Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author or Editor: Andrew J. Schoenfeld x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Predicting tumor-specific survival in patients with spinal metastatic renal cell carcinoma: which scoring system is most accurate?

Presented at the 2020 AANS/CNS Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves

Elie Massaad, Muhamed Hadzipasic, Christopher Alvarez-Breckenridge, Ali Kiapour, Nida Fatima, Joseph H. Schwab, Philip Saylor, Kevin Oh, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Ganesh M. Shankar and John H. Shin

OBJECTIVE

Although several prognostic scores for spinal metastatic disease have been developed in the past 2 decades, the applicability and validity of these models to specific cancer types are not yet clear. Most of the data used for model formation are from small population sets and have not been updated or externally validated to assess their performance. Developing predictive models is clinically relevant as prognostic assessment is crucial to optimal decision-making, particularly the decision for or against spine surgery. In this study, the authors investigated the performance of various spinal metastatic disease risk models in predicting prognosis for spine surgery to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent surgery for RCC metastatic to the spine at 2 tertiary centers between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively retrieved. The authors determined the prognostic value associated with the following scoring systems: the Tomita score, original and revised Tokuhashi scores, original and modified Bauer scores, Katagiri score, the Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) classic algorithm and nomogram, and the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS). Regression analysis of patient variables in association with 1-year survival after surgery was assessed using Cox proportional hazard models. Calibration and time-dependent discrimination analysis were tested to quantify the accuracy of each scoring system at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 86 metastatic RCC patients were included (median age 64 years [range 29–84 years]; 63 males [73.26%]). The 1-year survival rate was 72%. The 1-year survival group had a good performance status (Karnofsky Performance Scale [KPS] score 80%–100%) and an albumin level > 3.5 g/dL (p < 0.05). Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that poor performance status (KPS score < 70%), neurological deficit (Frankel grade A–D), and hypoalbuminemia (< 3.5 g/dL) were associated with a higher risk of death before 1 year (p < 0.05). The SORG nomogram, SORG classic, original Tokuhashi, and original Bauer demonstrated fair performance (0.7 < area under the curve < 0.8). The NESMS differentiates survival among the prognostic categories with the highest accuracy (area under the curve > 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that the most cited and commonly used scoring systems have a fair performance predicting survival for patients undergoing spine surgery for metastatic RCC. The NESMS had the best performance at predicting 1-year survival after surgery.

Restricted access

Shizumasa Murata, Akihito Minamide, Hiroshi Iwasaki, Yukihiro Nakagawa, Hiroshi Hashizume, Yasutsugu Yukawa, Shunji Tsutsui, Masanari Takami, Motohiro Okada, Keiji Nagata, Munehito Yoshida, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Andrew K. Simpson and Hiroshi Yamada

OBJECTIVE

Persistent lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS) is one of the most common reasons for poor postoperative outcomes and is a major contributor to “failed back surgery syndrome.” The authors describe a new surgical strategy for LFS based on anatomical considerations using 3D image fusion with MRI/CT analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 78 consecutive patients surgically treated for LFS at the lumbosacral junction (2013–2017). The location and extent of stenosis, including the narrowest site and associated pathology (bone or soft tissue), were measured using 3D image fusion with MRI/CT. Stenosis was defined as medial intervertebral foraminal (MF; inner edge to pedicle center), lateral intervertebral foraminal (LF; pedicle center to outer edge), or extraforaminal (EF; outside the pedicle). Lumbar (low-back pain, leg pain) and patient satisfaction visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores were evaluated. Surgical outcome was evaluated 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Most instances of stenosis existed outside the pedicle’s center (94%), including LF (58%), EF (36%), and MF (6%). In all MF cases, stenosis resulted from soft-tissue structures. The narrowest stenosis sites were localized around the pedicle’s outer border. The areas for sufficient nerve decompression were extended in MF+LF (10%), MF+LF+EF (14%), LF+EF (39%), LF (11%), and EF (26%). No iatrogenic pars interarticularis damage occurred. The JOA score was 14.9 ± 2.6 points preoperatively and 22.4 ± 3.5 points at 2 years postoperatively. The JOA recovery rate was 56.0% ± 18.6%. The VAS score (low-back and leg pain) was significantly improved 2 years postoperatively (p < 0.01). According to patients’ self-assessment of the minimally invasive surgery, 62 (79.5%) chose “surgery met my expectations” at follow-up. Nine patients (11.5%) selected “I did not improve as much as I had hoped but I would undergo the same surgery for the same outcome.”

CONCLUSIONS

Most LFS existed outside the pedicle’s center and was rarely noted in the pars region. The main regions of stenosis were localized to the pedicle’s outer edge. Considering this anatomical distribution of LFS, the authors recommend that lateral fenestration should be the first priority for foraminal decompression. Other surgical options including foraminotomy, total facetectomy, and hemilaminectomy likely require more bone resections than LFS treatment. The microendoscopic surgery results were very good, indicating that this minimally invasive surgery was suitable for treating this disease.