Citations

Abstract Background The treatment of oligometastatic (≤5 metastases) spinal disease has trended toward ablative therapies, yet to the authors’ knowledge little is known regarding the prognosis of patients presenting with oligometastatic spinal disease and the value of this approach. The objective of the current study was to compare the survival and clinical outcomes of patients with cancer with oligometastatic spinal disease with those of patients with polymetastatic (>5 metastases) disease. Methods The current study was an international, multicenter, prospective study. Patients who were admitted to a participating spine center with a diagnosis of spinal metastases and who underwent surgical intervention and/or radiotherapy between August 2013 and May 2017 were included. Data collected included demographics, overall survival, local control, and treatment information including surgical, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy details. Health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) measures included the EuroQOL 5 dimensions 3‐level questionnaire (EQ‐5D‐3L), the 36‐Item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36v2), and the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ). Results Of the 393 patients included in the current study, 215 presented with oligometastatic disease and 178 presented with polymetastatic disease. A significant survival advantage of 90.1% versus 77.3% at 3 months and 77.0% versus 65.1% at 6 months from the time of treatment was found for patients presenting with oligometastatic disease compared with those with polymetastatic disease. It is important to note that both groups experienced significant improvements in multiple HRQOL measures at 6 months after treatment, with no differences in these outcome measures noted between the 2 groups. Conclusions The treatment of oligometastatic disease appears to offer a significant survival advantage compared with polymetastatic disease, regardless of treatment choice. HRQOL measures were found to improve in both groups, demonstrating a palliative benefit for all treated patients.

ABSTRACT The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell‐released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (“MISEV”) guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these “MISEV2014” guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV‐associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.