Search

Study Design: Prospective observational study.Objective: We present the natural history, including survival and function, among participants in the prospective observational study of spinal metastases treatment investigation.Summary Of Background Data: Surgical treatment has been touted as a means to preserve functional independence, quality of life, and survival. Nearly all prior investigations have been limited by retrospective design and relatively short-periods of post-treatment surveillance.Methods: This natural history study was conducted using the records of patients who were enrolled in the prospective observational study of spinal metastases treatment study (2017-2019). Eligible participants were 18 or older and presenting for treatment of spinal metastatic disease. Patients were followed at predetermined intervals (1, 3, 6, 12, and 24-mo) following treatment. We conducted cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusting for confounders including age, biologic sex, number of comorbidities, type of metastatic lesion, neurologic symptoms at presentation, number of metastases involving the vertebral body, vertebral body collapse, New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS) at presentation, and treatment strategy.Results: We included 202 patients. Twenty-three percent of the population had died by 3 months following treatment initiation, 51% by 1 year, and 70% at 2 years. There was no significant difference in survival between patients treated operatively and nonoperatively (P = 0.16). No significant difference in HRQL between groups was appreciated beyond 3 months following treatment initiation. NESMS at presentation (scores of 0 [HR 5.61; 95% CI 2.83, 11.13] and 1 [HR 3.00; 95% CI 1.60, 5.63]) was significantly associated with mortality.Conclusion: We found that patients treated operatively and nonoperatively for spinal metastases benefitted from treatment in terms of HRQL. Two-year mortality for the cohort as a whole was 70%. When prognosticating survival, the NESMS appears to be an effective utility, particularly among patients with scores of 0 or 1.Level of Evidence: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Context: The New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS) was recently proposed to help predict 1-year survival following surgery for spinal metastases. Its ability to predict short-term outcomes, including 30-day morbidity, mortality, and hospital length of stay, has not been evaluated.Purpose: Assess the capacity of NESMS to predict 30-day morbidity and mortality, as well as hospital length of stay, following surgery for spinal metastases.Study Design: Validation study.Patient Sample: All patients who had undergone spinal surgery with a history of metastatic spinal disease within the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP; 2007-2013).Outcome Measure: Mortality, complications, failure to rescue, and length of stay.Methods: Demographic, oncologic, laboratory, and surgical data were obtained from the NSQIP. All patients were assigned an NESMS score (0-3). The effect of the NESMS score on the outcomes of interest was assessed using multivariable logistic regression and negative binomial regression that controlled for confounders. Final model discrimination and calibration were assessed using the c-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. Internal validation was performed using a bootstrapping procedure.Results: NSQIP data on 776 patients were included in this analysis. The 30-day mortality rate was 11% (N=87), and 51% of patients (N=395) sustained one or more complications. The final adjusted model demonstrated that the NESMS was a statistically significant predictor of 30-day mortality (p<.001), major systemic complications (p<.001), and failure to rescue (p=.03) following metastatic spinal surgery. Patients with an NESMS score of 3 had an 89% reduction in mortality (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04, 0.31), a 74% reduction in major systemic complications (95% CI: 0.11, 0.62), and an 88% reduction in failure to rescue (95% CI: 0.03, 0.47) as compared with those with a score of 0. The final model explained 71% of the variation in 30-day mortality. Findings were unchanged in the bootstrap analysis performed among 77,600 patient replicates.Conclusion: This study demonstrates the clinical accuracy of the NESMS score for predicting short-term major morbidity and mortality following metastatic spinal surgery. The success of this score in an independent cohort of patients collected from centers across the United States indicates its potential for translation to clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Molecular target therapies have markedly improved the survival of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, especially those with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. A positive EGFR mutation is even more critical when the chronicity of spinal metastasis is considered. However, most prognostic models that estimate the life expectancy of spinal metastasis patients do not include these biological factors. We retrospectively reviewed 85 consecutive NSCLC patients who underwent palliative surgical treatment for spinal metastases to evaluate the following: (1) the prognostic value of positive EGFR mutation and the chronicity of spinal metastasis, and (2) the clinical significance of adding these two factors to an existing prognostic model, namely the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS). Among 85 patients, 38 (44.7%) were EGFR mutation-positive. Spinal metastasis presented as the initial manifestation of malignancy in 58 (68.2%) patients. The multivariate Cox proportional hazard model showed that the chronicity of spinal metastasis (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.88, p = 0.015) and EGFR mutation positivity (HR = 2.10, p = 0.002) were significantly associated with postoperative survival. The Uno's C-index and time-dependent AUC 6 months following surgery significantly increased when these factors were added to NESMS (p = 0.004 and p = 0.022, respectively). In conclusion, biological factors provide an additional prognostic value for NSCLC patients with spinal metastasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]