Survival in patients with surgically treated spinal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Despite the various treatment protocols available, survival evaluation is a fundamental criterion for the definition of surgical management; there are still many inconsistencies in the literature on this topic, especially in terms of the value of surgery and its morbidity in patients with very short survival. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to analyze the association of clinical, oncological, and surgical factors in the survival of patients undergoing spinal surgery for spinal metastases (SM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of forty patients who were surgically treated at our institution for SM between 2010 and 2018 were included in the study. We applied the prognostic scales of Tomita and Tokuhashi in each patient and evaluated the systemic status using Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Scale. Survival rate in months was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve, with death considered as primary outcome and, for the evaluation of the association between the variables, the Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or Fisher-Freeman-Halton test was applied for better survival. The level of statistical significance was considered as 5% (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: The mean survival was 8.4 months. Patients with KPS <70 had a mean survival of 6.36 months, while those with KPS >70 had a mean survival of 14.48 months (P = 0.04). The mean survival of patients classified as ECOG 2 was 7.05 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4-10.7), and that of patients classified as ECOG 3 and 4 was 1.24 months (95% CI: 0.8-1.59). The mean survival rate among the patients with unresectable metastases in other organs was 6.3 months (95% CI: 3.9-8.9), while the survival rate of those who did not have metastases was 13.8 months (95% CI: 10.0-17.68; P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Survival was associated with the preoperative functional status defined by the KPS and ECOG scales and with the presence of nonresectable visceral metastases.

Neurological Outcome and Complications in Patients With Surgically Treated Spinal Metastases.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the epidemiology of surgical patients with spinal metastases, identify the complications, and evaluate their neurological prognoses. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The development of new oncological treatments and screening tests have increased the survival of oncologic patients, and consequently, the incidence of metastatic lesions of the spine. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of 40 patients surgically treated at the Hospital de Clínicas of UNICAMP for spinal metastases from January 2010 to September 2018, after diagnosis of symptomatic spinal cord compression and/or mechanical instability of the spine. Retrospectively analyzed patient charts applied the SINS score to evaluate the presence of mechanical instability. Neurological function was classified based on the Frankel index preoperative and postoperatively. To evaluate the association between variables, the Chi-square test, Fisher exact test, or Fisher-Freeman-Halton test was applied. For evaluating the improvement of neurological status between the Frankel scores before and after surgery, the McNemar test was applied for categorical and qualitative variables. In both the tests, variables with values of P > 0.05 were considered. RESULTS: Pain as the reason for the first visit presented an odds ratio (OR) = 2.44 (95% [CI]: 1.14-5.2) for instrumentation need (P = 0.024). A higher SINS score corresponded to the indication for instrumentation surgery due to the instability of the spine (P = 0.004). Within 30 days postoperative, five patients (11.1%) had complications. There was a statistically significant neurological improvement in patients who underwent surgery (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Pain as the first symptom was related to mechanical instability of the spine and surgical instrumentation. Patients treated with surgery presented improvement of the neurological function in the postoperative period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.