Evaluating ambulatory function as an outcome following treatment for spinal metastases: A systematic review.
Surgery; Systematic review; Decision-making; Spinal metastases; Ambulatory function; Non-operative treatment
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Studies regarding treatment of spinal metastases are critical to evidence-based decision-making. However, variation exists in how a key outcome, ambulatory function, is assessed. PURPOSE: To characterize the sources and tools investigators have used to evaluate ambulatory function as an outcome following treatment of spinal metastases. We also sought to understand the ways ambulatory function has been conceptualized in prior studies. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. PATIENT SAMPLE: We identified 44 published studies for inclusion. Samples within these investigations ranged from 20 to 2,096 subjects. OUTCOME MEASURES: We describe the methods investigators have used to evaluate ambulatory function following treatment for spinal metastases. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review through PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science following PRISMA guidelines. We included studies that consisted of adult patients receiving operative or non-operative treatment for spinal metastases. We also required that study investigators specified post-treatment ambulatory function as an outcome. We recorded year of publication, study design, types of spinal metastases included in the study, treatments employed, and sample size. We also described the source (medical record, study-specific observer and/or provider, patient and/or participant), tool (standardized measure, quantitative, qualitative) and concept (eg, ambulatory vs. non-ambulatory; independent ambulation vs. ambulatory with assistance vs. non-ambulatory) used to assess ambulatory function. RESULTS: We found the plurality of studies relied on medical record documentation as their source. Amongst prospective studies, only a minority used a quantitative measure (eg, prespecified degree of walking ability) to assess ambulatory function. Most studies conceptualized ambulatory function as a dichotomized outcome, typically ambulatory versus non-ambulatory or a similar equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in how ambulatory function is defined in studies involving patients with spinal metastases. We suggest several improvements that will allow a more robust assessment of the quality and quantity of ambulatory function among patients treated for spinal metastases.
Nguyen L; Agaronnik N; Ferrone ML; Katz JN; Schoenfeld AJ
The Spine Journal : Official Journal Of The North American Spine Society
2021
2021-05-13
Article information provided for research and reference use only. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.05.001" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1016/j.spinee.2021.05.001</a>
Prospective comparison of the accuracy of the New England spinal metastasis score (NESMS) to legacy scoring systems in prognosticating outcomes following treatment of spinal metastases.
Decision-making; NESMS; Prognostic score; SINS; Spinal metastases; Survival; Tokuhashi; Tomita
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: We developed the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS) as a simple, informative, scoring scheme that could be applied to both operative and non-operative patients. The performance of the NESMS to other legacy scoring systems has not previously been compared using appropriately powered, prospectively collected, longitudinal data. PURPOSE: To compare the predictive capacity of the NESMS to the Tokuhashi, Tomita and Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) in a prospective cohort, where all scores were assigned at the time of baseline enrollment. PATIENT SAMPLE: We enrolled 202 patients with spinal metastases who met inclusion criteria between 2017-2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: One-year survival (primary); 3-month mortality and ambulatory function at 3- and 6-months were considered secondarily. METHODS: All prognostic scores were assigned based on enrollment data, which was also assigned as time-zero. Patients were followed until death or survival at 365 days after enrollment. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and score performance was determined via logistic regression testing and observed to expected plots. The discriminative capacity (c-statistic) of the scoring measures were compared via the z-score. RESULTS: When comparing the discriminative capacity of the predictive scores, the NESMS had the highest c-statistic (0.79), followed by the Tomita (0.69), the Tokuhashi (0.67) and the SINS (0.54). The discriminative capacity of the NESMS was significantly greater (p-value range: 0.02 to <0.001) than any of the other predictive tools. The NESMS was also able to inform independent ambulatory function at 3- and 6-months, a function that was only uniformly replicated by the Tokuhashi score. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective validation study indicate that the NESMS was able to differentiate survival to a significantly higher degree than the Tokuhashi, Tomita and SINS. We believe that these findings endorse the utilization of the NESMS as a prognostic tool capable of informing care for patients with spinal metastases.
Schoenfeld AJ; Ferrone ML; Blucher JA; Agaronnik N; Nguyen L; Tobert Daniel G; Balboni TA; Schwab JH; Shin JH; Sciubba DM; Harris MB
The Spine Journal
2021
2021-03-16
Article information provided for research and reference use only. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
journalArticle
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.03.007" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1016/j.spinee.2021.03.007</a>