Literature DB >> 26866742

Predictive Value of Six Prognostic Scoring Systems for Spinal Bone Metastases: An Analysis Based on 1379 Patients.

Laurens Bollen1, Christine Wibmer, Yvette M Van der Linden, Willem Pondaag, Marta Fiocco, Wilco C Peul, Corrie A M Marijnen, Rob G H H Nelissen, Andreas Leithner, Sander P D Dijkstra.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess and compare the predictive accuracy of six models designed to estimate survival of patients suffering from spinal bone metastases Just (SBMs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: On the basis of the estimated survival of patients with SBM, extent of treatment can be adjusted. To aid clinicians in the difficult task of assessing probability of survival, prognostic scoring systems have been developed by Tomita, Tokuhashi, Van der Linden, Bauer, Rades, and Bollen.
METHODS: All patients who were treated for SBM between 2000 and 2010 were included in this international, multicenter, retrospective study (n = 1379). Medical records were reviewed for all items needed to use the scoring systems. Survival time was calculated as the difference between start of treatment for SBM and date of death. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and accuracy was assessed with the c-statistic. Survival rates of the worst prognostic groups were evaluated at 4 months.
RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.7 years [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 5.6-7.7] with a minimum of 2.3 years and a maximum of 12.3 years. The overall median survival was 5.1 months (95% CI 4.6-5.6). The most common primary tumors were breast (n = 388, 28%), lung (n = 318, 23%), and prostate cancer (n = 259, 19%). The Tokuhashi, Bauer, Tomita, and Van der Linden models performed similar with a c-statistic of 0.64 to 0.66 and a 4-month accuracy of 62% to 65%. The Rades model (c-statistic 0.44) and Bollen model (c-statistic 0.70) had a 4-month accuracy of 69% and 75%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The Bollen model performs better than the other models. However, improvements are still warranted to increase the accuracy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26866742     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001192

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  14 in total

1.  Non-operative management of spinal metastases: A prognostic model for failure.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Joseph H Schwab; Marco L Ferrone; Justin A Blucher; Tracy A Balboni; Lauren B Barton; John H Chi; James D Kang; Elena Losina; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  Clin Neurol Neurosurg       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 1.876

2.  Laboratory markers as useful prognostic measures for survival in patients with spinal metastases.

Authors:  Andrew J Schoenfeld; Marco L Ferrone; Peter G Passias; Justin A Blucher; Lauren B Barton; John H Shin; Mitchel B Harris; Joseph H Schwab
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 4.166

3.  A systematic review of prognostic factors predicting survival in patients with spinal bone metastases.

Authors:  L Bollen; W C H Jacobs; Y M Van der Linden; O Van der Hel; W Taal; P D S Dijkstra
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Recursive partitioning analysis is predictive of overall survival for patients undergoing spine stereotactic radiosurgery.

Authors:  Ehsan H Balagamwala; Jacob A Miller; Chandana A Reddy; Lilyana Angelov; John H Suh; Muhammad B Tariq; Erin S Murphy; Kailin Yang; Toufik Djemil; Anthony Magnelli; Alireza M Mohammadi; Sherry Soeder; Samuel T Chao
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 4.130

5.  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

Review 6.  Symptomatic spinal metastasis: A systematic literature review of the preoperative prognostic factors for survival, neurological, functional and quality of life in surgically treated patients and methodological recommendations for prognostic studies.

Authors:  Anick Nater; Allan R Martin; Arjun Sahgal; David Choi; Michael G Fehlings
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Creation of clinical algorithms for decision-making in oncology: an example with dose prescription in radiation oncology.

Authors:  Fabio Dennstädt; Theresa Treffers; Thomas Iseli; Cédric Panje; Paul Martin Putora
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.796

8.  Surgical treatment indications and outcomes in patients with spinal metastases in the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ).

Authors:  Zemin Li; Houqing Long; Rui Guo; Jinghui Xu; Xiaobo Wang; Xing Cheng; Yangliang Huang; Fobao Li
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 2.359

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.