Enrique Vargas, Matthew S. Susko, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Steve E. Braunstein and Dean Chou
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is utilized to deliver highly conformal, dose-escalated radiation to a target while sparing surrounding normal structures. Spinal SBRT can allow for durable local control and palliation of disease while minimizing the risk of damage to the spinal cord; however, spinal SBRT has been associated with an increased risk of vertebral body fractures. This study sought to compare the fracture rates between SBRT and conventionally fractionated external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in patients with metastatic spine tumors.
Records from patients treated at the University of California, San Francisco, with radiation therapy for metastatic spine tumors were retrospectively reviewed. Vertebral body fracture and local control rates were compared between SBRT and EBRT. Ninety-six and 213 patients were identified in the SBRT and EBRT groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified the need to control for primary tumor histology (p = 0.003 for prostate cancer, p = 0.0496 for renal cell carcinoma). The patient-matched EBRT comparison group was created by matching SBRT cases using propensity scores for potential confounders, including the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), the number and location of spine levels treated, sex, age at treatment, duration of follow-up (in months) after treatment, and primary tumor histology. Covariate balance following group matching was confirmed using the Student t-test for unequal variance. Statistical analysis, including propensity score matching and multivariate analysis, was performed using R software and related packages.
A total of 90 patients met inclusion criteria, with 45 SBRT and 45 EBRT matched cases. Balance of the covariates, SINS, age, follow-up time, and primary tumor histology after the matching process was confirmed between groups (p = 0.062, p = 0.174, and 0.991, respectively, along with matched tumor histology). The SBRT group had a higher 5-year rate of vertebral body fracture at 22.22% (n = 10) compared with 6.67% (n = 3) in the EBRT group (p = 0.044). Survival analysis was used to adjust for uneven follow-up time and showed a significant difference in fracture rates between the two groups (p = 0.044). SBRT also was associated with a higher rate of local control (86.67% vs 77.78%).
Patients with metastatic cancer undergoing SBRT had higher rates of vertebral body fractures compared with patients undergoing EBRT, and this difference held up after survival analysis. SBRT also had higher rates of initial local control than EBRT but this difference did not hold up after survival analysis, most likely because of a high percentage of radiosensitive tumors in the EBRT cohort.
Pooria Hosseini, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Robert K. Eastlack, Ramin Bagheri, Enrique Vargas, Stacie Tran and Behrooz A. Akbarnia
Sagittal malalignment decreases patients’ quality of life and may require surgical correction to achieve realignment goals. High-risk posterior-based osteotomy techniques are the current standard treatment for addressing sagittal malalignment. More recently, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, anterior column realignment (ALIF ACR) has been introduced as an alternative for correction of sagittal deformity. The objective of this paper was to report clinical and radiographic results for patients treated using the ALIF-ACR technique.
A retrospective study of 39 patients treated with ALIF ACR was performed. Patient demographics, operative details, radiographic parameters, neurological assessments, outcome measures, and preoperative, postoperative, and mean 1-year follow-up complications were studied.
The patient population comprised 39 patients (27 females and 12 males) with a mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 4.7 months, mean age of 66.1 ± 11.6 years, and mean body mass index of 27.3 ± 6.2 kg/m2. The mean number of ALIF levels treated was 1.5 ± 0.5. Thirty-three (84.6%) of 39 patients underwent posterior spinal fixation and 33 (84.6%) of 39 underwent posterior column osteotomy, of which 20 (60.6%) of 33 procedures were performed at the level of the ALIF ACR. Pelvic tilt, sacral slope, and pelvic incidence were not statistically significantly different between the preoperative and postoperative periods and between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up periods (except for PT between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up, p = 0.018). Sagittal vertical axis, T-1 spinopelvic inclination, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch, intradiscal angle, and motion segment angle all improved from the preoperative to postoperative period and the preoperative to 1-year follow-up (p < 0.05). The changes in motion segment angle and intradiscal angle achieved in the ALIF-ACR group without osteotomy compared with the ALIF-ACR group with osteotomy at the level of ACR were not statistically significant. Total visual analog score, Oswestry Disability Index, and Scoliosis Research Society–22 scores all improved from preoperative to postoperative and preoperative to 1-year follow-up. Fourteen patients (35.9%) experienced 26 complications (15 major and 11 minor). Eleven patients required reoperation. The most common complication was proximal junctional kyphosis (6/26 complications, 23%) followed by vertebral body/endplate fracture (3/26, 12%).
This study showed satisfactory radiographic and clinical outcomes at the 1-year follow-up. Proximal junctional kyphosis was the most common complication followed by fracture, complications that are commonly associated with sagittal realignment surgery and may not be mitigated by the anterior approach.
2010 AANS Annual Meeting Philadelphia, Pennsylvania May 1–5, 2010