Role of Decompressive Surgery in Neurologically Intact Patients with Low to Intermediate Intraspinal Metastatic Tumor Burden.
ESCC
MSCC
decompressive surgery
neurological outcome
spinal metastasis
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2023
06 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
17
11
2022
revised:
28
12
2022
accepted:
29
12
2022
entrez:
21
1
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
22
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Surgical decompression (SD) followed by radiotherapy (RT) is superior to RT alone in patients with metastatic spinal disease with epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) and neurological deficit. For patients without neurological deficit and low- to intermediate-grade intraspinal tumor burden, data on whether SD is beneficial are scarce. This study aims to investigate the neurological outcome of patients without neurological deficit, with a low- to intermediate-ESCC, who were treated with or without SD. This single-center, multidepartment retrospective analysis includes patients treated for spinal epidural metastases from 2011 to 2021. Neurological status was assessed by Frankel grade, and intraspinal tumor burden was categorized according to the ESCC scale. Spinal instrumentation surgery was only considered as SD if targeted decompression was performed. ESCC scale was determined in 519 patients. Of these, 190 (36.6%) presented with no neurological deficit and a low- to intermediate-grade ESCC (1b, 1c, or 2). Of these, 147 (77.4% were treated with decompression and 43 (22.65%) without. At last follow-up, there was no difference in neurological outcome between the two groups. Indication for decompressive surgery in neurologically intact patients with low-grade ESCC needs to be set cautiously. So far, it is unclear which patients benefit from additional decompressive surgery, warranting further prospective, randomized trials for this significant cohort of patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Surgical decompression (SD) followed by radiotherapy (RT) is superior to RT alone in patients with metastatic spinal disease with epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) and neurological deficit. For patients without neurological deficit and low- to intermediate-grade intraspinal tumor burden, data on whether SD is beneficial are scarce. This study aims to investigate the neurological outcome of patients without neurological deficit, with a low- to intermediate-ESCC, who were treated with or without SD.
METHODS
METHODS
This single-center, multidepartment retrospective analysis includes patients treated for spinal epidural metastases from 2011 to 2021. Neurological status was assessed by Frankel grade, and intraspinal tumor burden was categorized according to the ESCC scale. Spinal instrumentation surgery was only considered as SD if targeted decompression was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
ESCC scale was determined in 519 patients. Of these, 190 (36.6%) presented with no neurological deficit and a low- to intermediate-grade ESCC (1b, 1c, or 2). Of these, 147 (77.4% were treated with decompression and 43 (22.65%) without. At last follow-up, there was no difference in neurological outcome between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Indication for decompressive surgery in neurologically intact patients with low-grade ESCC needs to be set cautiously. So far, it is unclear which patients benefit from additional decompressive surgery, warranting further prospective, randomized trials for this significant cohort of patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36672334
pii: cancers15020385
doi: 10.3390/cancers15020385
pmc: PMC9857075
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : 491454339
Références
J Neurosurg Spine. 2010 Sep;13(3):324-8
pubmed: 20809724
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Mar;12(3):225-35
pubmed: 21333599
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Sep 3;14(1):291
pubmed: 31481077
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2003 Jun;15(4):211-7
pubmed: 12846501
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Feb 28;14(5):
pubmed: 35267568
Lancet. 2005 Aug 20-26;366(9486):643-8
pubmed: 16112300
Orthopedics. 2020 Nov 1;43(6):e567-e573
pubmed: 32818285
Spine J. 2015 Aug 1;15(8):1738-43
pubmed: 25817737
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 3;7(1):7196
pubmed: 28775319
Ann Transl Med. 2018 Mar;6(6):103
pubmed: 29707552
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Apr 30;14(9):
pubmed: 35565376
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020 Jan;30(1):37-56
pubmed: 31473821
Oncologist. 2013 Jun;18(6):744-51
pubmed: 23709750
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 Sep 15;24(18):1943-51
pubmed: 10515021
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jul 20;24(21):3388-93
pubmed: 16849752
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2009 Dec;21(10):753-9
pubmed: 19850454
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Aug 07;14(15):
pubmed: 35954490
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Oct 15;35(22):E1221-9
pubmed: 20562730
Paraplegia. 1994 Feb;32(2):70-80
pubmed: 8015848
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Jun;23(6):2079-86
pubmed: 26819232
Ann Transl Med. 2019 May;7(10):216
pubmed: 31297381
Paraplegia. 1969 Nov;7(3):179-92
pubmed: 5360915
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Sep 26;14(19):
pubmed: 36230602
Eur Spine J. 2011 Nov;20(11):1970-8
pubmed: 21706361
Spinal Cord. 2020 Aug;58(8):892-899
pubmed: 32047252
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Sep;85(7):1045-50
pubmed: 14516044
Neurosurg Focus. 2016 Aug;41(2):E2
pubmed: 27476844
Lancet Neurol. 2008 May;7(5):459-66
pubmed: 18420159
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 1;38(3):223-8
pubmed: 22805344
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Aug 15;27(16):1802-6
pubmed: 12195075
Spine J. 2019 Jan;19(1):144-156
pubmed: 29864546
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Apr 27;14(9):
pubmed: 35565322
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jan 20;34(3):268-76
pubmed: 26598751
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Aug;43(2):E3
pubmed: 28760030
Nat Med. 2021 Jan;27(1):34-44
pubmed: 33442008