Clinical management of spinal metastases-The Dutch national guideline.

This article is a summary of the revised Dutch multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline 'Spinal metastases' (English translation available at: https://www.oncoline.nl/spinal-metastases) that was published at the end of 2015. This summary provides an easy-to-use overview for physicians to use in their daily practice.

Clinical Evaluation of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score in Patients Treated With Radiotherapy for Symptomatic Spinal Bone Metastases.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive value of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) in a cohort of patients treated with radiotherapy for spinal bone metastases. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Assessment of spinal stability in metastatic disease is challenging and is mostly done by relying on clinical experience, in the absence of validated guidelines or an established predetermined set of risk factors. The SINS provides clinicians with a tool to assess tumor-related spinal instability. METHODS: A total of 110 patients were included in this retrospective study. Time to event was calculated as the difference between start of radiotherapy and date of occurrence of an adverse event or last follow-up, with death being considered a competing event. A competing risk analysis was performed to estimate the effect of the SINS on the cumulative incidence of the occurrence of an adverse event. RESULTS: Sixteen patients (15%) experienced an adverse event during follow-up. The cumulative incidence for the occurrence of an adverse event at 6 and 12 months was 11.8% (95% confidence interval 5.1%-24.0%) and 14.5% (95% confidence interval 6.9%-22.2%), respectively. Competing risk analysis showed that the final SINS classification was not significantly associated with the cumulative incidence of an adverse event within the studied population. CONCLUSION: The clinical applicability of the SINS as a tool to assess spinal instability seems limited. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Predictive Value of Six Prognostic Scoring Systems for Spinal Bone Metastases: An Analysis Based on 1379 Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the predictive accuracy of six models designed to estimate survival of patients suffering from spinal bone metastases Just (SBMs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: On the basis of the estimated survival of patients with SBM, extent of treatment can be adjusted. To aid clinicians in the difficult task of assessing probability of survival, prognostic scoring systems have been developed by Tomita, Tokuhashi, Van der Linden, Bauer, Rades, and Bollen. METHODS: All patients who were treated for SBM between 2000 and 2010 were included in this international, multicenter, retrospective study (n = 1379). Medical records were reviewed for all items needed to use the scoring systems. Survival time was calculated as the difference between start of treatment for SBM and date of death. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and accuracy was assessed with the c-statistic. Survival rates of the worst prognostic groups were evaluated at 4 months. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.7 years [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 5.6-7.7] with a minimum of 2.3 years and a maximum of 12.3 years. The overall median survival was 5.1 months (95% CI 4.6-5.6). The most common primary tumors were breast (n = 388, 28%), lung (n = 318, 23%), and prostate cancer (n = 259, 19%). The Tokuhashi, Bauer, Tomita, and Van der Linden models performed similar with a c-statistic of 0.64 to 0.66 and a 4-month accuracy of 62% to 65%. The Rades model (c-statistic 0.44) and Bollen model (c-statistic 0.70) had a 4-month accuracy of 69% and 75%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Bollen model performs better than the other models. However, improvements are still warranted to increase the accuracy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with symptomatic spinal bone metastases: a retrospective cohort study of 1,043 patients.

BACKGROUND: Expected survival is a major factor influencing extent of treatment for symptomatic spinal bone metastases (SBM). Predictive models have been developed, but their use can lead to over- or undertreatment.. The study objective was to identify prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with symptomatic SBM and to create a validated risk stratification model. METHODS: All patients who were treated for symptomatic SBM between 2001 and 2010 were included in this single center retrospective study. Medical records were reviewed for type of primary cancer, performance status, presence of visceral, brain and bone metastases, number and location of spinal metastases, and neurological functioning. Performance status was assessed with the Karnofsky performance score and neurological functioning with the Frankel scale. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves, univariate log-rank tests, Cox regression models, and Harrell's C statistic. RESULTS: A total of 1 043 patients were studied. The most prevalent tumors were those of breast (n = 299), lung (n = 250), and prostate (n = 215). Median follow-up duration was 6.6 years, and 6 patients were lost to follow-up. Based on the results of the uni- and multivariate analyses, 4 categories were created. Median survival in category A was 31.2 months (95% CI, 25.2-37.3 months), 15.4 months (95% CI, 11.9-18.2 months) for category B, 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.1-5.4 months) for category C, and 1.6 months (95% CI, 1.4-1.9 months) for category D. Harrell's C statistic was calculated after the model was applied to an external dataset, yielding a result of 0.69. CONCLUSION: Assessing patients according to the presented model results in 4 categories with significantly different survival times.

An easy tool to predict survival in patients receiving radiation therapy for painful bone metastases.

PURPOSE: Patients with bone metastases have a widely varying survival. A reliable estimation of survival is needed for appropriate treatment strategies. Our goal was to assess the value of simple prognostic factors, namely, patient and tumor characteristics, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), and patient-reported scores of pain and quality of life, to predict survival in patients with painful bone metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study, 1157 patients were treated with radiation therapy for painful bone metastases. At randomization, physicians determined the KPS; patients rated general health on a visual analogue scale (VAS-gh), valuation of life on a verbal rating scale (VRS-vl) and pain intensity. To assess the predictive value of the variables, we used multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses and C-statistics for discriminative value. Of the final model, calibration was assessed. External validation was performed on a dataset of 934 patients who were treated with radiation therapy for vertebral metastases. RESULTS: Patients had mainly breast (39%), prostate (23%), or lung cancer (25%). After a maximum of 142 weeks' follow-up, 74% of patients had died. The best predictive model included sex, primary tumor, visceral metastases, KPS, VAS-gh, and VRS-vl (C-statistic = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.70-0.74). A reduced model, with only KPS and primary tumor, showed comparable discriminative capacity (C-statistic = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.69-0.72). External validation showed a C-statistic of 0.72 (95% CI = 0.70-0.73). Calibration of the derivation and the validation dataset showed underestimation of survival. CONCLUSION: In predicting survival in patients with painful bone metastases, KPS combined with primary tumor was comparable to a more complex model. Considering the amount of variables in complex models and the additional burden on patients, the simple model is preferred for daily use. In addition, a risk table for survival is provided.

Optimal intravertebral cement volume in percutaneous vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective follow-up study. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the relation between accomplishment of pain relief through percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) in painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) and the cemented fraction of the vertebral body and subsequent determination of the optimal intravertebral cement volume. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The mechanism of pain relief of PVP as a treatment modality for painful OVCFs remains unclear. Generally, benefit of PVP is thought to result from stabilization of micromovements and collapse of the fractured vertebral body. However, studies indicating a relation between intravertebral cement volume and pain relief are lacking and an optimal value of the intravertebral cement volume is unknown. METHODS: One hunderd six patients who received PVP for 196 painful OVCFs were prospectively followed on back pain (score 0-10) and occurrence of new OVCFs during the first postoperative year. Patients were classified as responders (average postoperative back pain ≤ 6) and nonresponders (average postoperative back pain >6). The cemented fraction of the vertebral body was determined using volumetric analysis of the postoperative CT scan of the treated levels. Analysis was performed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and multivariable regression techniques. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (27.3%) were found to be nonresponders. Mean intravertebral cement volume in all 196 treated OVCFs was 3.94 mL (SD = 1.89, range 0.13-10.8). The mean cemented vertebral body fraction was significantly lower in nonresponders (0.15 vs. 0.21, P = 0.002). The ROC area-under-curve of the cemented fraction as a predictor of accomplishment of pain relief was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.78, P = 0.006). In subgroups without specific influential factors (new OVCFs, intravertebral clefts), significantly stronger associations were found. A vertebral body fraction of 24% was identified as the optimal fraction to be cemented. This fraction corresponded to a 93% to 100% specificity for accomplishment of pain relief (i.e., few to no cases without pain relief in the presence of adequate cementing) without being significantly associated with a higher risk of occurrence of cement leakage or new OVCFs. Corresponding values for the recommended (optimal) intravertebral cement volume were provided based on its governing characteristics (fracture level, fracture severity, and patient's sex). CONCLUSION: An optimal intravertebral cement volume was identified for accomplishment of pain relief through PVP in painful OVCFs. Appropriate thresholds were provided to guide the operator.