Kyrollis Attalla1, Cihan Duzgol2, Lily McLaughlin3, Jessica Flynn4, Irina Ostrovnaya4, Paul Russo1, Mark H Bilsky3, A Ari Hakimi1, Nelson S Moss5. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery and Brain Metastasis Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 5. Department of Neurological Surgery and Brain Metastasis Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: mossn@mkscc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantifying the degree to which spinal involvement of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a locoregional phenomenon vs. a hematogenous, bone-specific affinity has implications for prognosis and antimetastatic therapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the distribution of spinal metastasis in mRCC and to explore relationships between clinical factors and patterns of spinal spread. METHODS: Patients with mRCC and spinal involvement from June 2005 to November 2018 were identified. Clinical and biologic features including primary tumor size and degree of spinal and nonbony metastatic involvement were collected. Spinal distributions were evaluated by the permutation test, with the null hypothesis that metastases are distributed uniformly across levels. RESULTS: One hundred patients with 685 spinal levels involved by mRCC were evaluated. A nonuniform spatial distribution was observed across the cohort (P < 0.001); a preponderance of thoracolumbar involvement was noted with the mode at L3. No significant deviation in metastatic distribution from uniform was observed in right- or left-sided tumors, subgroups of distant or local metastases, or histology. Patients with smaller tumors (<4 cm) and local spread had distribution of spinal metastases not significantly different from uniform (P = 0.292 and P = 0.126, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These data support a dominant locoregional as opposed to arterial hematogenous mechanism for early spinal dissemination of mRCC. Characterizations of the biologic molecular features contributing to osseous tropism and aggressive tumor biology (as seen in the subset of outlier patients with small tumors who appear to have more uniform spread), have implications for surveillance and are an area of active investigation.
BACKGROUND: Quantifying the degree to which spinal involvement of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a locoregional phenomenon vs. a hematogenous, bone-specific affinity has implications for prognosis and antimetastatic therapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the distribution of spinal metastasis in mRCC and to explore relationships between clinical factors and patterns of spinal spread. METHODS: Patients with mRCC and spinal involvement from June 2005 to November 2018 were identified. Clinical and biologic features including primary tumor size and degree of spinal and nonbony metastatic involvement were collected. Spinal distributions were evaluated by the permutation test, with the null hypothesis that metastases are distributed uniformly across levels. RESULTS: One hundred patients with 685 spinal levels involved by mRCC were evaluated. A nonuniform spatial distribution was observed across the cohort (P < 0.001); a preponderance of thoracolumbar involvement was noted with the mode at L3. No significant deviation in metastatic distribution from uniform was observed in right- or left-sided tumors, subgroups of distant or local metastases, or histology. Patients with smaller tumors (<4 cm) and local spread had distribution of spinal metastases not significantly different from uniform (P = 0.292 and P = 0.126, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These data support a dominant locoregional as opposed to arterial hematogenous mechanism for early spinal dissemination of mRCC. Characterizations of the biologic molecular features contributing to osseous tropism and aggressive tumor biology (as seen in the subset of outlier patients with small tumors who appear to have more uniform spread), have implications for surveillance and are an area of active investigation.
Authors: Beatrice S Knudsen; Glenn A Gmyrek; Jennifer Inra; Douglas S Scherr; E Darracott Vaughan; David M Nanus; Michael W Kattan; William L Gerald; George F Vande Woude Journal: Urology Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Emma Woodward; Satinder Jagdev; Lucy McParland; Katy Clark; Walter Gregory; Alex Newsham; Suzanne Rogerson; Kate Hayward; Peter Selby; Janet Brown Journal: Bone Date: 2010-09-18 Impact factor: 4.398
Authors: Nalini Sathiakumar; Elizabeth Delzell; Michael A Morrisey; Carla Falkson; Mellissa Yong; Victoria Chia; Justin Blackburn; Tarun Arora; Ilene Brill; Meredith L Kilgore Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-08-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: B Beuselinck; J Jean-Baptiste; G Couchy; S Job; A De Reynies; P Wolter; C Théodore; G Gravis; B Rousseau; L Albiges; S Joniau; V Verkarre; E Lerut; J J Patard; P Schöffski; A Méjean; R Elaidi; S Oudard; J Zucman-Rossi Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 7.640