Literature DB >> 30489634

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

Ori Barzilai1, Anne L Versteeg2, Arjun Sahgal3, Laurence D Rhines4, Mark H Bilsky1,5, Daniel M Sciubba6, James M Schuster7, Michael H Weber8, Peter Pal Varga9, Stefano Boriani10, Chetan Bettegowda6, Michael G Fehlings11, Yoshiya Yamada12, Michelle J Clarke13, Paul M Arnold14, Ziya L Gokaslan15, Charles G Fisher16, Ilya Laufer1,5.   

Abstract

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.
© 2018 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  health-related quality of life (HRQOL); oligometastases; polymetastases; spine; survival; tumor

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30489634      PMCID: PMC8020734          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31870

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  30 in total

1.  Metastases and spinal cord compression.

Authors:  G P Sinson; E L Zager
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-12-31       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1-2 trial.

Authors:  Xin Shelley Wang; Laurence D Rhines; Almon S Shiu; James N Yang; Ugur Selek; Ibrahima Gning; Ping Liu; Pamela K Allen; Syed S Azeem; Paul D Brown; Hadley J Sharp; David C Weksberg; Charles S Cleeland; Eric L Chang
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2012-01-27       Impact factor: 41.316

3.  A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis.

Authors:  Yasuaki Tokuhashi; Hiromi Matsuzaki; Hiroshi Oda; Masashi Oshima; Junnosuke Ryu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Survival and prognostic factors in 321 patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy for oligo-metastases.

Authors:  Mette Marie Fode; Morten Høyer
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 6.280

Review 5.  The Tokuhashi score: effectiveness and pitfalls.

Authors:  Carmine Zoccali; Jesse Skoch; Christina M Walter; Mohammad Torabi; Mark Borgstrom; Ali A Baaj
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: an evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group.

Authors:  Charles G Fisher; Christian P DiPaola; Timothy C Ryken; Mark H Bilsky; Christopher I Shaffrey; Sigurd H Berven; James S Harrop; Michael G Fehlings; Stefano Boriani; Dean Chou; Meic H Schmidt; David W Polly; Roberto Biagini; Shane Burch; Mark B Dekutoski; Aruna Ganju; Peter C Gerszten; Ziya L Gokaslan; Michael W Groff; Norbert J Liebsch; Ehud Mendel; Scott H Okuno; Shreyaskumar Patel; Laurence D Rhines; Peter S Rose; Daniel M Sciubba; Narayan Sundaresan; Katsuro Tomita; Peter P Varga; Luiz R Vialle; Frank D Vrionis; Yoshiya Yamada; Daryl R Fourney
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  A prospective pilot study of curative-intent stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with 5 or fewer oligometastatic lesions.

Authors:  Michael T Milano; Alan W Katz; Ann G Muhs; Abraham Philip; Daniel J Buchholz; Michael C Schell; Paul Okunieff
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Evaluation of prognostic scoring systems for spinal metastases in 196 patients treated during 2005-2010.

Authors:  M Dardic; Christine Wibmer; A Berghold; L Stadlmueller; E V Froehlich; A Leithner
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Solitary vertebral metastasis.

Authors:  Daniel M Sciubba; Trang Nguyen; Ziya L Gokaslan
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.472

10.  Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases. Prognostication in 241 patients.

Authors:  H C Bauer; R Wedin
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1995-04
View more
  6 in total

1.  Essential Concepts for the Management of Metastatic Spine Disease: What the Surgeon Should Know and Practice.

Authors:  Ori Barzilai; Stefano Boriani; Charles G Fisher; Arjun Sahgal; Jorrit Jan Verlaan; Ziya L Gokaslan; Aron Lazary; Chetan Bettegowda; Laurence D Rhines; Ilya Laufer
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2019-05-08

Review 2.  Single-Fraction Radiotherapy (SFRT) For Bone Metastases: Patient Selection And Perspectives.

Authors:  Mauro Loi; Joost J Nuyttens; Isacco Desideri; Daniela Greto; Lorenzo Livi
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 3.989

3.  Long-term outcome after combined kyphoplasty and intraoperative radiotherapy (Kypho-IORT) for vertebral tumors.

Authors:  Frederic Bludau; Laura Winter; Grit Welzel; Udo Obertacke; Frank Schneider; Frederik Wenz; Arne Mathias Ruder; Frank A Giordano
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-11-12       Impact factor: 3.481

Review 4.  The Palliative Care in the Metastatic Spinal Tumors. A Systematic Review on the Radiotherapy and Surgical Perspective.

Authors:  Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva; Gianluca Ferini; Fabio Torregrossa; Lara Brunasso; Sofia Musso; Umberto Emanuele Benigno; Rosa Maria Gerardi; Lapo Bonosi; Roberta Costanzo; Federica Paolini; Paolo Palmisciano; Giuseppe Emmanuele Umana; Rina Di Bonaventura; Carmelo Lucio Sturiale; Domenico Gerardo Iacopino; Rosario Maugeri
Journal:  Life (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-12

Review 5.  Prognostic Factors for Bone Survival and Functional Outcomes in Patients With Breast Cancer Spine Metastases.

Authors:  Rui-Qi Qiao; Hao-Ran Zhang; Rong-Xing Ma; Rui-Feng Li; Yong-Cheng Hu
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec

6.  Anterior Corpectomy and Plating with Carbon-PEEK Instrumentation for Cervical Spinal Metastases: Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.

Authors:  Sokol Trungu; Luca Ricciardi; Stefano Forcato; Antonio Scollato; Giuseppe Minniti; Massimo Miscusi; Antonino Raco
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 4.241

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.