Ayoub Dakson1, Erika Leck1, David M Brandman1, Sean D Christie2. 1. Division of Neurosurgery, Halifax Infirmary, 1796 Summer Street, Room 3814, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3A7, Canada. 2. Division of Neurosurgery, Halifax Infirmary, 1796 Summer Street, Room 3814, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3A7, Canada. sean.christie@dal.ca.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the clinical utility of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) in relation to the surgical treatment of spinal epidural metastasis and factors important for surgical decision-making. These factors include epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC), patient prognosis and neurologic status. SETTING: Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Canada. METHODS: We identified 285 patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were extracted through a retrospective review. SINS and ESCC were scored based on CT and MRI, respectively. RESULTS: Patients were grouped into stable (35%), potentially unstable (52%), and unstable (13%) groups. The overall incidence of metastatic spinal deformity was 9%. Surgical interventions were performed in 21% of patients, including decompression and instrumented fusion (70%), decompression alone (17%), percutaneous vertebral augmentation (9%), and instrumented vertebral augmentation (5%). The use of spinal instrumentation was significantly associated with unstable SINS (p = 0.005). Grade 3 ESCC was also significantly associated with unstable SINS (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that SINS was not a predictor of survival (p = 0.98). In the radiotherapy-alone group, a significant proportion of patients with potentially unstable SINS (30%) progressed into unstable SINS category at an average 364 ± 244 days (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that more severe categories of SINS were associated with higher degrees of ESCC, and surgical interventions were more often utilized in this group with more frequent placement of spinal instrumentation. Although SINS did not predict patient prognosis, it correlates with the progression of metastatic instability in patients treated with radiotherapy.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the clinical utility of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) in relation to the surgical treatment of spinal epidural metastasis and factors important for surgical decision-making. These factors include epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC), patient prognosis and neurologic status. SETTING: Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Canada. METHODS: We identified 285 patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were extracted through a retrospective review. SINS and ESCC were scored based on CT and MRI, respectively. RESULTS:Patients were grouped into stable (35%), potentially unstable (52%), and unstable (13%) groups. The overall incidence of metastatic spinal deformity was 9%. Surgical interventions were performed in 21% of patients, including decompression and instrumented fusion (70%), decompression alone (17%), percutaneous vertebral augmentation (9%), and instrumented vertebral augmentation (5%). The use of spinal instrumentation was significantly associated with unstable SINS (p = 0.005). Grade 3 ESCC was also significantly associated with unstable SINS (p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that SINS was not a predictor of survival (p = 0.98). In the radiotherapy-alone group, a significant proportion of patients with potentially unstable SINS (30%) progressed into unstable SINS category at an average 364 ± 244 days (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that more severe categories of SINS were associated with higher degrees of ESCC, and surgical interventions were more often utilized in this group with more frequent placement of spinal instrumentation. Although SINS did not predict patient prognosis, it correlates with the progression of metastatic instability in patients treated with radiotherapy.
Authors: Ning Mao Kam; Julian Maingard; Hong Kuan Kok; Dinesh Ranatunga; Duncan Brooks; William C Torreggiani; Peter L Munk; Michael J Lee; Ronil V Chandra; Hamed Asadi Journal: Curr Treat Options Oncol Date: 2017-11-16
Authors: Daryl R Fourney; Evan M Frangou; Timothy C Ryken; Christian P Dipaola; Christopher I Shaffrey; Sigurd H Berven; Mark H Bilsky; 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; Charles G Fisher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G L Walsh; Z L Gokaslan; I E McCutcheon; M T Mineo; A W Yasko; S G Swisher; D S Schrump; J C Nesbitt; J B Putnam; J A Roth Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Alexander R Vaccaro; R John Hulbert; Alpesh A Patel; Charles Fisher; Marcel Dvorak; Ronald A Lehman; Paul Anderson; James Harrop; F C Oner; Paul Arnold; Michael Fehlings; Rune Hedlund; Ignacio Madrazo; Glenn Rechtine; Bizhan Aarabi; Mike Shainline Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Nicolas Serratrice; Joe Faddoul; Bilal Tarabay; Christian Attieh; Moussa A Chalah; Samar S Ayache; Georges N Abi Lahoud Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Alexander Rühle; Verlaine Ange Nya Yompang; Simon K B Spohn; Raluca Stoian; Constantinos Zamboglou; Eleni Gkika; Anca-Ligia Grosu; Nils H Nicolay; Tanja Sprave Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 4.309