A Comparison of Prognostic Models to Facilitate Surgical Decision-Making for Patients With Spinal Metastatic Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: Compare the performance of and provide cutoff values for commonly used prognostic models for spinal metastases, including Revised Tokuhashi, Tomita, Modified Bauer, New England Spinal Metastases Score (NESMS), and Skeletal Oncology Research Group model, at three- and six-month postoperative time points. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery may be recommended for patients with spinal metastases causing fracture, instability, pain, and/or neurological compromise. However, patients with less than three to six months of projected survival are less likely to benefit from surgery. Prognostic models have been developed to help determine prognosis and surgical candidacy. Yet, there is a lack of data directly comparing the performance of these models at clinically relevant time points or providing clinically applicable cutoff values for the models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing surgery from 2015 to 2022 for spinal metastatic disease were identified. Revised Tokuhashi, Tomita, Modified Bauer, NESMS, and Skeletal Oncology Research Group were calculated for each patient. Model calibration and discrimination for predicting survival at three months, six months, and final follow-up were evaluated using the Brier score and Uno's C, respectively. Hazard ratios for survival were calculated for the models. The Contral and O'Quigley method was utilized to identify cutoff values for the models discriminating between survival and nonsurvival at three months, six months, and final follow-up. RESULTS: Each of the models demonstrated similar performance in predicting survival at three months, six months, and final follow-up. Cutoff scores that best differentiated patients likely to survive beyond three months included the Revised Tokuhashi score=10, Tomita score=four, Modified Bauer score=three, and NESMS=one. CONCLUSION: We found comparable efficacy among the models in predicting survival at clinically relevant time points. Cutoff values provided herein may assist surgeons and patients when deciding whether to pursue surgery for spinal metastatic disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Socioeconomic and geographic disparities in pediatric scoliosis surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the population of pediatric patients undergoing surgery for scoliosis in California by gender, race, and ethnicity and identify any underlying differences in social determinants of health as measured by the child opportunity index (COI), social deprivation index (SDI), and insurance category among them. METHODS: This project extracted demographic reports including patient sex, race, zip code, insurance type, and associated diagnosis and procedure codes from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). These data were combined with COI and SDI data, which further describe the socioeconomic environment of each patient. Census data were referenced to compare the population of patients receiving scoliosis procedures to the general population by race and ethnicity. Chi-square tests were performed for categorical data. Independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed for continuous data, with significance set at 0.05. RESULTS: Unfavorable SDI and COI scores were observed among males, Hispanics, and Black patients, and these patients were more likely to be covered by Medi-Cal. Length of stay was significantly higher among males and Medi-Cal recipients. CONCLUSION: The data demonstrate significant differences in social determinants of health as measured by race, ethnicity, gender, insurance type, COI, and SDI among patients ≤ 20 years undergoing surgery for idiopathic scoliosis in California. The noted differences in socioeconomic status (SES) and insurance are known and/or expected to have an impact on access to quality health care, exposing a need for future studies to determine whether COI and SDI influence patient-reported outcomes after scoliosis surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.