| Literature DB >> 35884541 |
Hanna Nowak1, Dominika Maria Szwacka1, Monika Pater1, Wojciech Krzysztof Mrugalski1, Michał Grzegorz Milczarek1, Magdalena Staniszewska1, Roman Jankowski2,3, Anna-Maria Barciszewska3,4.
Abstract
The treatment of neoplastic spine metastases requires multi-faceted assessment and an interdisciplinary approach to patients. The metastases do not show specific symptoms but are often the first confirmation of the presence of a primary tumor in a patient. The diagnostic process includes imaging and invasive procedures, e.g., biopsy. It is essential to qualify the patient for an appropriate treatment using dedicated scales. Decompression of the spinal cord is a critical issue to save or restore neurological function in a patient with spine metastases. Surgical treatment ought to meet three criteria: release spinal cord and nerve roots, restore the spine's anatomical relations, and ensure the internal stabilization of the spine. A good result from surgical treatment enables the continuation of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted molecular therapy. Stereotactic radiosurgery and stereotactic body radiotherapy are more effective ways of treating spine metastases than conventional external beam radiotherapy. They allow higher doses of radiation, concentrated precisely at the tumor site. Our review summarizes the established and emerging concepts in the treatment of spine metastases. A holistic approach to the patient enables the selection of the appropriate therapy.Entities:
Keywords: decompression; metastases; quality of life; scales; spine; surgical treatment; tumor
Year: 2022 PMID: 35884541 PMCID: PMC9317366 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14143480
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Figure 1The frequency of metastases in individual sections of the spine based on data from ref. [6].
Type of spine metastases in terms of its effect on bones.
| Type of Spine Metastases | ||
|---|---|---|
| Osteoclastic | Osteoblastic | |
|
| e.g., lungs, kidneys, multiple myeloma | e.g., prostate |
|
| IL-1 | ET-1 |
|
| TGF-β | |
| FGF | ||
| IGF | ||
| BMP | ||
| PDGF | ||
| OPG | ||
| HGF | ||
| IL-6 | ||
| CTGF | ||
| M-CSF | ||
| VEGF | ||
| PTHrP | ||
The factors released by tumor cells and bone microenvironment: interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), interleukin-10 (IL-10), interleukin-11 (IL-11),transforming growth factor α (TGF-α), transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), parathyroid-related peptide (PTHrP), prostaglandin E2 (PgE2), tumor necrosis factor (TNF), colony stimulating factor (CSF-1), granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), monocyte-colony stimulating factor (M-CSF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), endothelin-1 (ET-1), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 1 (CXCL-1), urokinase-tipe plasminogen activator (uPA), prostate specific antigen (PSA), osteoprotegerin (OPG), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) [2,5,8,9,10,11].
The discusses scales and their application [6,20,21,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37].
| Scales Assessing the Severity of the Disease | |
|---|---|
| The Name of the Scale | What Does the Scale Evaluate? |
| The Karnofsky scale | functional patient’s condition |
| ASA Physical Status Classification System | operational risk |
| the Frankel scale, the American Spinal Injury Association | patient’s neurological condition |
| The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) | pain assessment |
| Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), De Wald scale, | assessment neoplastic lesions, their |
| Tokuhashi scale, modified Bauer scale | predicted survival time of a patient with neoplastic metastases to the spine |
Surgical approaches [17,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70].
| Approach | Level of Spine | Description |
|---|---|---|
| anterior | the upper part of the | through the posterior wall of the pharynx, mandibular |
| C3 to C7 | proposed by Clovard Smith and Robinson—in front of the anterior edge the sternocleidomastoid muscle | |
| thoracic vertebrae | the anterior approach to the thoracic vertebrae is complex from Th2 to Th5 due to the limitations of the sternum (the need for sternotomy) and to the Th10 to L1 thoracolumbar spine junction caused by diaphragm attachments (the need to connect the post-pleural and retroperitoneal entrances) | |
| lumbar shafts | provided by retroperitoneal access; | |
| peritoneal | L5 | - |
| posterior | - | routinely used laminectomy, which makes way to open the vertebral canal and exposes posterior surface of spinal cord |
| lateral | - | laminectomy and total excision of pedicles of vertebral arch at the same time enable lateral approach to vertebral canal and show lateral surface of spinal cord (intrapedicular |
| posterolateral | - | the body of the thoracic vertebra can be visualized via a posterolateral thoracotomy |
| en block | - | tumor excision in one piece with margin of surrounding tissue; the character of metastatic tumor and localization in the spine rarely allows the use of this kind of resection; |
Figure 2The algorithm summarizing the diagnostic and treatment strategy for patients with spinal metastases, based on data presented in the review.