Preoperative Performance Status Threshold for Favorable Surgical Outcome in Metastatic Spine Disease.
Journal
Neurosurgery
ISSN: 1524-4040
Titre abrégé: Neurosurgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802914
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Apr 2024
08 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
03
10
2023
accepted:
08
02
2024
medline:
8
4
2024
pubmed:
8
4
2024
entrez:
8
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Surgical treatment is an integral component of multimodality management of metastatic spine disease but must be balanced against the risk of surgery-related morbidity and mortality, making tailored surgical counseling a clinical challenge. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential predictive value of the preoperative performance status for surgical outcome in patients with spinal metastases. Performance status was determined using the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and surgical outcome was classified as "favorable" or "unfavorable" based on postoperative changes in neurological function and perioperative complications. The correlation between preoperative performance status and surgical outcome was assessed to determine a KPS-related performance threshold. A total of 463 patients were included. The mean age was 63 years (range: 22-87), and the mean preoperative KPS was 70 (range: 30-100). Analysis of clinical outcome in relation to the preoperative performance status revealed a KPS threshold between 40% and 50% with a relative risk of an unfavorable outcome of 65.7% in KPS ≤40% compared with the relative chance for a favorable outcome of 77.1% in KPS ≥50%. Accordingly, we found significantly higher rates of preserved or restored ambulatory function in KPS ≥50% (85.7%) than in KPS ≤40% (48.6%; P < .001) as opposed to a significantly higher risk of perioperative mortality in KPS ≤40% (11.4%) than in KPS ≥50% (2.1%, P = .012). Our results underline the predictive value of the KPS in metastatic spine patients for counseling and decision-making. The study suggests an overall clinical benefit of surgical treatment of spinal metastases in patients with a preoperative KPS score ≥50%, while a high risk of unfavorable outcome outweighing the potential clinical benefit from surgery is encountered in patients with a KPS score ≤40%.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Surgical treatment is an integral component of multimodality management of metastatic spine disease but must be balanced against the risk of surgery-related morbidity and mortality, making tailored surgical counseling a clinical challenge. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential predictive value of the preoperative performance status for surgical outcome in patients with spinal metastases.
METHODS
METHODS
Performance status was determined using the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and surgical outcome was classified as "favorable" or "unfavorable" based on postoperative changes in neurological function and perioperative complications. The correlation between preoperative performance status and surgical outcome was assessed to determine a KPS-related performance threshold.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 463 patients were included. The mean age was 63 years (range: 22-87), and the mean preoperative KPS was 70 (range: 30-100). Analysis of clinical outcome in relation to the preoperative performance status revealed a KPS threshold between 40% and 50% with a relative risk of an unfavorable outcome of 65.7% in KPS ≤40% compared with the relative chance for a favorable outcome of 77.1% in KPS ≥50%. Accordingly, we found significantly higher rates of preserved or restored ambulatory function in KPS ≥50% (85.7%) than in KPS ≤40% (48.6%; P < .001) as opposed to a significantly higher risk of perioperative mortality in KPS ≤40% (11.4%) than in KPS ≥50% (2.1%, P = .012).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results underline the predictive value of the KPS in metastatic spine patients for counseling and decision-making. The study suggests an overall clinical benefit of surgical treatment of spinal metastases in patients with a preoperative KPS score ≥50%, while a high risk of unfavorable outcome outweighing the potential clinical benefit from surgery is encountered in patients with a KPS score ≤40%.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38587396
doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002941
pii: 00006123-990000000-01116
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.
Références
Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, et al. The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist. 2013;18(6):744-751.
Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet (London, England). 2005;366(9486):643-648.
Bakar D, Tanenbaum JE, Phan K, et al. Decompression surgery for spinal metastases: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;41(2):e2.
Paulino Pereira NR, Ogink PT, Groot OQ, et al. Complications and reoperations after surgery for 647 patients with spine metastatic disease. Spine J. 2019;19(1):144-156.
Pennington Z, Ehresman J, Cottrill E, et al. To operate, or not to operate? Narrative review of the role of survival predictors in patient selection for operative management of patients with metastatic spine disease. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;34(1):135-149.
Carrwik C, Olerud C, Robinson Y. Predictive scores underestimate survival of patients with metastatic spine disease: a retrospective study of 315 patients in Sweden. Spine. 2020;45(6):414-419.
Dea N, Versteeg AL, Sahgal A, et al. Metastatic spine disease: should patients with short life expectancy be denied surgical care? An international retrospective cohort study. Neurosurgery. 2020;87(2):303-311.
Rasmussen J, Ajler P, Massa D, Plou P, Baccanelli M, Yampolsky C. Surgical indication optimization of brain metastases based on the evolutionary analysis of Karnofsky performance status. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2021;82(3):211-217.
Soffietti R, Abacioglu U, Baumert B, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases from solid tumors: guidelines from the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO). Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(2):162-174.
Holub K, Louvel G. Poor performance status and brain metastases treatment: who may benefit from the stereotactic radiotherapy? J Neurooncol. 2021;152(2):383-393.
Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH. Experimental observations on the effects of the nitrogen mustards on neoplastic tissues. Cancer Res. 1947;7(1):50.
Péus D, Newcomb N, Hofer S. Appraisal of the Karnofsky performance status and proposal of a simple algorithmic system for its evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):72.
Luksanapruksa P, Buchowski JM, Hotchkiss W, Tongsai S, Wilartratsami S, Chotivichit A. Prognostic factors in patients with spinal metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2017;17(5):689-708.
Barzilai O, Laufer I, Yamada Y, et al. Integrating evidence-based medicine for treatment of spinal metastases into a decision framework: neurologic, oncologic, mechanicals stability, and systemic disease. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(21):2419-2427.
Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, et al. A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: an evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine. 2010;35(22):e1221-e1229.
Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G, et al. The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. I. Paraplegia. 1969;7(3):179-192.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205-213.
Wagner A, Haag E, Joerger AK, et al. Comprehensive surgical treatment strategy for spinal metastases. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):7988.
Sailhan F, Prost S, Zairi F, et al. Retrospective multicenter study by the French Spine Society of surgical treatment for spinal metastasis in France. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(5):589-595.
Bouthors C, Prost S, Court C, et al. Outcomes of surgical treatments of spinal metastases: a prospective study. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(5):2127-2135.
Depreitere B, Ricciardi F, Arts M, et al. How good are the outcomes of instrumented debulking operations for symptomatic spinal metastases and how long do they stand? A subgroup analysis in the global spine tumor study group database. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020;162(4):943-950.
Laufer I, Lo SS, Chang EL, et al. Population description and clinical response assessment for spinal metastases: part 2 of the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group report. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20(9):1215-1224.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, De Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187-196.
Camino Willhuber G, Elizondo C, Slullitel P. Analysis of postoperative complications in spinal surgery, hospital length of stay, and unplanned readmission: application of Dindo-Clavien classification to spine surgery. Glob Spine J. 2019;9(3):279-286.
Fehlings MG, Nater A, Tetreault L, et al. Survival and clinical outcomes in surgically treated patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: results of the prospective multicenter AOSpine study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(3):268-276.
Luksanapruksa P, Buchowski JM, Zebala LP, Kepler CK, Singhatanadgige W, Bumpass DB. Perioperative complications of spinal metastases surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(1):4-13.
van Tol FR, Versteeg AL, Verkooijen HM, Öner FC, Verlaan JJ. Time to surgical treatment for metastatic spinal disease: identification of delay intervals. Glob Spine J. 2023;13(2):316-323.
Guzik G. Analysis of factors delaying the surgical treatment of patients with neurological deficits in the course of spinal metastatic disease. BMC Palliat Care. 2018;17(1):44.
Chow R, Bruera E, Temel JS, Krishnan M, Im J, Lock M. Inter-rater reliability in performance status assessment among healthcare professionals: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28(5):2071-2078.
Kerschbaumer J, Krigers A, Demetz M, et al. The Clinical Frailty Scale as useful tool in patients with brain metastases. J Neurooncol. 2022;158(1):51-57.
Frappaz D, Bonneville-Levard A, Ricard D, et al. Assessment of Karnofsky (KPS) and WHO (WHO-PS) performance scores in brain tumour patients: the role of clinician bias. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(4):1883-1891.
Santos DZ, Leite ICG, Guerra MR. Functional status of patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. Support Care Cancer. 2018;26(9):3225-3231.
Versteeg AL, Sahgal A, Kawahara N, et al. Patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes after surgery and/or radiotherapy for spinal metastases. Cancer. 2019;125(23):4269-4277.
Thio QCBS, Paulino Pereira NR, van Wulfften Palthe O, Sciubba DM, Bramer JAM, Schwab JH. Estimating survival and choosing treatment for spinal metastases: do spine surgeons agree with each other? J Orthop. 2021;28:134-139.