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.

BACKGROUND This study was designed to identify preoperative predictors of survival in surgically treated patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC), to examine how these predictors are related to 8 prognostic models, and to perform the first full external validation of these models in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. METHODS One hundred forty‐two surgically treated patients with MESCC were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter North American cohort study and were followed for 12 months or until death. Cox regression was used. Noncollinear predictors with < 10% missing data, with ≥ 10 events per stratum, and with P < .05 in a univariate analysis were tested through a backward stepwise selection. For the original and revised Tokuhashi prognostic scoring systems (PSSs), Tomita PSS, modified Bauer PSS, van der Linden PSS, Bartels model, Oswestry Spinal Risk Index, and Bollen PSS, this study examined calibration graphically, discrimination with Harrell c‐statistics, and survival stratified by risk groups with the Kaplan‐Meier method and log‐rank test. RESULTS The following were significant in the univariate analysis: type of primary tumor, sex, organ metastasis, body mass index, preoperative radiotherapy to MESCC, physical component (PC) of the 36‐Item Short Form Health Survey, version 2 (SF‐36v2), and EuroQol 5‐Dimension (EQ‐5D) Questionnaire. Breast, prostate and thyroid primary tumor (HR: 2.9; P =.0005), presence of organ metastasis (hazard ratio (HR): 2.0; P = .005) and SF‐36v2 PC (HR: 0.95; P < .0001) were associated with survival in multivariable analysis. Predicted prognoses poorly matched observed values on calibration plots; Bartels model calibration slope was 0.45. Bollen PSS (0.61; 95% CI: 0.58‐0.64) and Bartels model (0.68; 95% CI: 0.65‐0.71) had the lowest and highest c‐statistics, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The primary tumor type (breast, prostate, or thyroid), an absence of organ metastasis, and a lower degree of physical disability are preoperative predictors of longer survival for surgical MESCC patients. These results are in keeping with current models. This full external validation of 8 prognostic PSSs or model of survival in surgical MESCC patients has revealed that calibration is poor, especially for long‐term survivors, whereas discrimination is possibly helpful.

Purpose: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion has a low but well-established profile of adverse events. The goal of this study was to gauge surgeon opinion regarding the frequency and acceptability of these events. Methods: A 2-page survey was distributed to attendees at the 2015 Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) meeting. Respondents were asked to categorize 18 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion–related adverse events as either: “common and acceptable,” “uncommon and acceptable,” “uncommon and sometimes acceptable,” or “uncommon and unacceptable.” Results were compiled to generate the relative frequency of these responses for each complication. Responses for each complication event were also compared between respondents based on practice location (US vs. non-US), primary specialty (orthopedics vs. neurosurgery) and years in practice. Results: Of 150 surveys distributed, 115 responses were received (76.7% response rate), with the majority of respondents found to be US-based (71.3%) orthopedic surgeons (82.6%). Wrong level surgery, esophageal injury, retained drain, and spinal cord injury were considered by most to be unacceptable and uncommon complications. Dysphagia and adjacent segment disease occurred most often, but were deemed acceptable complications. Although surgeon experience and primary specialty had little impact on responses, practice location was found to significantly influence responses for 12 of 18 complications, with non-US surgeons found to categorize events more toward the uncommon and unacceptable end of the spectrum as compared with US surgeons. Conclusions: These results serve to aid communication and transparency within the field of spine surgery, and will help to inform future quality improvement and best practice initiatives.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to answer the following questions regarding the use of steroid therapy in metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC): 1. In cases of MSCC, what is the effect of steroid administration before definitive radiotherapy or surgery on ambulatory status, bowel and bladder function and survival? 2. What steroid dosing regimens are associated with the best outcomes concerning neurological symptoms and complication prevention in cases of MSCC? Summary of Background Data: Currently, there is significant variation in the initial bolus dose, daily maintenance dose and duration of treatment when steroids are used as a bridge to definitive therapy for MSCC. Methods: A literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted in June 2016, using Medline via Ovid SP, Medline via PubMed, Embase, Biosis Previews and the Cochrane Library. Search terms used in each database varied slightly to optimize results. All generic steroid formulations were included along with spinal cord compression or myelopathy combined with metastatic or malignant tumors. Papers discussing acute traumatic causes of spinal cord compression were excluded, as were papers discussing cord compression from nonmetastatic tumors or epidural lipomatosis. Subjects were limited to adult humans undergoing definitive treatment with radiotherapy or surgery. Results: Of the 309 papers retrieved, 66 full text studies were reviewed and 6 papers were found to address the stated questions. Conclusions: There is a paucity of high quality literature evaluating the use of steroids in MSCC. On the basis of the evidence available an initial 10 mg intravenous bolus of dexamethasone followed by 16 mg PO QD has been associated with fewer complications compared with 100 mg bolus and 96 mg QD. Weaning of steroids should occur rapidly after definitive treatment. Risk of gastric bleeding or perforation can be managed with the routine use of proton-pump inhibitors. Level of Evidence: Level IIIa.

BACKGROUNDThe Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ) was developed as the first spine oncology‐specific health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) measure. This study evaluated the psychometric properties and clinical validity of the SOSGOQ in a diverse cohort of patients with spinal metastases.METHODSAn international, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study including patients with spinal metastases who underwent surgery and/or radiotherapy was conducted by the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Tumor. Demographic, tumor, and treatment data were collected. HRQOL was evaluated using the SOSGOQ and Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF‐36) at baseline and fixed follow‐up times. Construct validity was assessed using multitrait scaling analyses, confirmatory factor analyses, and correlation with the SF‐36 and NRS pain score. Test‐retest reliability was assessed in a subgroup of patients between 12 weeks after treatment and the retest 4 to 9 days later.RESULTSA total of 238 patients were enrolled at 9 centers across North America; 153 of these patients had HRQOL data available at 12 weeks after treatment. Multitrait scaling analyses and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in a refined version of the SOSGOQ with 4 domains and 4 single items. The revised SOSGOQ (SOSGOQ2.0) demonstrated strong correlations with SF‐36 and the ability to discriminate between clinically distinct patient groups. Reliability of the SOSGOQ2.0 was demonstrated to be good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.58 to 0.92 for the different domains.CONCLUSIONSThe SOSGOQ2.0 is a reliable and valid measure with which to evaluate HRQOL in patients with spinal metastases. It is recommended to use the SOSGOQ2.0 together with a generic HRQOL outcome measure to comprehensively assess HRQOL and increase sensitivity and specificity. Cancer 2018;124:1828‐38. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: Surgical decompression and reconstruction of symptomatic spinal metastases has improved the quality of life in cancer patients. However, most data has been collected on cohorts of patients with mixed tumor histopathology. We systematically reviewed the literature for prognostic factors specific to the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine. Methods: A systemic review of the literature was conducted to answer the following questions: Question 1. Describe the survival and functional outcomes of surgery or vertebral augmentation for prostate metastases to the spine. Question 2. Determine whether overall tumor burden, Gleason score, preoperative functional markers, and hormonal naivety favor operative intervention. Question 3. Establish whether clinical outcomes vary with the evolution of operative techniques. Results: A total of 16 studies met the preset inclusion criteria. All included studies were retrospective series with a level of evidence of IV. Included studies consistently showed a large effect of hormone-naivety on overall survival. Additionally, studies consistently demonstrated an improvement in motor function and the ability to maintain/regain ambulation following surgery resulting in moderate strength of recommendation. All other parameters were of insufficient or low strength. Conclusions: There is a dearth of literature regarding the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine, which represents an opportunity for future research. Based on existing evidence, it appears that the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine has consistently favorable results. While no consistent preoperative indicators favor nonoperative treatment, hormone-naivety and high Karnofsky performance scores have positive effects on survival and clinical outcomes.

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.

Study Design: Retrospective multicenter case series. Objective: To assess the rate of perioperative vision loss following cervical spinal surgery. Methods: Medical records for 17 625 patients from 21 high-volume surgical centers from the AOSpine North America Clinical Research Network who received cervical spine surgery (levels from C2 to C7) between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, inclusive, were reviewed to identify occurrences of vision loss following surgery. Results: Of the 17 625 patients in the registry, there were 13 946 patients assessed for the complication of blindness. There were 9591 cases that involved only anterior surgical approaches; the remaining 4355 cases were posterior and/or circumferential fusions. There were no cases of blindness or vision loss in the postoperative period reported during the sampling period. Conclusions: Perioperative vision loss following cervical spinal surgery is exceedingly rare.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: The safety of new technology such as cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is of paramount importance and is best evaluated in randomized clinical trials (RCT). We compared complication risks of TDR to fusion using data from Investigational Device Exemptions. Methods: A systematic review of FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness reports of the 8 approved cervical TDRs was performed. These were all randomized controlled trials comparing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to TDR. Important outcome variables were dysphagia, wound infection, neurologic injuries, heterotopic ossification, death, and secondary surgeries. A random effects model was selected a priori. Data on adverse events was abstracted and analyzed by calculating relative risk of ACDF to TDR by meta-analysis techniques. Results: The study included 3027 patients with 1377 randomized to ACDF and 1652 to TDR. No statistical differences were present between the 2 groups in dysphagia/dysphonia, hardware related, heterotopic ossification, death, and overall neurologic adverse events and incidence of neurologic deterioration. The relative risk of wound-related problems ACDF to TDR was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59, 0.98) favoring ACDF, which was statistically significant, but these were minor and never required a second surgical procedure for deep wound infection. The relative risk of ACDF to TDR in surgical-related neurologic events and secondary surgeries was 1.62 (95% CI = 1.04, 2.53) and 1.79 (95% CI = 1.17, 2.74), both favoring TDR. Conclusions: Cervical TDR appears to be as safe as or safer than ACDF at 2-year follow-up.