Browsing by Subject "Spinal Neoplasms"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: an evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group.
    (Spine, 2010-10) Fisher, Charles G; DiPaola, Christian P; Ryken, Timothy C; Bilsky, Mark H; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Berven, Sigurd H; Harrop, James S; Fehlings, Michael G; Boriani, Stefano; Chou, Dean; Schmidt, Meic H; Polly, David W; Biagini, Roberto; Burch, Shane; Dekutoski, Mark B; Ganju, Aruna; Gerszten, Peter C; Gokaslan, Ziya L; Groff, Michael W; Liebsch, Norbert J; Mendel, Ehud; Okuno, Scott H; Patel, Shreyaskumar; Rhines, Laurence D; Rose, Peter S; Sciubba, Daniel M; Sundaresan, Narayan; Tomita, Katsuro; Varga, Peter P; Vialle, Luiz R; Vrionis, Frank D; Yamada, Yoshiya; Fourney, Daryl R

    Study design

    Systematic review and modified Delphi technique.

    Objective

    To use an evidence-based medicine process using the best available literature and expert opinion consensus to develop a comprehensive classification system to diagnose neoplastic spinal instability.

    Summary of background data

    Spinal instability is poorly defined in the literature and presently there is a lack of guidelines available to aid in defining the degree of spinal instability in the setting of neoplastic spinal disease. The concept of spinal instability remains important in the clinical decision-making process for patients with spine tumors.

    Methods

    We have integrated the evidence provided by systematic reviews through a modified Delphi technique to generate a consensus of best evidence and expert opinion to develop a classification system to define neoplastic spinal instability.

    Results

    A comprehensive classification system based on patient symptoms and radiographic criteria of the spine was developed to aid in predicting spine stability of neoplastic lesions. The classification system includes global spinal location of the tumor, type and presence of pain, bone lesion quality, spinal alignment, extent of vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral spinal element involvement. Qualitative scores were assigned based on relative importance of particular factors gleaned from the literature and refined by expert consensus.

    Conclusion

    The Spine Instability Neoplastic Score is a comprehensive classification system with content validity that can guide clinicians in identifying when patients with neoplastic disease of the spine may benefit from surgical consultation. It can also aid surgeons in assessing the key components of spinal instability due to neoplasia and may become a prognostic tool for surgical decision-making when put in context with other key elements such as neurologic symptoms, extent of disease, prognosis, patient health factors, oncologic subtype, and radiosensitivity of the tumor.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Does facility volume influence survival in patients with primary malignant bone tumors of the vertebral column? A comparative cohort study.
    (The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2020-07) Lazarides, Alexander L; Kerr, David L; Dial, Brian L; Steele, John R; Lane, Whitney O; Blazer, Dan G; Brigman, Brian E; Mendoza-Lattes, Sergio; Erickson, Melissa M; Eward, William C

    Background context

    Facility volume has been correlated with survival in many cancers. This relationship has not been established in primary malignant bone tumors of the vertebral column (BTVC).

    Purpose

    To investigate whether facility patient volume is associated with overall survival in patients with primary malignant BTVCs.

    Study design

    Retrospective comparative cohort.

    Patient sample

    Adult patients with chordomas, chondrosarcomas, or osteosarcomas of the mobile spine.

    Outcome measures

    Five-year survival.

    Methods

    We retrospectively analyzed 733 patients with primary malignant BTVCs in the national cancer database from 2004 through 2015. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to correlate specific outcome measures with facility volume. Volume was stratified based on cumulative martingale residuals to determine the inflection point of negative to positive impact on survival based on the patient cohort. Long-term survival was compared between patients treated at high and low volume using the Kaplan-Meier method. Only patients with malignant primary tumors were considered eligible for inclusion; patients with incomplete treatment data or benign tumors were excluded.

    Results

    Patients treated at high-volume centers (HVCs) were younger (p=.0003) and more likely to be insured (p<.0001). There were no significant differences in tumor characteristics. Patients treated at high-volume facilities had improved 5-year survival of 71% versus 58% at low-volume centers (p<.0001). Patients treated at HVCs were more likely to receive surgical treatment (91% vs. 80%, p<.0001); if surgery was performed, they were more likely to undergo an en bloc resection (48% vs. 30%, p<.0001). However, there were no differences in margin status or utilization of radiotherapy or chemotherapy between HVCs and low-volume centers. In a multivariate analysis, facility volume was independently associated with improved survival overall (HR 0.75 [0.58-0.97], p=.03).

    Conclusions

    Primary malignant BTVCs are rare, even for HVCs. Despite this, patient survival was significantly improved when treatment was performed at HVCs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Epidemiologic and survival trends in adult primary bone tumors of the spine.
    (The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2019-12) Kerr, David L; Dial, Brian L; Lazarides, Alexander L; Catanzano, Anthony A; Lane, Whitney O; Blazer, Dan G; Brigman, Brian E; Mendoza-Lattes, Sergio; Eward, William C; Erickson, Melissa E

    Background context

    Malignant primary spinal tumors are rare making it difficult to perform large studies comparing epidemiologic, survival, and treatment trends. We investigated the largest registry of primary bone tumors, the National Cancer Database (NCDB), to compare epidemiologic and survival trends among these tumors.

    Purpose

    To use the NCDB to describe current epidemiologic trends, treatment modalities, and overall survival rates in patients with chordomas, osteosarcomas, chondrosarcomas, and Ewing sarcomas of the mobile spine. The secondary objective was to determine prognostic factors that impact overall survival rates.

    Study design

    Retrospective study.

    Patient sample

    A total of 1,011 patients with primary bone tumors of the spine (377 chordomas, 223 chondrosarcomas, 278 Ewing sarcomas, and 133 osteosarcomas).

    Outcome measures

    Five-year survival.

    Methods

    We reviewed the records of 1,011 patients in the NCDB from 2004 through 2015 with histologically confirmed primary osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, or chordoma of the spine. Demographic, clinical, and outcomes data were compiled and compared using chi-squared tests and ANOVA. Long-term survival was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method with statistical comparisons based on the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine survival determinants.

    Results

    Surgical resection was the primary mode of treatment for chondrosarcoma (90%), chordoma (84%), and osteosarcoma (80%). The treatment for Ewing sarcoma was multimodal involving chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical resection. Five-year survival rates varied significantly with chordomas and chondrosarcomas having the greatest survival (70% and 69%), osteosarcomas having the worse survival (38%), and Ewing having intermediate 5-year survival at 62% (overall log-rank p<.0001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated significantly improved 5-year survival rates with younger age at diagnosis, private insurance status, lower comorbidity score, lower tumor grade, smaller tumor size, surgical resection, and negative surgical margin. Radiation therapy only improved survival for Ewing sarcoma.

    Conclusions

    This study provides the most comprehensive description of the epidemiologic, treatment, and survival trends of primary bone tumors of the mobile spine. Second, patient and tumor characteristics associated with improved 5-year survival were identified using a multivariate model.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Impact of collimator leaf width and treatment technique on stereotactic radiosurgery and radiotherapy plans for intra- and extracranial lesions.
    (Radiation oncology (London, England), 2009-01-21) Wu, Q Jackie; Wang, Zhiheng; Kirkpatrick, John P; Chang, Zheng; Meyer, Jeffrey J; Lu, Mei; Huntzinger, Calvin; Yin, Fang-Fang
    BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the dosimetric impact of various treatment techniques as well as collimator leaf width (2.5 vs 5 mm) for three groups of tumors -- spine tumors, brain tumors abutting the brainstem, and liver tumors. These lesions often present challenges in maximizing dose to target volumes without exceeding critical organ tolerance. Specifically, this study evaluated the dosimetric benefits of various techniques and collimator leaf sizes as a function of lesion size and shape. METHODS: Fifteen cases (5 for each site) were studied retrospectively. All lesions either abutted or were an integral part of critical structures (brainstem, liver or spinal cord). For brain and liver lesions, treatment plans using a 3D-conformal static technique (3D), dynamic conformal arcs (DARC) or intensity modulation (IMRT) were designed with a conventional linear accelerator with standard 5 mm leaf width multi-leaf collimator, and a linear accelerator dedicated for radiosurgery and hypofractionated therapy with a 2.5 mm leaf width collimator. For the concave spine lesions, intensity modulation was required to provide adequate conformality; hence, only IMRT plans were evaluated using either the standard or small leaf-width collimators.A total of 70 treatment plans were generated and each plan was individually optimized according to the technique employed. The Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) was used to separate the impact of treatment technique from the MLC system on plan outcome, and t-tests were performed to evaluate statistical differences in target coverage and organ sparing between plans. RESULTS: The lesions ranged in size from 2.6 to 12.5 cc, 17.5 to 153 cc, and 20.9 to 87.7 cc for the brain, liver, and spine groups, respectively. As a group, brain lesions were smaller than spine and liver lesions. While brain and liver lesions were primarily ellipsoidal, spine lesions were more complex in shape, as they were all concave. Therefore, the brain and the liver groups were compared for volume effect, and the liver and spine groups were compared for shape. For the brain and liver groups, both the radiosurgery MLC and the IMRT technique contributed to the dose sparing of organs-at-risk(OARs), as dose in the high-dose regions of these OARs was reduced up to 15%, compared to the non-IMRT techniques employing a 5 mm leaf-width collimator. Also, the dose reduction contributed by the fine leaf-width MLC decreased, as dose savings at all levels diminished from 4 - 11% for the brain group to 1 - 5% for the liver group, as the target structures decreased in volume. The fine leaf-width collimator significantly improved spinal cord sparing, with dose reductions of 14 - 19% in high to middle dose regions, compared to the 5 mm leaf width collimator. CONCLUSION: The fine leaf-width MLC in combination with the IMRT technique can yield dosimetric benefits in radiosurgery and hypofractionated radiotherapy. Treatment of small lesions in cases involving complex target/OAR geometry will especially benefit from use of a fine leaf-width MLC and the use of IMRT.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Importance of Spinal Alignment in Primary and Metastatic Spine Tumors.
    (World neurosurgery, 2019-12) Sankey, Eric W; Park, Christine; Howell, Elizabeth P; Pennington, Zach; Abd-El-Barr, Muhammad; Karikari, Isaac O; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Gokaslan, Ziya L; Sciubba, Daniel; Goodwin, C Rory
    Spinal alignment, particularly with respect to spinopelvic parameters, is highly correlated with morbidity and health-related quality-of-life outcomes. Although the importance of spinal alignment has been emphasized in the deformity literature, spinopelvic parameters have not been considered in the context of spine oncology. Because the aim of oncologic spine surgery is mostly palliative, consideration of spinopelvic parameters could improve postoperative outcomes in both the primary and metastatic tumor population by taking overall vertebral stability into account. This review highlights the relevance of focal and global spinal alignment, particularly related to spinopelvic parameters, in the treatment of spine tumors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Interhospital transfer status for spinal metastasis patients in the United States is associated with more severe clinical presentations and higher rates of inpatient complications.
    (Neurosurgical focus, 2021-05) De la Garza Ramos, Rafael; Park, Christine; McCray, Edwin; Price, Meghan; Wang, Timothy Y; Dalton, Tara; Baëta, César; Erickson, Melissa M; Foster, Norah; Pennington, Zach; Shin, John H; Sciubba, Daniel M; Than, Khoi D; Karikari, Isaac O; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Abd-El-Barr, Muhammad M; Yassari, Reza; Goodwin, C Rory

    Objective

    In patients with metastatic spinal disease (MSD), interhospital transfer can potentially impact clinical outcomes as the possible benefits of transferring a patient to a higher level of care must be weighed against the negative effects associated with potential delays in treatment. While the association of clinical outcomes and transfer status has been examined in other specialties, the relationship between transfer status, complications, and risk of mortality in patients with MSD has yet to be explored. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of transfer status on in-hospital mortality and clinical outcomes in patients diagnosed with MSD.

    Methods

    The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was retrospectively queried for adult patients diagnosed with vertebral pathological fracture and/or spinal cord compression in the setting of metastatic disease between 2012 and 2014. Demographics, baseline characteristics (e.g., metastatic spinal cord compression [MSCC] and paralysis), comorbidities, type of intervention, and relevant patient outcomes were controlled in a multivariable logistic regression model to analyze the association of transfer status with patient outcomes.

    Results

    Within the 10,360 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, higher rates of MSCC (50.2% vs 35.9%, p < 0.001) and paralysis (17.3% vs 8.4%, p < 0.001) were observed in patients transferred between hospitals compared to those directly admitted. In univariable analysis, a higher percentage of transferred patients underwent surgical intervention (p < 0.001) when compared with directly admitted patients. After controlling for significant covariates and surgical intervention, transferred patients were more likely to develop in-hospital complications (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18-1.52, p < 0.001), experience prolonged length of stay (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.16-1.52, p < 0.001), and have a discharge disposition other than home (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.46-1.98, p < 0.001), with no significant difference in inpatient mortality rates.

    Conclusions

    Patients with MSD who were transferred between hospitals demonstrated more severe clinical presentations and higher rates of inpatient complications compared to directly admitted patients, despite demonstrating no difference in in-hospital mortality rates.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Spinal instability neoplastic score: an analysis of reliability and validity from the spine oncology study group.
    (Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2011-08) Fourney, Daryl R; Frangou, Evan M; Ryken, Timothy C; Dipaola, Christian P; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Berven, Sigurd H; Bilsky, Mark H; Harrop, James S; Fehlings, Michael G; Boriani, Stefano; Chou, Dean; Schmidt, Meic H; Polly, David W; Biagini, Roberto; Burch, Shane; Dekutoski, Mark B; Ganju, Aruna; Gerszten, Peter C; Gokaslan, Ziya L; Groff, Michael W; Liebsch, Norbert J; Mendel, Ehud; Okuno, Scott H; Patel, Shreyaskumar; Rhines, Laurence D; Rose, Peter S; Sciubba, Daniel M; Sundaresan, Narayan; Tomita, Katsuro; Varga, Peter P; Vialle, Luiz R; Vrionis, Frank D; Yamada, Yoshiya; Fisher, Charles G

    Purpose

    Standardized indications for treatment of tumor-related spinal instability are hampered by the lack of a valid and reliable classification system. The objective of this study was to determine the interobserver reliability, intraobserver reliability, and predictive validity of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS).

    Methods

    Clinical and radiographic data from 30 patients with spinal tumors were classified as stable, potentially unstable, and unstable by members of the Spine Oncology Study Group. The median category for each patient case (consensus opinion) was used as the gold standard for predictive validity testing. On two occasions at least 6 weeks apart, each rater also scored each patient using SINS. Each total score was converted into a three-category data field, with 0 to 6 as stable, 7 to 12 as potentially unstable, and 13 to 18 as unstable.

    Results

    The κ statistics for interobserver reliability were 0.790, 0.841, 0.244, 0.456, 0.462, and 0.492 for the fields of location, pain, bone quality, alignment, vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral involvement, respectively. The κ statistics for intraobserver reliability were 0.806, 0.859, 0.528, 0.614, 0.590, and 0.662 for the same respective fields. Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter- and intraobserver reliability of total SINS score were 0.846 (95% CI, 0.773 to 0.911) and 0.886 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.902), respectively. The κ statistic for predictive validity was 0.712 (95% CI, 0.676 to 0.766).

    Conclusion

    SINS demonstrated near-perfect inter- and intraobserver reliability in determining three clinically relevant categories of stability. The sensitivity and specificity of SINS for potentially unstable or unstable lesions were 95.7% and 79.5%, respectively.