L Bollen1, W C H Jacobs2, Y M Van der Linden3, O Van der Hel4, W Taal5, P D S Dijkstra6. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands. l.bollen@amc.nl. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Neuro-Oncology/Neurology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: For the selection of treatment in patients with spinal bone metastases (SBM), survival estimation plays a crucial role to avoid over- and under-treatment. To aid clinicians in this difficult task, several prediction models have been developed, consisting of many different risk factors. The aim of this systematic review was to identify prognostic factors that are associated with survival in patients with SBM to support development of predictive models. METHODS: A systematic review was performed with focus on prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with SBM. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and assessed the risk of bias. A level of evidence synthesis was performed for each prognostic factor. Inter-observer agreement for the risk of bias assessment was determined by the kappa-statistic. RESULTS: After screening, 142 full-text articles were obtained, of which 22 met the eligibility criteria. A total of 43 different prognostic factors were investigated in the included studies, of which 17 were relevant to pre-treatment survival estimation. The prognostic factors most frequently associated with survival were the primary tumor and the performance status. The prognostic factors most frequently not associated with survival were age, gender, number and location of the SBM and the presence of a pathologic fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostication for patients with SBM should be based on an accurate primary tumor classification, combined with a performance score. The benefit of adding other prognostic factors is doubtful.
PURPOSE: For the selection of treatment in patients with spinal bone metastases (SBM), survival estimation plays a crucial role to avoid over- and under-treatment. To aid clinicians in this difficult task, several prediction models have been developed, consisting of many different risk factors. The aim of this systematic review was to identify prognostic factors that are associated with survival in patients with SBM to support development of predictive models. METHODS: A systematic review was performed with focus on prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with SBM. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and assessed the risk of bias. A level of evidence synthesis was performed for each prognostic factor. Inter-observer agreement for the risk of bias assessment was determined by the kappa-statistic. RESULTS: After screening, 142 full-text articles were obtained, of which 22 met the eligibility criteria. A total of 43 different prognostic factors were investigated in the included studies, of which 17 were relevant to pre-treatment survival estimation. The prognostic factors most frequently associated with survival were the primary tumor and the performance status. The prognostic factors most frequently not associated with survival were age, gender, number and location of the SBM and the presence of a pathologic fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostication for patients with SBM should be based on an accurate primary tumor classification, combined with a performance score. The benefit of adding other prognostic factors is doubtful.
Entities:
Keywords:
Prognostication; Spinal bone metastases; Systematic review
Authors: F Bach; B H Larsen; K Rohde; S E Børgesen; F Gjerris; T Bøge-Rasmussen; N Agerlin; B Rasmusson; P Stjernholm; P S Sørensen Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 1990 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Robert T Arrigo; Paul Kalanithi; Ivan Cheng; Todd Alamin; Eugene J Carragee; Stefan A Mindea; Jongsoo Park; Maxwell Boakye Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Vincent Pointillart; Jean-Marc Vital; Rachid Salmi; Abou Diallo; Gerald M Quan Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-04 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Gwendolijne G M Scholten-Peeters; Arianne P Verhagen; Geertruida E Bekkering; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Les Barnsley; Rob A B Oostendorp; Erik J M Hendriks Journal: Pain Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Laurens Bollen; Yvette M van der Linden; Willem Pondaag; Marta Fiocco; Bas P M Pattynama; Corrie A M Marijnen; Rob G H H Nelissen; Wilco C Peul; P D Sander Dijkstra Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Stacyann Bailey; Marc A Stadelmann; Philippe K Zysset; Deepak Vashishth; Ron N Alkalay Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 6.390
Authors: Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas Grooten; Elena Tseli; Björn Olov Äng; Katja Boersma; Britt-Marie Stålnacke; Björn Gerdle; Paul Enthoven Journal: Diagn Progn Res Date: 2019-03-07
Authors: Tilman Bostel; Robert Förster; Ingmar Schlampp; Tanja Sprave; Sati Akbaba; Daniel Wollschläger; Jürgen Debus; Arnulf Mayer; Heinz Schmidberger; Harald Rief; Nils Henrik Nicolay Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Tamás Mezei; Anna Horváth; Péter Pollner; Gábor Czigléczki; Péter Banczerowski Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Tilman Bostel; Sati Akbaba; Daniel Wollschläger; Tristan Klodt; Laura Oebel; Arnulf Mayer; Sophia Drabke; Tanja Sprave; Jürgen Debus; Robert Förster; Harald Rief; Alexander Rühle; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Heinz Schmidberger; Nils H Nicolay Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 6.244