Literature DB >> 26471708

Spine Instability Neoplastic Score: agreement across different medical and surgical specialties.

Estanislao Arana1, Francisco M Kovacs2, Ana Royuela3, Beatriz Asenjo4, Úrsula Pérez-Ramírez5, Javier Zamora6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal instability is an acknowledged complication of spinal metastases; in spite of recent suggested criteria, it is not clearly defined in the literature.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess intra and interobserver agreement when using the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) by all physicians involved in its management. STUDY
DESIGN: Independent multicenter reliability study for the recently created SINS, undertaken with a panel of medical oncologists, neurosurgeons, radiologists, orthopedic surgeons, and radiation oncologists, was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Ninety patients with biopsy-proven spinal metastases and magnetic resonance imaging, reviewed at the multidisciplinary tumor board of our institution, were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for SINS score agreement. Fleiss kappa statistic was used to assess agreement on the location of the most affected vertebral level; agreement on the SINS category ("stable," "potentially stable," or "unstable"); and overall agreement with the classification established by tumor board.
METHODS: Clinical data and imaging were provided to 83 specialists in 44 hospitals across 14 Spanish regions. No assessment criteria were pre-established. Each clinician assessed the SINS score twice, with a minimum 6-week interval. Clinicians were blinded to assessments made by other specialists and to their own previous assessment. Subgroup analyses were performed by clinicians' specialty, experience (≤7, 8-13, ≥14 years), and hospital category (four levels according to size and complexity). This study was supported by Kovacs Foundation.
RESULTS: Intra and interobserver agreement on the location of the most affected levels was "almost perfect" (κ>0.94). Intra-observer agreement on the SINS score was "excellent" (ICC=0.77), whereas interobserver agreement was "moderate" (ICC=0.55). Intra-observer agreement in SINS category was "substantial" (k=0.61), whereas interobserver agreement was "moderate" (k=0.42). Overall agreement with the tumor board classification was "substantial" (κ=0.61). Results were similar across specialties, years of experience, and hospital category.
CONCLUSIONS: Agreement on the assessment of metastatic spine instability is moderate. The SINS can help improve communication among clinicians in oncology care.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Medical specialty; Observer agreement; Reliability analysis; Spinal instability; Spinal metastases; Spine Instability Neoplastic Score

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26471708     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.10.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  16 in total

1.  Re: "Prediction of skeletal-related events in patients with non-small cell lung cancer"-use of Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS).

Authors:  Estanislao Arana; Francisco M Kovacs; Ana Royuela; Beatriz Asenjo; Úrsula Pérez-Ramírez; Javier Zamora
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 2.  Classifications in Brief: The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score.

Authors:  Hamza Murtaza; Connor W Sullivan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  The clinical utility of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) system in spinal epidural metastases: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Ayoub Dakson; Erika Leck; David M Brandman; Sean D Christie
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 2.772

4.  Management of extranodal lymphoma of the spine: a study of 30 patients.

Authors:  Shamsudini Hashi; Courtney Rory Goodwin; Ali Karim Ahmed; Daniel M Sciubba
Journal:  CNS Oncol       Date:  2018-04-30

5.  Treatment Strategy for Impending Instability in Spinal Metastases.

Authors:  Yeon Ho Kim; Junho Kim; Sam Yeol Chang; Hyoungmin Kim; Bong-Soon Chang
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-06-26

6.  Prognosis of Single Spinal Metastatic Tumors: Predictive Value of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score System for Spinal Adverse Events.

Authors:  Sam Yeol Chang; Jae Hong Ha; Sang Gyo Seo; Bong-Soon Chang; Choon-Ki Lee; Hyoungmin Kim
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-09-10

7.  Outcomes and Prognosis of Neurological Decompression and Stabilization for Spinal Metastasis: Is Assessment with the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score Useful for Predicting Surgical Results?

Authors:  Kenji Masuda; Ko Ebata; Yoshimasa Yasuhara; Akira Enomoto; Tomoyuki Saito
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-09-10

Review 8.  Classification and scoring systems for metastatic spine tumors: a literature review.

Authors:  Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Hiroshi Uei; Masashi Oshima
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2017-12-20

Review 9.  Diagnostic algorithm, prognostic factors and surgical treatment of metastatic cancer diseases of the long bones and spine.

Authors:  Miklós Szendrői; Imre Antal; Attila Szendrői; Áron Lazáry; Péter Pál Varga
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2017-09-01

Review 10.  The Role of Prognostic Scoring Systems in Assessing Surgical Candidacy for Patients With Vertebral Metastasis: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  John Tristan Cassidy; Joseph F Baker; Brian Lenehan
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-01-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.