Patient Expectations About Palliative Treatment for Symptomatic Spinal Metastases: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with spinal metastases often receive palliative surgery or radiation therapy to maintain or improve health-related quality of life. Patients with unrealistic expectations regarding treatment outcomes have been shown to be less satisfied with their post-treatment health status. This study evaluated expectations of patients with spinal metastases scheduled for surgery and/or radiation therapy. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with patients with symptomatic spinal metastases before and 6 weeks after surgery and/or radiation therapy. Expectations regarding treatment outcomes were discussed before treatment, and level of fulfillment of these pretreatment expectations was discussed after treatment. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed according to the thematic analysis method to identify themes. RESULTS: Before treatment, patients thought they were not, or minimally, informed about (expected) treatment outcomes, but they felt well informed about treatment procedures and possible complications. Although patients expected pain relief and improvement in daily functioning, they found it difficult to describe any recovery timeline or the impact of these expected improvements on their daily life. Patients generally understood that treatment was not curative, but lacked insight into the impact of treatment on life expectancy given that this was hardly discussed by their surgeon and/or radiation oncologist. Pretreatment expectations regarding pain and daily functioning were only partially met in most patients post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients thought they were not, or only minimally, informed about expected outcomes after surgery and/or radiation therapy for symptomatic spinal metastases. Improvements in patient-physician communication and counseling could help guide patients toward realistic pretreatment expectations.

Translation and validation of the Dutch Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) to evaluate health-related quality of life in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases.

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of palliative treatment of spinal metastases is to maintain or improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We translated and validated a Dutch version of The Spine Oncology Study Group Outcome Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0), a valid and reliable 20-item questionnaire to evaluate HRQOL in patients with spinal metastases. METHODS: After cross-cultural translation and adaptation, the questionnaire was pre-tested in fifteen patients referred for spine surgery and/or radiotherapy. This resulted in a final questionnaire that was sent to patients for assessment of internal consistency, construct (i.e., convergent and divergent) validity, discriminative power and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Overall, 147 patients (mean age 65.6 years, SD = 10.4) completed the questionnaire after a median time of 45.4 months (IQR = 18.9-72.9) after spine surgery and/or radiotherapy. Internal consistency was good for the Physical function, Pain, and Mental health domains (α = 0.87, 0.86, 0.72), but not for Social function (α = 0.04). Good convergent validity was demonstrated except for Social function (rs = 0.37 95%CI = 0.21-0.51). Discriminative power between patients with ECOG performance scores of 0-1 and 2-4 was found on all domains and Neurological function items. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for Physical function, Pain and Mental health (ICC = 0.89 95%CI = 0.81-0.94, ICC = 0.88 95%CI = 0.78-0.93, ICC = 0.68 95%CI = 0.48-0.81), whereas ICC = 0.45 (95%CI = 0.17-0.66) for Social function was below threshold. After removing item 20 from the Social function domain, internal consistency improved, and convergent validity and test-retest reliability were good. CONCLUSION: The Dutch version of the SOSGOQ2.0 questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to measure HRQOL in patients with spinal metastases. Item 20 was removed to retain psychometric properties.

Expectations of treatment outcomes in patients with spinal metastases; what do we tell our patients? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Realistic pre-treatment expectations are important and have been associated with post-treatment health related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient expectations are greatly influenced by physicians, as they are the primary resource for information. This study aimed to explore the communication practices of physicians regarding treatment outcomes for patients with spinal metastases, and physician experiences with patients' pre-treatment expectations. METHODS: An international qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with physicians routinely involved in treating metastatic spine disease (spine surgeons, radiation and medical oncologists, and rehabilitation specialists) was conducted. Physicians were interviewed about the content and extent of information they provide to patients with spinal metastases regarding treatment options, risks and treatment outcomes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic coding network. RESULTS: After 22 interviews data saturation occurred. The majority of the physicians indicated that they currently do not establish patients' pre-treatment expectations, despite acknowledging the importance of these expectations. Spine surgeons often believe that patient expectations are disproportionate. Physicians expressed they manage expectations by detailing the most common risks and providing a broad but nonspecific overview of treatment outcomes. While the palliative intent seems clear to the physicians, their perception is that the implications of a palliative treatment remains elusive to most patients. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the current gap in patient-physician communication regarding expectations of treatment outcomes of patients with spinal metastases. These results warrant further research to improve communication practices and determine the effect of patient expectations on patient reported outcomes in this population.

Association of neurologic deficits with surgical outcomes and health-related quality of life after treatment for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression.

BACKGROUND: A critical knowledge gap exists regarding the impact of neurologic deficits on surgical outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for patients surgically treated for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC). METHODS: This prospective, multicenter and international study analyzed the impact of the neurologic status on functional status, HRQOL, and postoperative survival. The collected data included the patient demographics, overall survival, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment scale, Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score, treatment details and complications and HRQOL measures, including version 2 of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) and version 2.0 of the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0). RESULTS: A total of 239 patients surgically treated for spinal metastases were included. Six weeks after treatment, 99 of the 108 patients with a preoperative ASIA grade of E remained stable, 8 deteriorated to ASIA D, and 1 deteriorated to ASIA A. Of 55 patients with ASIA D, 27 improved to ASIA E, 27 remained stable and 1 deteriorated to ASIA C. Of 11 patients with ASIA A to C, 2 improved to ASIA E, 4 improved to ASIA D, and 5 remained stable. At the 6- and 12-week follow-up, better ASIA scores were associated with better scores on multiple SF-36v2 and SOSGOQ items. Postoperatively, patients with ASIA grades of A to D were more likely to have urinary tract infections and wound complications. Patients with a baseline ASIA grade of E or D survived significantly longer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with neurologic deficits due to MESCC have worse HRQOL and decreased overall survival. Nevertheless, surgery can result in stabilization or improvement of neurologic function which may translate into better HRQOL. Postoperative care and follow-up are challenging for patients with neurologic deficits because they experience more complications.

Patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes after surgery and/or radiotherapy for spinal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is infrequently investigated despite its importance in assessing efficacy and patient comprehension. The purpose of this study was to investigate patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes after surgery and/or radiotherapy for spinal metastases and to evaluate how health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is related to patient satisfaction. METHODS: Patients with spinal metastases treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy were enrolled in a prospective, international, observational study. Demographic, histologic, treatment, and HRQOL data were collected. HRQOL was evaluated with the Numeric Rating Scale pain score, the 3-level version of the EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) instrument, and the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0). Patient satisfaction was derived from the SOSGOQ2.0 at 6, 12, and 26 weeks after treatment. Patients were classified as satisfied, neutral, or dissatisfied. RESULTS: Twelve weeks after treatment, 183 of the surgically treated patients (84%) were satisfied, and only 11 (5%) were dissatisfied; in contrast, 101 of the patients treated with radiotherapy alone (77%) were satisfied, and only 7 (5%) were dissatisfied. Significant improvements in pain, physical function, mental health, social function, leg function, and EQ-5D were associated with satisfaction after surgery. Satisfaction after radiotherapy was associated with significant improvements in pain, mental health, and overall SOSGOQ2.0 scores. Dissatisfaction after treatment was associated with lower baseline values for leg strength and lower social functioning scores for surgically treated patients and with lower social functioning scores and being single for patients treated with radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of satisfaction with treatment outcomes are observed after surgery and/or radiotherapy for spinal metastases. Posttreatment satisfaction is associated with significant improvements in pain and different dimensions of HRQOL.

Survival, local control, and health-related quality of life in patients with oligometastatic and polymetastatic spinal tumors: A multicenter, international study.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of oligometastatic (≤5 metastases) spinal disease has trended toward ablative therapies, yet to the authors' knowledge little is known regarding the prognosis of patients presenting with oligometastatic spinal disease and the value of this approach. The objective of the current study was to compare the survival and clinical outcomes of patients with cancer with oligometastatic spinal disease with those of patients with polymetastatic (>5 metastases) disease. METHODS: The current study was an international, multicenter, prospective study. Patients who were admitted to a participating spine center with a diagnosis of spinal metastases and who underwent surgical intervention and/or radiotherapy between August 2013 and May 2017 were included. Data collected included demographics, overall survival, local control, and treatment information including surgical, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy details. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures included the EuroQOL 5 dimensions 3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2), and the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ). RESULTS: Of the 393 patients included in the current study, 215 presented with oligometastatic disease and 178 presented with polymetastatic disease. A significant survival advantage of 90.1% versus 77.3% at 3 months and 77.0% versus 65.1% at 6 months from the time of treatment was found for patients presenting with oligometastatic disease compared with those with polymetastatic disease. It is important to note that both groups experienced significant improvements in multiple HRQOL measures at 6 months after treatment, with no differences in these outcome measures noted between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of oligometastatic disease appears to offer a significant survival advantage compared with polymetastatic disease, regardless of treatment choice. HRQOL measures were found to improve in both groups, demonstrating a palliative benefit for all treated patients.

Psychometric evaluation and adaptation of the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire to evaluate health-related quality of life in patients with spinal metastases.

BACKGROUND: The Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ) was developed as the first spine oncology-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measure. This study evaluated the psychometric properties and clinical validity of the SOSGOQ in a diverse cohort of patients with spinal metastases. METHODS: An international, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study including patients with spinal metastases who underwent surgery and/or radiotherapy was conducted by the AOSpine Knowledge Forum Tumor. Demographic, tumor, and treatment data were collected. HRQOL was evaluated using the SOSGOQ and Medical Outcomes Study Questionnaire Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) at baseline and fixed follow-up times. Construct validity was assessed using multitrait scaling analyses, confirmatory factor analyses, and correlation with the SF-36 and NRS pain score. Test-retest reliability was assessed in a subgroup of patients between 12 weeks after treatment and the retest 4 to 9 days later. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were enrolled at 9 centers across North America; 153 of these patients had HRQOL data available at 12 weeks after treatment. Multitrait scaling analyses and confirmatory factor analyses resulted in a refined version of the SOSGOQ with 4 domains and 4 single items. The revised SOSGOQ (SOSGOQ2.0) demonstrated strong correlations with SF-36 and the ability to discriminate between clinically distinct patient groups. Reliability of the SOSGOQ2.0 was demonstrated to be good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient ranging from 0.58 to 0.92 for the different domains. CONCLUSIONS: The SOSGOQ2.0 is a reliable and valid measure with which to evaluate HRQOL in patients with spinal metastases. It is recommended to use the SOSGOQ2.0 together with a generic HRQOL outcome measure to comprehensively assess HRQOL and increase sensitivity and specificity. Cancer 2018;124:1828-38. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Prospective Evaluation of the Relationship Between Mechanical Stability and Response to Palliative Radiotherapy for Symptomatic Spinal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: A substantial number of patients with spinal metastases experience no treatment effect from palliative radiotherapy. Mechanical spinal instability, due to metastatic disease, could be associated with failed pain control following radiotherapy. This study investigates the relationship between the degree of spinal instability, as defined by the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), and response to radiotherapy in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases in a multi-institutional cohort. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The SINS of 155 patients with painful thoracic, lumbar, or lumbosacral metastases from two tertiary hospitals was calculated using images from radiotherapy planning CT scans. Patient-reported pain response, available for 124 patients, was prospectively assessed. Pain response was categorized, according to international guidelines, as complete, partial, indeterminate, or progression of pain. The association between SINS and pain response was estimated by multivariable logistic regression analysis, correcting for predetermined clinical variables. RESULTS: Of the 124 patients, 16 patients experienced a complete response and 65 patients experienced a partial response. Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score was associated with a complete pain response (adjusted odds-radio [ORadj] 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.98), but not with an overall pain response (ORadj 0.94; 95% CI 0.81-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: A lower SINS, indicating spinal stability, is associated with a complete pain response to radiotherapy. This supports the hypothesis that pain resulting from mechanical spinal instability responds less well to radiotherapy compared with pain from local tumor activity. No association could be determined between SINS and an overall pain response, which might indicate that this referral tool is not yet optimal for prediction of treatment outcome. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with stable painful spinal metastases, as indicated by a Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) of 6 or lower, can effectively be treated with palliative external beam radiotherapy. The majority of patients with (impending) spinal instability, as indicated by a SINS score of 7 or higher, will achieve a (partial) response after palliative radiotherapy; however, some patients might require surgical intervention. Therefore, it is recommended to refer patients with a SINS score of 7 or higher to a spine surgeon to evaluate the need for surgical intervention.

The Effect of Introducing the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score in Routine Clinical Practice for Patients With Spinal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Stable spinal metastases are effectively treated with radiotherapy, whereas unstable spinal metastases often need surgical fixation followed by radiotherapy for local control. The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) was developed as a tool to assess spinal neoplastic related instability with the goal of helping to guide referrals among oncology specialists. We compare the average degree of spinal instability between patients with spinal metastases referred for surgery or for radiotherapy and evaluate whether this difference changed after introduction of the SINS in clinical practice. METHODS: All patients with spinal metastases treated with palliative surgery or radiotherapy in the period 2009-2013 were identified in two spine centers. For all patients, the SINS was scored on pretreatment imaging. The SINS before and after introduction of the SINS in 2011 were compared within the surgical and radiotherapy group. Furthermore, the overall SINS was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The overall SINS was significantly higher in the surgical group, with a mean SINS of 10.7 (median 11) versus 7.2 (median 8) for the radiotherapy group. The mean SINS decreased significantly for both groups after introduction of the SINS in clinical practice from 11.2 to 10.3 in the surgical group and from 8.4 to 7.2 in the radiotherapy group. CONCLUSION: The SINS differed significantly between patients treated with surgery or radiotherapy. The introduction of SINS led to a decrease in SINS score for both groups, suggesting that using SINS in metastatic spinal disease increases awareness for instability and may subsequently result in earlier referrals for surgical intervention. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Spinal metastases can present with varying degrees of mechanical instability. Because unstable spinal metastases may respond insufficiently to palliative radiotherapy and can lead to loss of ambulation, timely detection and appropriate referral are important. The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) may help physicians caring for patients with metastasized disease to identify spinal instability before the onset of neurological deficits. In this study, it was shown that the introduction of SINS in routine practice led to a decrease in spinal instability in radiotherapy and surgical cohorts. The use of SINS may increase awareness of instability and subsequently result in earlier referrals.

Complications After Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Unstable Spinal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Complications after surgical stabilization for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases are common. Less invasive surgical (LIS) procedures are potentially associated with a lower risk of complications; however, little is known regarding the complications after LIS procedures for the treatment of spinal metastases. Our primary objective was to determine the characteristics and rate of complications after percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) for the treatment of mechanically unstable spinal metastases. The secondary objective was to identify factors associated with the occurrence of complications and survival. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients who underwent PPSF between 2009 and 2014 for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases was performed. Patient data pertaining to demographics, diagnosis, treatment, neurologic function, complications, and survival were collected. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were identified, 45 men (45 %) and 56 women (55 %) with a mean age of 60.3 ± 11.2 years. The median operating time was 122 (range 57-325) minutes with a median blood loss of 100 ml (based on 41 subjects). Eighty-eight patients (87 %) ambulated within the first 3 days after surgery. An overall median survival of 11.0 (range 0-70) months was observed, with 79 % of the patients alive at 3 months after treatment. Eighteen patients experienced a total of 30 complications; nonsurgical complications were the most commonly encountered. Prolonged operating time was independently associated with an increased risk of complications. CONCLUSIONS: A complication rate of 18 % was found after PPSF for unstable spinal metastases. Potential advantages of less invasive treatment are limited blood loss and high early ambulation rate.

Reliability of the spinal instability neoplastic scale among radiologists: an assessment of instability secondary to spinal metastases.

OBJECTIVE: The spinal instability neoplastic scale (SINS) is a new classification system for tumor-related spinal instability. The SINS may prove to be a valuable tool for radiologists to communicate with oncologists and surgeons in a standardized evidence-based manner. The objective of this study was to determine the inter- and intraobserver reliability and validity of the SINS among radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven radiologists from 10 international sites used the SINS to categorize the degree of spinal instability in 30 patients with spinal tumors. To assess validity, we compared the SINS scores assigned by the radiologists with the SINS scores of 11 spine oncology surgeons (reference standard). Each total SINS score (range, 0-18 points) was converted into one of the following three clinical categories: 0-6 points, stable; 7-12 points, potentially unstable; and 13-18 points, unstable. In addition, each total SINS score was converted into a binary scale: 0-6 points was defined as stable, and 7-18 points was considered a current or possible instability for which surgical consultation is recommended. RESULTS: Radiologists using the SINS binary scale showed excellent (κ = 0.88) validity, substantial (κ = 0.76) interobserver agreement, and excellent (κ = 0.82) intraobserver reproducibility. Radiologists rated all unstable cases and 621 of 629 (98.7%) potentially unstable cases with a SINS score of 7 or more points, thus appropriately initiating a referral for surgical assessment. CONCLUSION: SINS is a reliable tool for radiologists rating tumor-related spinal instability. It accurately discriminates between stable and potentially unstable or unstable lesions and, therefore, can guide the need for surgical consultation.

Patient-Reported and Clinical Outcomes of Surgically Treated Patients With Symptomatic Spinal Metastases: Results From Epidemiology, Process, and Outcomes of Spine Oncology (EPOSO), a Prospective, Multi-Institutional and International Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The palliative impact of spine surgery for metastatic disease is evolving with improvements in surgical technique and multidisciplinary cancer care. The goal of this study was to prospectively evaluate long-term clinical outcomes including health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures, using spine cancer-specific patient-reported-outcome (PRO) measures, in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases who underwent surgical management. METHODS: The Epidemiology, Process, and Outcomes of Spine Oncology (EPOSO, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01825161) trial is a prospective-observational cohort study that included 10 specialist centers in North America and Europe. Patients aged 18 to 75 years who underwent surgery for spinal metastases were included. Prospective assessments included both spine tumor-specific and generic PRO tools which were collected for a minimum of 2 years post-treatment or until death. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty patients (51.8% female, mean age 57.9 years) were included. At presentation, the mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6.0, 35.7% had neurological deficits as defined by the American Spinal Cord Injury Association scores, 47.2% had high-grade epidural spinal cord compression (2-3), and 89.6% had impending or frank instability as measured by a Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score of ≥7. The most common primary tumor sites were breast (20.2%), lung (18.8%), kidney (16.2%), and prostate (6.5%). The median overall survival postsurgery was 501 days, and the 2-year progression-free-survival rate was 38.4%. Compared with baseline, significant and durable improvements in HRQOL were observed at the 6-week, 12-week, 26-week, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up assessments from a battery of PRO questionnaires including the spine cancer-specific, validated, Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0, the Short Form 36 version 2, EuroQol-5 Dimension (3L), and pain numerical rating scale score. CONCLUSION: Multi-institutional, prospective-outcomes data confirm that surgical decompression and/or stabilization provides meaningful and durable improvements in multiple HRQOL domains, including spine-specific outcomes based on the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0, for patients with metastatic spine disease.

Time to Surgical Treatment for Metastatic Spinal Disease: Identification of Delay Intervals.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Minimizing delays in referral, diagnosis and treatment of patients with symptomatic spinal metastases is important for optimal treatment outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to investigate several forms of delay from the onset of symptoms until surgical treatment of spinal metastases for patients with and without a known preexisting known malignancy. METHODS: All patients receiving surgical treatment for spinal metastases in a single tertiary spine center were identified. Referral patterns were reconstructed and the total delay was divided into 4 categories: patient delay (onset of symptoms until medical consultation), diagnostic delay (medical consultation until diagnosis), referral delay (diagnosis until referral to spine surgeon) and treatment delay (referral spine to surgeon until treatment). These intervals were compared between patients with and without a known preexisting malignancy. RESULTS: The median total delay was 99 days, patient delay 19 days, diagnostic delay 21,5 days, referral delay 7 days, treatment delay 8 days and diagnosis and treatment delay combined 18,5 days. No difference in total delay was observed between patients with and without a known preexisting malignancy. Total delay was not significantly associated with patient age, sex, oncological history, tumor prognosis and spinal level of the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic spinal metastases experience considerable delays, even after metastatic spinal disease has been diagnosed, regardless of a preexisting malignancy. By identifying and eliminating the causes of these delays, diagnosis, referral and treatment may be expedited leading to improved patient outcome.

The use of red flags during the referral chain of patients surgically treated for symptomatic spinal metastases.

Background: The use of so-called "red flags" may be beneficial in identifying patients with metastatic spinal disease. This study examined the utility and efficacy of these red flags in the referral chain of patients surgically treated for spinal metastases. Methods: The referral chains from the onset of symptoms until surgical treatment for all patients receiving surgery for spinal metastases between March 2009 and December 2020 were reconstructed. The documentation of red flags, as defined by the Dutch National Guideline on Metastatic Spinal Disease, was assessed for each healthcare provider involved. Results: A total of 389 patients were included in the study. On average, 33.3% of red flags were documented as present, 3.6% were documented as absent, and 63.1% were undocumented. A higher rate of red flags documented as present was associated with a longer time to diagnosis, but a shorter time to definitive treatment by a spine surgeon. Moreover, red flags were documented as present more often in patients who developed neurological symptoms at any point during the referral chain than those who remained neurologically intact. Conclusions: The association of red flags with developing neurological deficits highlights their significance in clinical assessment. However, the presence of red flags was not found to decrease delays prior to referral to a spine surgeon, indicating that their relevance is currently not sufficiently recognized by healthcare providers. Raising awareness of symptoms indicative of spinal metastases may expedite timely (surgical) treatment and thus improve treatment outcome.

Introducing the New Patient Expectations in Spine Oncology Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It has been hypothesized that a discrepancy between pretreatment expectations and perceived outcomes is a significant source of patient dissatisfaction. Currently, there is lack in understanding and tools to assess patient expectations regarding the outcomes of treatment for spinal metastases. The objective of this study was therefore to develop a patient expectations questionnaire regarding the outcomes after surgery and/or radiotherapy for spinal metastases. METHODS: A multiphase international qualitative study was conducted. Phase 1 of the study included semistructured interviews with patients and relatives to understand their expectations of the outcomes of treatment. In addition, physicians were interviewed about their communication practices with patients regarding treatment and expected outcomes. In phase 2, items were developed based on the results of the interviews in phase 1. In phase 3, patients were interviewed to validate the content and language of the questionnaire. Selection of the final items was based on feedback from patients regarding content, language, and relevance. RESULTS: In phase 1, 24 patients and 22 physicians were included. A total of 34 items were developed for the preliminary questionnaire. After phase 3, a total of 22 items were retained for the final version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire is divided into 3 sections: (1) patient expectations regarding treatment outcomes, (2) prognosis, and (3) consultation with the physician. The items cover expectations related to pain, analgesia requirements, daily and physical function, overall quality of life, life expectancy, and information provided by the physician. CONCLUSION: The new Patient Expectations in Spine Oncology questionnaire was developed to evaluate patient expectations regarding the outcomes after treatment for spinal metastases. The Patient Expectations in Spine Oncology questionnaire will allow physicians to systematically assess patient expectations of planned treatment and thus help guide patients toward realistic expectations of treatment outcome.

Correlation Between the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) and Patient Reported Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: International multicenter prospective observational cohort study on patients undergoing radiation +/- surgical intervention for the treatment of symptomatic spinal metastases. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between the total Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), individual SINS components and PROs. METHODS: Data regarding patient demographics, diagnostics, treatment, and PROs (SF-36, SOSGOQ, EQ-5D) was collected at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks post-treatment. The SINS was assessed using routine diagnostic imaging. The association between SINS, PRO at baseline and change in PROs was examined with the Spearmans rank test. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients, including 174 patients who underwent surgery+/- radiotherapy and 133 patients who underwent radiotherapy were eligible for analyses. In the surgery+/- radiotherapy group, 18 (10.3%) patients with SINS score between 0-6, 118 (67.8%) with a SINS between 7-12 and 38 (21.8%) with a SINS between 13-18, as compared to 55 (41.4%) SINS 0-6, 71(53.4%) SINS 7-12 and 7 (5.2%) SINS 13-18 in the radiotherapy alone group. At baseline, the total SINS and the presence of mechanical pain was significantly associated with the SOSGOQ pain domain (r = -0.519, P < 0.001) and the NRS pain score (r = 0.445, P < 0.001) for all patients. The presence of mechanical pain demonstrated to be moderately associated with a positive change in PROs at 12 weeks post-treatment. CONCLUSION: Spinal instability, as defined by the SINS, was significantly correlated with PROs at baseline and change in PROs post-treatment. Mechanical pain, as a single SINS component, showed the highest correlations with PROs.

Gender and Sex Differences in Health-related Quality of Life, Clinical Outcomes and Survival after Treatment of Metastatic Spine Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospective, multicenter and international cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To describe the effect of gender on HRQoL, clinical outcomes and survival for patients with spinal metastases treated with either surgery and/or radiation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Gender differences in health-related outcomes are demonstrated in numerous studies, with women experiencing worse outcomes and receiving lower standards of care than men, however, the influence that gender has on low health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and clinical outcomes after spine surgery remains unclear. METHODS: Patient demographic data, overall survival, treatment details, perioperative complications, and HRQoL measures including EQ-5D, pain NRS, the short form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2) and the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) were reviewed. Patients were stratified by sex, and a separate sensitivity analysis that excluded gender-specific cancers (i.e., breast, prostate, etc.) was performed. RESULTS: The study cohort included 207 female and 183 male patients, with age, smoking status, and site of primary cancer being significantly different between the two cohorts (P<0.001). Both males and females experienced significantly improved SOSGOQ2.0, EQ-5D, and pain NRS scores at all study time points from baseline (P<0.001). Upon sensitivity analysis, (gender-specific cancers removed from analysis), the significant improvement in SOSGOQ physical, mental, and social subdomains and on SF-36 domains disappeared for females. Males experienced higher rates of postoperative complications. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of both the overall and sensitivity analysis cohorts showed females lived longer than males after treatment (P=0.001 and 0.043, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both males and females experienced significantly improved HRQoL scores after treatment, but females demonstrated longer survival and a lower complication rate. This study suggests that gender may be a prognostic factor in survival and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing treatment for spine metastases and should be taken into consideration when counseling patients accordingly.

Steroids in the Management of Preoperative Neurological Deficits in Metastatic Spine Disease: Results From the EPOSO Study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients presenting with neurological deficit secondary to metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) are often treated with surgery in combination with high-dose corticosteroids. Despite steroids being commonly used, the evidence regarding the effect of corticosteroids on patient outcomes is limited. The objective of this study was to describe the effect of corticosteroid use on preoperative neurological function in patients with MESCC. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery between August 2013 and February 2017 for the treatment of spinal metastases and received steroids to prevent neurologic deficits were included. Data regarding demographics, diagnosis, treatment, neurological function, adverse events, health-related quality of life, and survival were extracted from an international multicenter prospective cohort. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients treated surgically and receiving steroids at baseline were identified. Patients had a mean age of 58.2 years (standard deviation, 11.2 years) at time of surgery. Preoperatively, 50% of the patients experienced deterioration of neurological function, while in 30% neurological function was stable and 20% improved in neurological function. Lengthier steroid use did not correlate with improved or stabilized neurological function. Postoperative adverse events were observed in 18 patients (60%). Patients that stabilized or improved neurologically after steroid use showed a trend towards improved survival at 3- and 24-month postsurgery. CONCLUSION: This study described the effect of steroids on preoperative neurological function in patients with MESCC. Stabilization or improvement of preoperative neurological function occurred in 50% of the patients.

Calculating Utilities From the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire: A Necessity for Economic and Decision Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: General population utility valuation study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a technique for calculating utilities from the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire v2.0 (SOSGOQ2.0). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ability to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for metastatic spine disease would enhance treatment decision-making and facilitate economic analysis. QALYs are calculated using utilities. METHODS: Using a hybrid concept-retention and factorial analysis shortening approach, we first shortened the SOSGOQ2.0 to eight items (SOSGOQ-8D). This was done to lessen the cognitive burden of the utility valuation exercise. A general population sample of 2730 adults was then asked to evaluate 12 choice sets based on SOSGOQ-8D health states in a Discrete Choice Experiment. A utility scoring rubric was then developed using a mixed multinomial-logit regression model. RESULTS: We were able to reduce the SOSGOQ2.0 to an SOSGOQ-8D with a mean error of 0.003 and mean absolute error of 3.078 compared to the full questionnaire. The regression model demonstrated good predictive performance and was used to develop a utility scoring rubric. Regression results revealed that participants did not regard all SOSGOQ-8D items as equally important. CONCLUSION: We provide a simple technique for converting the SOSGOQ2.0 to utilities. The ability to evaluate QALYs in metastatic spine disease will facilitate economic analysis and patient counseling. We also quantify the importance of individual SOSGOQ-8D items. Clinicians should heed these findings and offer treatments that maximize function in the most important items.Level of Evidence: 3.

Surgical or Radiation Therapy for the Treatment of Cervical Spine Metastases: Results From the Epidemiology, Process, and Outcomes of Spine Oncology (EPOSO) Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Ambispective cohort study design. OBJECTIVES: Cervical spine metastases have distinct clinical considerations. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of surgical intervention (± radiotherapy) or radiotherapy alone on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes in patients treated for cervical metastatic spine tumours. METHODS: Patients treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy for cervical spine metastases were identified from the Epidemiology, Process, and Outcomes of Spine Oncology (EPOSO) international multicentre prospective observational study. Demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and HRQOL (numerical rating scale [NRS] pain, EQ-5D (3L), SF-36v2, and SOSGOQ) measures were prospectively collected at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postintervention. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients treated for cervical metastases were identified: 38 underwent surgery ± radiation and 17 received radiation alone. Surgically treated patients had higher mean spinal instability neoplastic scores compared with the radiation-alone group (13.0 vs 8.0, P < .001) and higher NRS pain scores and lower HRQOL scores compared to the radiation alone group (P < .05). From baseline to 6 months posttreatment, surgically treated patients demonstrated statistically significant improvements in NRS pain, EQ-5D (5L), and SOSGOQ2.0 scores compared with nonsignificant improvements in the radiotherapy alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Surgically treated cervical metastases patients presented with higher levels of instability, worse baseline pain and HRQOL scores compared with patients who underwent radiotherapy alone. Significant improvements in pain and HRQOL were noted for those patients who received surgical intervention. Limited or no improvements were found in those treated with radiotherapy alone.