Comparing long and intermediate-length plates for metastatic bone disease of the proximal humerus: A retrospective analysis.

AIMS: Managing proximal humerus pathologic fractures requires strategic planning to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Traditionally, fixation of the humerus using long devices has been considered the standard of care, but emerging evidence has challenged this approach. This study aimed to compare long plates (LPs) and intermediate-length plates (IPs) in this clinical context. METHODS: Forty-four patients with proximal humerus metastatic bone disease were retrospectively studied from 2013 to 2019, with 11 (25%) receiving long plates (LPs) and 33 (75%) intermediate-length plates (IPs). Outcomes included tumor progression, reoperation rates, postoperative anemia, blood loss, operation time, and hospitalization duration. Tumor progression was classified into three categories, with Type III progression (new metastatic lesions in the distal humerus) theoretically benefiting most from whole bone stabilization. RESULTS: Tumor progression occurred in three patients (7%), all of them was in IPs. No revision surgery was needed to address these tumor progressions, including one type III progression which occurred 34 months postoperatively after IP surgery. IP were associated with a reduced operation time compared with LP (median, 1.5 h [IQR, 1.2-1.9] vs. 2.4 [IQR, 1.7-2.5]; p = 0.004). No differences were found for the other perioperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal a low incidence of tumor progression and low reoperation rates in both groups. The shortened operative time associated with IP use suggests its particular suitability for patients with limited life expectancy. Further research is needed to elucidate the ideal prosthesis length that best balances the risks and benefits when addressing proximal humerus metastatic disease.

Are Current Survival Prediction Tools Useful When Treating Subsequent Skeletal-related Events From Bone Metastases?

BACKGROUND: Bone metastasis in advanced cancer is challenging because of pain, functional issues, and reduced life expectancy. Treatment planning is complex, with consideration of factors such as location, symptoms, and prognosis. Prognostic models help guide treatment choices, with Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithms (SORG-MLAs) showing promise in predicting survival for initial spinal metastases and extremity metastases treated with surgery or radiotherapy. Improved therapies extend patient lifespans, increasing the risk of subsequent skeletal-related events (SREs). Patients experiencing subsequent SREs often suffer from disease progression, indicating a deteriorating condition. For these patients, a thorough evaluation, including accurate survival prediction, is essential to determine the most appropriate treatment and avoid aggressive surgical treatment for patients with a poor survival likelihood. Patients experiencing subsequent SREs often suffer from disease progression, indicating a deteriorating condition. However, some variables in the SORG prediction model, such as tumor histology, visceral metastasis, and previous systemic therapies, might remain consistent between initial and subsequent SREs. Given the prognostic difference between patients with and without a subsequent SRE, the efficacy of established prognostic models-originally designed for individuals with an initial SRE-in addressing a subsequent SRE remains uncertain. Therefore, it is crucial to verify the model's utility for subsequent SREs. QUESTION/PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the reliability of the SORG-MLAs for survival prediction in patients undergoing surgery or radiotherapy for a subsequent SRE for whom both the initial and subsequent SREs occurred in the spine or extremities. METHODS: We retrospectively included 738 patients who were 20 years or older who received surgery or radiotherapy for initial and subsequent SREs at a tertiary referral center and local hospital in Taiwan between 2010 and 2019. We excluded 74 patients whose initial SRE was in the spine and in whom the subsequent SRE occurred in the extremities and 37 patients whose initial SRE was in the extremities and the subsequent SRE was in the spine. The rationale was that different SORG-MLAs were exclusively designed for patients who had an initial spine metastasis and those who had an initial extremity metastasis, irrespective of whether they experienced metastatic events in other areas (for example, a patient experiencing an extremity SRE before his or her spinal SRE would also be regarded as a candidate for an initial spinal SRE). Because these patients were already validated in previous studies, we excluded them in case we overestimated our result. Five patients with malignant primary bone tumors and 38 patients in whom the metastasis's origin could not be identified were excluded, leaving 584 patients for analysis. The 584 included patients were categorized into two subgroups based on the location of initial and subsequent SREs: the spine group (68% [399]) and extremity group (32% [185]). No patients were lost to follow-up. Patient data at the time they presented with a subsequent SRE were collected, and survival predictions at this timepoint were calculated using the SORG-MLAs. Multiple imputation with the Missforest technique was conducted five times to impute the missing proportions of each predictor. The effectiveness of SORG-MLAs was gauged through several statistical measures, including discrimination (measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]), calibration, overall performance (Brier score), and decision curve analysis. Discrimination refers to the model's ability to differentiate between those with the event and those without the event. An AUC ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating the worst discrimination and 1.0 indicating perfect discrimination. An AUC of 0.7 is considered clinically acceptable discrimination. Calibration is the comparison between the frequency of observed events and the predicted probabilities. In an ideal calibration, the observed and predicted survival rates should be congruent. The logarithm of observed-to-expected survival ratio [log(O:E)] offers insight into the model's overall calibration by considering the total number of observed (O) and expected (E) events. The Brier score measures the mean squared difference between the predicted probability of possible outcomes for each individual and the observed outcomes, ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating perfect overall performance and 1 indicating the worst performance. Moreover, the prevalence of the outcome should be considered, so a null-model Brier score was also calculated by assigning a probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome (in this case, the actual survival rate) to each patient. The benefit of the prediction model is determined by comparing its Brier score with that of the null model. If a prediction model's Brier score is lower than the null model's Brier score, the prediction model is deemed as having good performance. A decision curve analysis was performed for models to evaluate the "net benefit," which weighs the true positive rate over the false positive rate against the "threshold probabilities," the ratio of risk over benefit after an intervention was derived based on a comprehensive clinical evaluation and a well-discussed shared-decision process. A good predictive model should yield a higher net benefit than default strategies (treating all patients and treating no patients) across a range of threshold probabilities. RESULTS: For the spine group, the algorithms displayed acceptable AUC results (median AUCs of 0.69 to 0.72) for 42-day, 90-day, and 1-year survival predictions after treatment for a subsequent SRE. In contrast, the extremity group showed median AUCs ranging from 0.65 to 0.73 for the corresponding survival periods. All Brier scores were lower than those of their null model, indicating the SORG-MLAs' good overall performances for both cohorts. The SORG-MLAs yielded a net benefit for both cohorts; however, they overestimated 1-year survival probabilities in patients with a subsequent SRE in the spine, with a median log(O:E) of -0.60 (95% confidence interval -0.77 to -0.42). CONCLUSION: The SORG-MLAs maintain satisfactory discriminatory capacity and offer considerable net benefits through decision curve analysis, indicating their continued viability as prediction tools in this clinical context. However, the algorithms overestimate 1-year survival rates for patients with a subsequent SRE of the spine, warranting consideration of specific patient groups. Clinicians and surgeons should exercise caution when using the SORG-MLAs for survival prediction in these patients and remain aware of potential mispredictions when tailoring treatment plans, with a preference for less invasive treatments. Ultimately, this study emphasizes the importance of enhancing prognostic algorithms and developing innovative tools for patients with subsequent SREs as the life expectancy in patients with bone metastases continues to improve and healthcare providers will encounter these patients more often in daily practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Psoas muscle area is an independent survival prognosticator in patients undergoing surgery for long-bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Predictive analytics is gaining popularity as an aid to treatment planning for patients with bone metastases, whose expected survival should be considered. Decreased psoas muscle area (PMA), a morphometric indicator of suboptimal nutritional status, has been associated with mortality in various cancers, but never been integrated into current survival prediction algorithms (SPA) for patients with skeletal metastases. This study investigates whether decreased PMA predicts worse survival in patients with extremity metastases and whether incorporating PMA into three modern SPAs (PATHFx, SORG-NG, and SORG-MLA) improves their performance. METHODS: One hundred eighty-five patients surgically treated for long-bone metastases between 2014 and 2019 were divided into three PMA tertiles (small, medium, and large) based on their psoas size on CT. Kaplan-Meier, multivariable regression, and Cox proportional hazards analyses were employed to compare survival between tertiles and examine factors associated with mortality. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether incorporating adjusted PMA values enhanced the three SPAs' discriminatory abilities. The clinical utility of incorporating PMA into these SPAs was evaluated by decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: Patients with small PMA had worse 90-day and 1-year survival after surgery (log-rank test p < 0.001). Patients in the large PMA group had a higher chance of surviving 90 days (odds ratio, OR, 3.72, p = 0.02) and 1 year than those in the small PMA group (OR 3.28, p = 0.004). All three SPAs had increased AUC after incorporation of adjusted PMA. DCA indicated increased net benefits at threshold probabilities >0.5 after the addition of adjusted PMA to these SPAs. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased PMA on CT is associated with worse survival in surgically treated patients with extremity metastases, even after controlling for three contemporary SPAs. Physicians should consider the additional prognostic value of PMA on survival in patients undergoing consideration for operative management due to extremity metastases.

Determining patients with spinal metastases suitable for surgical intervention: A cost-effective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both nonoperative and operative treatments for spinal metastasis are expensive interventions. Patients' expected 3-month survival is believed to be a key factor to determine the most suitable treatment. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study lends support to the hypothesis. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of operative and nonoperative interventions, stratified by patients' predicted probability of 3-month survival. METHODS: A Markov model with four defined health states was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for operative intervention with postoperative radiotherapy and radiotherapy alone (palliative low-dose external beam radiotherapy) of spine metastases. Transition probabilities for the model, including the risks of mortality and functional deterioration, were obtained from secondary and our institutional data. Willingness to pay thresholds were prespecified at $100,000 and $150,000. The analyses were censored after 5-year simulation from a health system perspective and discounted outcomes at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the study design. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $140,907 per QALY for patients with a 3-month survival probability >50%, $3,178,510 per QALY for patients with a 3-month survival probability <50%, and $168,385 per QALY for patients with independent ambulatory and 3-month survival probability >50%. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the need to choose patients carefully and estimate preoperative survival for those with spinal metastases. In addition to reaffirming previous research regarding the influence of ambulatory status on cost-effectiveness, our study goes a step further by highlighting that operative intervention with postoperative radiotherapy could be more cost-effective than radiotherapy alone for patients with a better survival outlook. Accurate survival prediction tools and larger future studies could offer more detailed insights for clinical decisions.

External validation of machine learning algorithm predicting prolonged opioid prescriptions in opioid-naïve lumbar spine surgery patients using a Taiwanese cohort.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Identifying patients at risk of prolonged opioid use after surgery prompts appropriate prescription and personalized treatment plans. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine learning algorithm (SORG-MLA) was developed to predict the risk of prolonged opioid use in opioid-naive patients after lumbar spine surgery. However, its utility in a distinct country remains unknown. METHODS: A Taiwanese cohort containing 2795 patients who were 20 years or older undergoing primary surgery for lumbar decompression from 2010 to 2018 were used to validate the SORG-MLA. Discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] and area under precision-recall curve [AUPRC]), calibration, overall performance (Brier score), and decision curve analysis were applied. RESULTS: Among 2795 patients, the prolonged opioid prescription rate was 5.2%. The validation cohort were older, more inpatient disposition, and more common pharmaceutical history of NSAIDs. Despite the differences, the SORG-MLA provided a good discriminative ability (AUROC of 0.71 and AURPC of 0.36), a good overall performance (Brier score of 0.044 compared to that of 0.039 in the developmental cohort). However, the probability of prolonged opioid prescription tended to be overestimated (calibration intercept of -0.07 and calibration slope of 1.45). Decision curve analysis suggested greater clinical net benefit in a wide range of clinical scenarios. CONCLUSION: The SORG-MLA retained good discriminative abilities and overall performances in a geologically and medicolegally different region. It was suitable for predicting patients in risk of prolonged postoperative opioid use in Taiwan.

Does the Presence of Missing Data Affect the Performance of the SORG Machine-learning Algorithm for Patients With Spinal Metastasis? Development of an Internet Application Algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA) was developed to predict the survival of patients with spinal metastasis. The algorithm was successfully tested in five international institutions using 1101 patients from different continents. The incorporation of 18 prognostic factors strengthens its predictive ability but limits its clinical utility because some prognostic factors might not be clinically available when a clinician wishes to make a prediction. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed this study to (1) evaluate the SORG-MLA's performance with data and (2) develop an internet-based application to impute the missing data. METHODS: A total of 2768 patients were included in this study. The data of 617 patients who were treated surgically were intentionally erased, and the data of the other 2151 patients who were treated with radiotherapy and medical treatment were used to impute the artificially missing data. Compared with those who were treated nonsurgically, patients undergoing surgery were younger (median 59 years [IQR 51 to 67 years] versus median 62 years [IQR 53 to 71 years]) and had a higher proportion of patients with at least three spinal metastatic levels (77% [474 of 617] versus 72% [1547 of 2151]), more neurologic deficit (normal American Spinal Injury Association [E] 68% [301 of 443] versus 79% [1227 of 1561]), higher BMI (23 kg/m2 [IQR 20 to 25 kg/m2] versus 22 kg/m2 [IQR 20 to 25 kg/m2]), higher platelet count (240 × 103/µL [IQR 173 to 327 × 103/µL] versus 227 × 103/µL [IQR 165 to 302 × 103/µL], higher lymphocyte count (15 × 103/µL [IQR 9 to 21× 103/µL] versus 14 × 103/µL [IQR 8 to 21 × 103/µL]), lower serum creatinine level (0.7 mg/dL [IQR 0.6 to 0.9 mg/dL] versus 0.8 mg/dL [IQR 0.6 to 1.0 mg/dL]), less previous systemic therapy (19% [115 of 617] versus 24% [526 of 2151]), fewer Charlson comorbidities other than cancer (28% [170 of 617] versus 36% [770 of 2151]), and longer median survival. The two patient groups did not differ in other regards. These findings aligned with our institutional philosophy of selecting patients for surgical intervention based on their level of favorable prognostic factors such as BMI or lymphocyte counts and lower levels of unfavorable prognostic factors such as white blood cell counts or serum creatinine level, as well as the degree of spinal instability and severity of neurologic deficits. This approach aims to identify patients with better survival outcomes and prioritize their surgical intervention accordingly. Seven factors (serum albumin and alkaline phosphatase levels, international normalized ratio, lymphocyte and neutrophil counts, and the presence of visceral or brain metastases) were considered possible missing items based on five previous validation studies and clinical experience. Artificially missing data were imputed using the missForest imputation technique, which was previously applied and successfully tested to fit the SORG-MLA in validation studies. Discrimination, calibration, overall performance, and decision curve analysis were applied to evaluate the SORG-MLA's performance. The discrimination ability was measured with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. It ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating the worst discrimination and 1.0 indicating perfect discrimination. An area under the curve of 0.7 is considered clinically acceptable discrimination. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes and actual outcomes. An ideal calibration model will yield predicted survival rates that are congruent with the observed survival rates. The Brier score measures the squared difference between the actual outcome and predicted probability, which captures calibration and discrimination ability simultaneously. A Brier score of 0 indicates perfect prediction, whereas a Brier score of 1 indicates the poorest prediction. A decision curve analysis was performed for the 6-week, 90-day, and 1-year prediction models to evaluate their net benefit across different threshold probabilities. Using the results from our analysis, we developed an internet-based application that facilitates real-time data imputation for clinical decision-making at the point of care. This tool allows healthcare professionals to efficiently and effectively address missing data, ensuring that patient care remains optimal at all times. RESULTS: Generally, the SORG-MLA demonstrated good discriminatory ability, with areas under the curve greater than 0.7 in most cases, and good overall performance, with up to 25% improvement in Brier scores in the presence of one to three missing items. The only exceptions were albumin level and lymphocyte count, because the SORG-MLA's performance was reduced when these two items were missing, indicating that the SORG-MLA might be unreliable without these values. The model tended to underestimate the patient survival rate. As the number of missing items increased, the model's discriminatory ability was progressively impaired, and a marked underestimation of patient survival rates was observed. Specifically, when three items were missing, the number of actual survivors was up to 1.3 times greater than the number of expected survivors, while only 10% discrepancy was observed when only one item was missing. When either two or three items were omitted, the decision curves exhibited substantial overlap, indicating a lack of consistent disparities in performance. This finding suggests that the SORG-MLA consistently generates accurate predictions, regardless of the two or three items that are omitted. We developed an internet application (https://sorg-spine-mets-missing-data-imputation.azurewebsites.net/) that allows the use of SORG-MLA with up to three missing items. CONCLUSION: The SORG-MLA generally performed well in the presence of one to three missing items, except for serum albumin level and lymphocyte count (which are essential for adequate predictions, even using our modified version of the SORG-MLA). We recommend that future studies should develop prediction models that allow for their use when there are missing data, or provide a means to impute those missing data, because some data are not available at the time a clinical decision must be made. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results suggested the algorithm could be helpful when a radiologic evaluation owing to a lengthy waiting period cannot be performed in time, especially in situations when an early operation could be beneficial. It could help orthopaedic surgeons to decide whether to intervene palliatively or extensively, even when the surgical indication is clear.

Comparison of eight modern preoperative scoring systems for survival prediction in patients with extremity metastasis.

BACKGROUND: Survival is an important factor to consider when clinicians make treatment decisions for patients with skeletal metastasis. Several preoperative scoring systems (PSSs) have been developed to aid in survival prediction. Although we previously validated the Skeletal Oncology Research Group Machine-learning Algorithm (SORG-MLA) in Taiwanese patients of Han Chinese descent, the performance of other existing PSSs remains largely unknown outside their respective development cohorts. We aim to determine which PSS performs best in this unique population and provide a direct comparison between these models. METHODS: We retrospectively included 356 patients undergoing surgical treatment for extremity metastasis at a tertiary center in Taiwan to validate and compare eight PSSs. Discrimination (c-index), decision curve (DCA), calibration (ratio of observed:expected survivors), and overall performance (Brier score) analyses were conducted to evaluate these models' performance in our cohort. RESULTS: The discriminatory ability of all PSSs declined in our Taiwanese cohort compared with their Western validations. SORG-MLA is the only PSS that still demonstrated excellent discrimination (c-indexes>0.8) in our patients. SORG-MLA also brought the most net benefit across a wide range of risk probabilities on DCA with its 3-month and 12-month survival predictions. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider potential ethnogeographic variations of a PSS's performance when applying it onto their specific patient populations. Further international validation studies are needed to ensure that existing PSSs are generalizable and can be integrated into the shared treatment decision-making process. As cancer treatment keeps advancing, researchers developing a new prediction model or refining an existing one could potentially improve their algorithm's performance by using data gathered from more recent patients that are reflective of the current state of cancer care.

A Machine Learning Algorithm for Predicting 6-Week Survival in Spinal Metastasis: An External Validation Study Using 2,768 Taiwanese Patients.

INTRODUCTION: There are predictive algorithms for predicting 3-month and 1-year survival in patients with spinal metastasis. However, advance in surgical technique, immunotherapy, and advanced radiation therapy has enabled shortening of postoperative recovery, which returns dividends to the overall quality-adjusted life-year. As such, the Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine learning algorithm (SORG-MLA) was proposed to predict 6-week survival in patients with spinal metastasis, whereas its utility for patients treated with nonsurgical treatment was untested externally. This study aims to validate the survival prediction of the 6-week SORG-MLA for patients with spinal metastasis and provide the measurement of model consistency (MC). METHODS: Discrimination using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration, Brier score, and decision curve analysis were conducted to assess the model's performance in the Taiwanese-based cohort. MC was also applied to detect the proportion of paradoxical predictions among 6-week, 3-month, and 1-year survival predictions. The long-term prognosis should not be better than the shorter-term prognosis in that of an individual. RESULTS: The 6-week survival rate was 84.2%. The SORG-MLA retained good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.80) and good prediction accuracy with a Brier score of 0.11 (null model Brier score 0.13). There is an underestimation of the 6-week survival rate when the predicted survival rate is less than 50%. Decision curve analysis showed that the model was suitable for use over all threshold probabilities. MC showed suboptimal consistency between 6-week and 90-day survival prediction (78%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study supported the utility of the algorithm. The online tool ( https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/spinemetssurvival/ ) can be used by both clinicians and patients in informative decision-making discussion before management of spinal metastasis.

Adding a nonpainful end to reduce pain recollection of Pap smear screening: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: The pain experienced during Pap tests is a crucial gap in reducing cervical cancer burden. This study sought to investigate whether adding a nonpainful step at the end of Pap tests helps women recall less pain. We conducted a randomized controlled trial on women aged 30 to 70 years at a cervical cancer screening center. A nonpainful step was added at the end of Pap test in the modified Pap group. The outcomes included recalled pain after Pap smear screening, real-time pain, and 1-year willingness to receive further Pap tests. Among 266 subjects in the intention-to-treat analysis, the modified Pap group (n = 133) experienced lower 5-minute recalled pain than the traditional Pap group on a 1 to 5 numeric scale (mean [SD], 1.50 [0.77] vs 2.02 [1.12]; P < 0.001) and a 0 to 10 visual analog scale (2.12 [1.79] vs 3.12 [2.23]; P < 0.001). In exploratory subgroup analyses, the association between the modified Pap test and reduced 5-minute recalled pain was not affected by predicted pain, demographic, or socioeconomic characteristics, but it was more apparent in postmenopausal women. Consistently, the modified Pap test attenuated 1-year recalled pain on both pain scales. Furthermore, the modified Pap test increased 1-year willingness grade to receive further Pap tests (adjusted ß [SE], 2.11 [0.27]; P < 0.001). In conclusion, adding a nonpainful step at the end of Pap smear screening reduces on-site and long-term recalled pain and strengthens willingness to undergo subsequent Pap tests regularly. The modified Pap test contributes to cervical cancer screening participation.

Ten existing osteoporosis prediction tools for the successful application of National Health Insurance-reimbursed anti-osteoporosis medications in long-term care residents in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Osteoporotic fracture introduce enormous societal and economic burden, especially for long-term care residents (LTCRs). Although osteoporosis prevention for LTCRs is urgently needed, obstacles such as frail status and inconvenient hospital visits hurdled them from necessary examinations and diagnoses. We aimed to test 10 existing osteoporosis screening tools (OSTs), which can be easily used in institutions and serve as a prediction, for accurately determining the outcome of a Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI)-reimbursed anti-osteoporosis medications (AOMs) application for LTCRs. METHODS: This prospective analysis recruited 444 patients from LTC institutions between October 2018 and November 2019. Predictions of whether the NHI-reimbursed AOMs criteria was met were tested for 10 OSTs. The results of OSTs categorized into self-reported or validated based on previous fracture history were self-reported by LTCRs or validated by imaging data and medical records, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic curve and the optimal cut-off points for LTCRs based on Youden's index were explored. RESULTS: Overall, the validated OSTs had a higher positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) summation than the corresponding reported OSTs. The validated FRAX-Major was the best OST (PPV = 63.6%, NPV = 82.4% for the male group and, PPV = 78.8%, NPV = 90.0% for the female group). After applying the optimum cut-off derived from Youden's index, the validated FRAX-Major (PPV = 75.4%, NPV = 92.0%)) remained performed best for men. In female population, validated FRAX-Major (PPV = 87.2%, NPV = 84.1%) and validated osteoporosis prescreening risk assessment (OPERA; PPV = 96.1%, NPV = 79.7%)) both provided good prediction results. CONCLUSION: FRAX-Major and OPERA have better prediction ability for LTCRs to acquire NHI-reimbursed AOMs. The validated fracture history and adjusted cut-off points could prominently increase the PPV during prediction.

Prognostic significance of lab data and performance comparison by validating survival prediction models for patients with spinal metastases after radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Well-performing survival prediction models (SPMs) help patients and healthcare professionals to choose treatment aligning with prognosis. This retrospective study aims to investigate the prognostic impacts of laboratory data and to compare the performances of Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy (METSSS) model, New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS), and Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine learning algorithm (SORG-MLA) for spinal metastases (SM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2010 to 2018, patients who received radiotherapy (RT) for SM at a tertiary center were enrolled and the data were retrospectively collected. Multivariate logistic and Cox-proportional-hazard regression analyses were used to assess the association between laboratory values and survival. The area under receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis were used to evaluate the performance of SPMs. RESULTS: A total of 2786 patients were included for analysis. The 90-day and 1-year survival rates after RT were 70.4% and 35.7%, respectively. Higher albumin, hemoglobin, or lymphocyte count were associated with better survival, while higher alkaline phosphatase, white blood cell count, neutrophil count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, or international normalized ratio were associated with poor prognosis. SORG-MLA has the best discrimination (AUROC 90-day, 0.78; 1-year 0.76), best calibrations, and the lowest Brier score (90-day 0.16; 1-year 0.18). The decision curve of SORG-MLA is above the other two competing models with threshold probabilities from 0.1 to 0.8. CONCLUSION: Laboratory data are of prognostic significance in survival prediction after RT for SM. Machine learning-based model SORG-MLA outperforms statistical regression-based model METSSS model and NESMS in survival predictions.

Can a Bayesian belief network for survival prediction in patients with extremity metastases (PATHFx) be externally validated in an Asian cohort of 356 surgically treated patients?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Predicted survival may influence the treatment decision for patients with skeletal extremity metastasis, and PATHFx was designed to predict the likelihood of a patient dying in the next 24 months. However, the performance of prediction models could have ethnogeographical variations. We asked if PATHFx generalized well to our Taiwanese cohort consisting of 356 surgically treated patients with extremity metastasis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 356 patients who underwent surgery for skeletal extremity metastasis in a tertiary center in Taiwan between 2014 and 2019 to validate PATHFx's survival predictions at 6 different time points. Model performance was assessed by concordance index (c-index), calibration analysis, decision curve analysis (DCA), Brier score, and model consistency (MC). RESULTS: The c-indexes for the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month survival estimations were 0.71, 0.66, 0.65, 0.69, 0.68, and 0.67, respectively. The calibration analysis demonstrated positive calibration intercepts for survival predictions at all 6 timepoints, indicating PATHFx tended to underestimate the actual survival. The Brier scores for the 6 models were all less than their respective null model's. DCA demonstrated that only the 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month predictions appeared useful for clinical decision-making across a wide range of threshold probabilities. The MC was < 0.9 when the 6- and 12-month models were compared with the 12-month and 18-month models, respectively. INTERPRETATION: In this Asian cohort, PATHFx's performance was not as encouraging as those of prior validation studies. Clinicians should be cognizant of the potential decline in validity of any tools designed using data outside their particular patient population. Developers of survival prediction tools such as PATHFx might refine their algorithms using data from diverse, contemporary patients that is more reflective of the world's population.

Optimization of Tokuhashi Scoring System to Improve Survival Prediction in Patients with Spinal Metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Predicting survival time for patients with spinal metastases is important in treatment choice. Generally speaking, six months is a landmark cutoff point. Revised Tokuhashi score (RTS), the most widely used scoring system, lost its accuracy in predicting 6-month survival, gradually. Therefore, a more precise scoring system is urgently needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to create a new scoring system with a higher accuracy in predicting 6-month survival based on the previously used RTS. METHODS: Data of 171 patients were examined to determine factors that affect prognosis (reference group), and the remaining (validation group) were examined to validate the reliability of a new score, adjusted Tokuhashi score (ATS). We compared their discriminatory abilities of the prediction models using area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Target therapy and the Z score of BMI (Z-BMI), which adjusted to the patients' sex and age, were additional independent prognostic factors. Patients with target therapy use are awarded 4 points. The Z score of BMI could be added directly to yield ATS. The AUCs were 0.760 for ATS and 0.636 for RTS in the validation group. CONCLUSION: Appropriate target therapy use can prolong patients' survival. Z-BMI which might reflect nutritional status is another important influencing factor. With the optimization, surgeons could choose a more individualized treatment for patients.

Development and external validation of predictive algorithms for six-week mortality in spinal metastasis using 4,304 patients from five institutions.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Historically, spine surgeons used expected postoperative survival of 3-months to help select candidates for operative intervention in spinal metastasis. However, this cutoff has been challenged by the development of minimally invasive techniques, novel biologics, and advanced radiotherapy. Recent studies have suggested that a life expectancy of 6 weeks may be enough to achieve significant improvements in postoperative health-related quality of life. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a model capable of predicting 6-week mortality in patients with spinal metastases treated with radiation or surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective review was conducted at five large tertiary centers in the United States and Taiwan. PATIENT SAMPLE: The development cohort consisted of 3,001 patients undergoing radiotherapy and/or surgery for spinal metastases from one institution. The validation institutional cohort consisted of 1,303 patients from four independent, external institutions. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 6-week mortality. METHODS: Five models were considered to predict 6-week mortality, and the model with the best performance across discrimination, calibration, decision-curve analysis, and overall performance was integrated into an open access web-based application. RESULTS: The most important variables for prediction of 6-week mortality were albumin, primary tumor histology, absolute lymphocyte, three or more spine metastasis, and ECOG score. The elastic-net penalized logistic model was chosen as the best performing model with AUC 0.84 on evaluation in the independent testing set. On external validation in the 1,303 patients from the four independent institutions, the model retained good discriminative ability with an area under the curve of 0.81. The model is available here: https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/spinemetssurvival/. CONCLUSIONS: While this study does not advocate for the use of a 6-week life expectancy as criteria for considering operative management, the algorithm developed and externally validated in this study may be helpful for preoperative planning, multidisciplinary management, and shared decision-making in spinal metastasis patients with shorter life expectancy.

A machine learning algorithm for predicting prolonged postoperative opioid prescription after lumbar disc herniation surgery. An external validation study using 1,316 patients from a Taiwanese cohort.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Preoperative prediction of prolonged postoperative opioid prescription helps identify patients for increased surveillance after surgery. The SORG machine learning model has been developed and successfully tested using 5,413 patients from the United States (US) to predict the risk of prolonged opioid prescription after surgery for lumbar disc herniation. However, external validation is an often-overlooked element in the process of incorporating prediction models in current clinical practice. This cannot be stressed enough in prediction models where medicolegal and cultural differences may play a major role. PURPOSE: The authors aimed to investigate the generalizability of the US citizens prediction model SORG to a Taiwanese patient cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study at a large academic medical center in Taiwan. PATIENT SAMPLE: Of 1,316 patients who were 20 years or older undergoing initial operative management for lumbar disc herniation between 2010 and 2018. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was prolonged opioid prescription defined as continuing opioid prescription to at least 90 to 180 days after the first surgery for lumbar disc herniation at our institution. METHODS: Baseline characteristics were compared between the external validation cohort and the original developmental cohorts. Discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under the precision-recall curve), calibration, overall performance (Brier score), and decision curve analysis were used to assess the performance of the SORG ML algorithm in the validation cohort. This study had no funding source or conflict of interests. RESULTS: Overall, 1,316 patients were identified with sustained postoperative opioid prescription in 41 (3.1%) patients. The validation cohort differed from the development cohort on several variables including 93% of Taiwanese patients receiving NSAIDS preoperatively compared with 22% of US citizens patients, while 30% of Taiwanese patients received opioids versus 25% in the US. Despite these differences, the SORG prediction model retained good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76 and the area under the precision-recall curve of 0.33) and good overall performance (Brier score of 0.028 compared with null model Brier score of 0.030) while somewhat overestimating the chance of prolonged opioid use (calibration slope of 1.07 and calibration intercept of -0.87). Decision-curve analysis showed the SORG model was suitable for clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences at baseline and a very strict opioid policy, the SORG algorithm for prolonged opioid use after surgery for lumbar disc herniation has good discriminative abilities and good overall performance in a Han Chinese patient group in Taiwan. This freely available digital application can be used to identify high-risk patients and tailor prevention policies for these patients that may mitigate the long-term adverse consequence of opioid dependence: https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/lumbardiscopioid/.

Decreased psoas muscle area is a prognosticator for 90-day and 1-year survival in patients undergoing surgical treatment for spinal metastasis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Survival estimation for patients with spinal metastasis is crucial to treatment decisions. Psoas muscle area (PMA), a surrogate for total muscle mass, has been proposed as a useful survival prognosticator. However, few studies have validated the predictive value of decreased PMA in an Asian cohort or its predictive value after controlling for existing preoperative scoring systems (PSSs). In this study, we aim to answer: (1) Is PMA associated with survival in Han Chinese patients with spinal metastasis? (2) Is PMA a good prognosticator according to concordance index (c-index) and decision curve analysis (DCA) after controlling for six existing and commonly used PSSs? METHODS: This study included 180 adult (≥18 years old) Taiwanese patients with a mean age of 58.3 years (range: 22-85) undergoing surgical treatment for spinal metastasis. A patient's PMA was classified into decreased, medium, and large if it fell into the lower (0-33%), middle (33-67%), and upper (67-100%) 1/3 in the study cohort, respectively. We used logistic and cox proportional-hazard regressions to assess whether PMA was associated with 90-day, 1-year, and overall survival. The model performance before and after addition of PMA to six commonly used PSSs, including Tomita score, original Tokuhashi score, revised Tokuhashi score, modified Bauer score, New England Spinal Metastasis Score, and Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine learning algorithms (SORG-MLAs), was compared by c-index and DCA to determine if PMA was a useful survival prognosticator. RESULTS: Patients with a larger PMA is associated with better 90-day, but not 1-year, survival. The model performance of 90-day survival prediction improved after PMA was incorporated into all PSSs except SORG-MLAs. PMA barely improved the discriminatory ability (c-index, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.82 vs. c-index, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81) and provided little gain of clinical net benefit on DCA for SORG-MLAs' 90-day survival prediction. CONCLUSIONS: PMA is a prognosticator for 90-day survival and improves the discriminatory ability of earlier-proposed PSSs in our Asian cohort. However, incorporating PMA into more modern PSSs such as SORG-MLAs did not significantly improve its prediction performance.

International Validation of the SORG Machine-learning Algorithm for Predicting the Survival of Patients with Extremity Metastases Undergoing Surgical Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithms (SORG-MLAs) estimate 90-day and 1-year survival in patients with long-bone metastases undergoing surgical treatment and have demonstrated good discriminatory ability on internal validation. However, the performance of a prediction model could potentially vary by race or region, and the SORG-MLA must be externally validated in an Asian cohort. Furthermore, the authors of the original developmental study did not consider the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, a survival prognosticator repeatedly validated in other studies, in their algorithms because of missing data. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the SORG-MLA generalizable to Taiwanese patients for predicting 90-day and 1-year mortality? (2) Is the ECOG score an independent factor associated with 90-day and 1-year mortality while controlling for SORG-MLA predictions? METHODS: All 356 patients who underwent surgery for long-bone metastases between 2014 and 2019 at one tertiary care center in Taiwan were included. Ninety-eight percent (349 of 356) of patients were of Han Chinese descent. The median (range) patient age was 61 years (25 to 95), 52% (184 of 356) were women, and the median BMI was 23 kg/m2 (13 to 39 kg/m2). The most common primary tumors were lung cancer (33% [116 of 356]) and breast cancer (16% [58 of 356]). Fifty-five percent (195 of 356) of patients presented with a complete pathologic fracture. Intramedullary nailing was the most commonly performed type of surgery (59% [210 of 356]), followed by plate screw fixation (23% [81 of 356]) and endoprosthetic reconstruction (18% [65 of 356]). Six patients were lost to follow-up within 90 days; 30 were lost to follow-up within 1 year. Eighty-five percent (301 of 356) of patients were followed until death or for at least 2 years. Survival was 82% (287 of 350) at 90 days and 49% (159 of 326) at 1 year. The model's performance metrics included discrimination (concordance index [c-index]), calibration (intercept and slope), and Brier score. In general, a c-index of 0.5 indicates random guess and a c-index of 0.8 denotes excellent discrimination. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. The Brier score of a prediction model must be compared with and ideally should be smaller than the score of the null model. A decision curve analysis was then performed for the 90-day and 1-year prediction models to evaluate their net benefit across a range of different threshold probabilities. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate whether the ECOG score was an independent prognosticator while controlling for the SORG-MLA's predictions. We did not perform retraining/recalibration because we were not trying to update the SORG-MLA algorithm in this study. RESULTS: The SORG-MLA had good discriminatory ability at both timepoints, with a c-index of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.86) for 90-day survival prediction and a c-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89) for 1-year survival prediction. However, the calibration analysis showed that the SORG-MLAs tended to underestimate Taiwanese patients' survival (90-day survival prediction: calibration intercept 0.78 [95% CI 0.46 to 1.10], calibration slope 0.74 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.96]; 1-year survival prediction: calibration intercept 0.75 [95% CI 0.49 to 1.00], calibration slope 1.22 [95% CI 0.95 to 1.49]). The Brier score of the 90-day and 1-year SORG-MLA prediction models was lower than their respective null model (0.12 versus 0.16 for 90-day prediction; 0.16 versus 0.25 for 1-year prediction), indicating good overall performance of SORG-MLAs at these two timepoints. Decision curve analysis showed SORG-MLAs provided net benefits when threshold probabilities ranged from 0.40 to 0.95 for 90-day survival prediction and from 0.15 to 1.0 for 1-year prediction. The ECOG score was an independent factor associated with 90-day mortality (odds ratio 1.94 [95% CI 1.01 to 3.73]) but not 1-year mortality (OR 1.07 [95% CI 0.53 to 2.17]) after controlling for SORG-MLA predictions for 90-day and 1-year survival, respectively. CONCLUSION: SORG-MLAs retained good discriminatory ability in Taiwanese patients with long-bone metastases, although their actual survival time was slightly underestimated. More international validation and incremental value studies that address factors such as the ECOG score are warranted to refine the algorithms, which can be freely accessed online at https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/extremitymetssurvival/. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.