The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5320-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
For the selection of treatment in patients with spinal bone metastases (SBM), survival estimation plays a crucial role to avoid over- and under-treatment. To aid clinicians in this difficult task, several prediction models have been developed, consisting of many different risk factors. The aim of this systematic review was to identify prognostic factors that are associated with survival in patients with SBM to support development of predictive models.
A systematic review was performed with focus on prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with SBM. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and assessed the risk of bias. A level of evidence synthesis was performed for each prognostic factor. Inter-observer agreement for the risk of bias assessment was determined by the kappa-statistic.
After screening, 142 full-text articles were obtained, of which 22 met the eligibility criteria. A total of 43 different prognostic factors were investigated in the included studies, of which 17 were relevant to pre-treatment survival estimation. The prognostic factors most frequently associated with survival were the primary tumor and the performance status. The prognostic factors most frequently not associated with survival were age, gender, number and location of the SBM and the presence of a pathologic fracture.
Prognostication for patients with SBM should be based on an accurate primary tumor classification, combined with a performance score. The benefit of adding other prognostic factors is doubtful.
Chow E, Harth T, Hruby G et al (2001) How accurate are physicians’ clinical predictions of survival and the available prognostic tools in estimating survival times in terminally ill cancer patients? A systematic review. Clin Oncol 13(3):209–218
Bollen L, Wibmer C, Van der Linden YM et al (2016) Predictive value of six prognostic scoring systems for spinal bone metastases: an analysis based on 1379 patients. Spine 41(3):155–162 CrossRef
Karnofsky DA, Abelmann WH, Craver LF et al (1948) The use of the nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma. With particular reference to bronchogenic carcinoma. Cancer 1:634–656 CrossRef
Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G et al (1969) The value of postural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries of the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. I. Spinal Cord 7(3):179–192 CrossRef
Hosono N, Ueda T, Tamura D et al (2005) Prognostic relevance of clinical symptoms in patients with spinal metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:196–201 CrossRef
Ibrahim A, Crockard A, Antonietti P et al (2008) Does spinal surgery improve the quality of life for those with extradural (spinal) osseous metastases? An international multicenter prospective observational study of 223 patients. J Neurosurg J Neurosurg Spine 8(3):271–278 CrossRef
Kataoka M, Kunisada T, Tanaka M et al (2012) Statistical analysis of prognostic factors for survival in patients with spinal metastasis. Acta Med Okayama 66(3):213–219 PubMed
Balain B, Jaiswal A, Trivedi JM et al (2013) The Oswestry Risk Index: an aid in the treatment of metastatic disease of the spine. Bone Jt J 95-B(2):210–621 CrossRef
Yeung YN, Cheung KK, Lam TC (2014) A study of the predictive value of the modified Tokuhashi score in metastatic spinal tumour causing cord compression in a southern Chinese population. J Ort Trauma Rehab. 18(1):15–21
American Society of Anesthesiologists (1963) New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 24:111
- A systematic review of prognostic factors predicting survival in patients with spinal bone metastases
W. C. H. Jacobs
Y. M. Van der Linden
O. Van der Hel
P. D. S. Dijkstra
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
Mail Icon II