumors is associated with lower recurrence rates. However, even in the most experienced hands, the execution of a meticulously drafted plan sometimes fails. The objectives of this study were to determine how successful surgical teams are at achieving planned surgical margins and how successful surgeons are in intraoperatively assessing tumor margins. The secondary objective was to identify factors associated with successful execution of planned resection. METHODS The Primary Tumor Research and Outcomes Network (PTRON) is a multicenter international prospective registry for the management of primary tumors of the spine. Using this registry, the authors compared 1) the planned surgical margin and 2) the intraoperative assessment of the margin by the surgeon with the postoperative assessment of the margin by the pathologist. Univariate analysis was used to assess whether factors such as histology, size, location, previous radiotherapy, and revision surgery were associated with successful execution of the planned margins. RESULTS Three hundred patients were included. The surgical plan was successfully achieved in 224 (74.7%) patients. The surgeon correctly assessed the intraoperative margins, as reported in the final assessment by the pathologist, in 239 (79.7%) patients. On univariate analysis, no factor had a statistically significant influence on successful achievement of planned margins. CONCLUSIONS In high-volume cancer centers around the world, planned surgical margins can be achieved in approximately 75% of cases. The morbidity of the proposed intervention must be balanced with the expected success rate in order to optimize patient management and surgical decision-making.

OBJECTIVEPrimary osteosarcoma of the spine is a rare osseous neoplasm. While previously reported retrospective studies have demonstrated that overall patient survival is impacted mostly by en bloc resection and chemotherapy, the continued management of residual disease remains to be elucidated. This systematic review was designed to address the role of revision surgery and multimodal adjuvant therapy in cases in which en bloc excision is not initially achieved.METHODSA systematic literature search spanning the years 1966 to 2015 was performed on PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify reports describing outcomes of patients who underwent biopsy alone, neurological decompression, or intralesional resection for osteosarcoma of the spine. Studies were reviewed qualitatively, and the clinical course of individual patients was aggregated for quantitative meta-analysis.RESULTSA total of 16 studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review, of which 8 case reports were summarized qualitatively. These studies strongly support the role of chemotherapy for overall survival and moderately support adjuvant radiation therapy for local control. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant benefit in overall survival for performing revision tumor debulking (p = 0.01) and also for chemotherapy at relapse (p < 0.01). Adjuvant radiation therapy was associated with longer survival, although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06).CONCLUSIONSWhile the initial therapeutic goal in the management of osteosarcoma of the spine is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by en bloc marginal resection, this objective is not always achievable given anatomical constraints and other limitations at the time of initial clinical presentation. This systematic review supports the continued aggressive use of revision surgery and multimodal adjuvant therapy when possible to improve outcomes in patients who initially undergo subtotal debulking of osteosarcoma. A limitation of this systematic review is that lesions amenable to subsequent resection or tumors inherently more sensitive to adjuvants would exaggerate a therapeutic effect of these interventions when studied in a retrospective fashion.