Prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with spinal metastasis secondary to prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To guide the selection of treatments for spinal metastases, the expected survival time is one of the most important determinants. Few scoring systems are fully applicable for spinal metastasis secondary to prostate cancer (PCa). This study aimed to identify the independent factors to predict the overall survival (OS) of patients with spinal metastases from PCa. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were retrieved by two reviewers independently, to identify studies analyzed the prognostic effect of different factors in spinal metastasis from PCa. A systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis was conducted with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) as the effect size. RESULTS: A total of 12 retrospective cohort studies (1566 patients) were eligible for qualitative synthesis and 10 for quantitative meta-analyses. The OS was significantly influenced by performance status, visceral metastasis, ambulatory status and time from PCa diagnosis in more than half of the available studies. The meta-analyses demonstrated that OS was significantly influenced by visceral metastasis (HR = 2.24, 95%CI:1.53-3.27, p < 0.001), pre-treatment ambulatory status (HR = 2.64, 95%CI:1.82-3.83, p < 0.001), KPS (HR = 4.45, 95%CI:2.01-9.85, p < 0.001), ECOG (HR = 2.96, 95%CI:2.02-4.35, p < 0.001), extraspinal bone metastasis (HR = 2.04, 95%CI:1.13-3.68, p = 0.018), time developing motor deficit (HR = 1.57, 95%CI:1.30-1.88, p < 0.001) and time from PCa diagnosis (HR = 1.37, 95%CI:1.17-1.59, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Visceral metastasis, ambulatory status, extraspinal bone metastasis, performance status, time developing motor deficit and time interval from primary tumor diagnosis were significantly associated with the OS for spinal metastasis from PCa. When selecting the treatment modality, clinicians should fully consider the patients' systematic status based on all potential prognostic factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I Meta-analysis.

Establishment and validation of nomogram model for survival predicting in patients with spinal metastases secondary to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prognostic effect of pre-treatment factors in patients with spinal metastases secondary to lung cancer, and establish a novel predicting nomogram for predicting the survival probability. METHODS: A total of 209 patients operated for spinal metastases from lung cancer were consecutively enrolled, and divided into the training and validation samples with a ratio of 7:3, for model establishing and validating, respectively. Basing on the training sample, univariate and multivariate COX proportional hazard models were used for identifying the prognostic effect of pre-treatment factors, following which significant prognostic factors would be listed as items in nomogram to calculate the survival probabilities at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months. Then, the C-indexes and the calibration curves would be figured out to evaluate the discrimination ability and accuracy of the model both for the training and validation samples. RESULTS: In the multivariate COX analysis, the gender, smoking history, location of spinal metastasis, visceral metastasis, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), adjuvant therapy, lymphocyte percentage and globulin were found to be significantly associated with the overall survival, and a novel nomogram was generated basing on these independent predictors. The C-indexes for the training and validation samples were 0.761 and 0.732, respectively. Favorable consistencies between the predicted and actual survival rates were demonstrated both in the internal and external validations. DISCUSSION: Pre-treatment characteristics, including gender, smoking history, location of spinal metastasis, visceral metastasis, KPS, adjuvant therapy, percentage of lymphocyte, and serum globulin level, were identified to be significantly associated with overall survival of patients living with spinal metastases derived from lung cancer, and a user-friendly nomogram was established using these independent predictors.

Effectiveness of Preoperative Embolization in Patients with Spinal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Debate on the effectiveness of preoperative embolization for spinal metastatic lesions, especially for nonhypervascular tumors, has persisted. The present study aimed to identify the effectiveness of preoperative embolization in patients who had undergone surgery for spinal metastasis. METHODS: Two of us (Z.T. and Z.H.) independently searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify eligible clinical studies that had compared the outcomes of patients treated surgically for spinal metastatic disease with or without preoperative embolization. The primary outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, perioperative blood loss, and transfusion requirements. The secondary outcomes include the operative time, overall survival, and complication rates. Meta-analyses were performed for subgroups of hypervascular, nonhypervascular, and mixed tumors. A fixed effects model was applied when I2 was <50%, and a random effects model was applied when I2 was >50%. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 11 retrospective case-control studies), with 744 patients, were included. Significantly less intraoperative blood loss (mean difference [MD], -1171.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2283.10 to -59.88; P = 0.039), fewer blood transfusions (MD, -3.13 U; 95% CI, -4.86 to -1.39; P < 0.001), and shorter operative times (MD, -33.91 minutes; 95% CI, -59.65 to -8.17; P = 0.010) were identified for the embolization group in the hypervascular subgroup. In the nonhypervascular and mixed tumor subgroups, no differences in effectiveness were identified in blood loss, transfusion requirement, or operative time when stratified by the use of embolization. The overall survival and complication rates were similar between the embolization and nonembolization groups in each subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: The current data support the use of preoperative embolization for hypervascular metastatic tumors to the spine. However, little evidence is available to support the use of preoperative embolization for nonhypervascular metastatic tumors to the spine.