Søren Schmidt Morgen

Recently carbon spinal implants have been introduced in the treatment of patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). This is expected to decrease the deflection of radiation and improve diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy when compared to titanium implants. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of spinal carbon instrumentation (CI) in patients with MSCC in a large cohort study. A total of 163 patients received instrumentation between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2021. A total of 80 were stabilized with CI and 83 with TI. The outcome measures were surgical revision, postsurgical survival, peri-operative bleeding, and surgery time. The peri-operative blood loss in the CI-group was significantly lower than that in the TI-group: 450mL vs. 630mL, (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the groups in mean survival (CI 9.9) vs. (TI 12.9) months (p = 0.39), or the number of patients needing a revision (CI 6) vs. (TI 10), (p = 0.39). The median duration of surgery was 121 min, (p = 0.99) with no significant difference between the two groups. Surgical treatment with CI for MSCC is safe and an equally sufficient treatment when compared to TI.

Keywords: Spine surgery 1; Metastatic spinal cord compression 2; Spinal metastasis 3; Cancer treatment.

Background/Aim: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate whether minimally access spine surgery (MASS) is less morbid than open surgery (OS) in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). Patients and Methods: A total of 49 MSCC patients were included in the trial. The outcome measures were bleeding (L), operation time (min), re-operations and prolonged wound healing. Results: The median age was 67 years (range=42-85 years) and 40% were men. The peri-operative blood loss in the MASS-group was significantly lower than that in the OS-group; 0.175L vs. 0.500L, (p=0.002). The median operation time for MASS was 142 min (range=72-203 min) vs. 103 (range=59-435 min) for OS (p=0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning revision surgery or delayed wound healing. Conclusion: The MASS technique in MSCC patients is associated with less blood loss, but a longer operation time when compared to the OS technique.

Purpose The Tokuhashi revised score from 2005 (TR2005) is the most recommended prognostic scoring system in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). However, recent studies have questioned its prognostic ability and the need for a new revision has been proposed. We aimed to assess whether a revision of the TR2005 can improve the prognostic ability of the scoring system. Methods In 2011 and 2012, a total of 1143 consecutive patients admitted with MSCC were prospectively included in a 2011 and a 2012 cohort. For the patients admitted in 2011 (n = 544), the components of the TR2005 including primary cancer diagnosis were analyzed regarding the prognostic ability. Based on these findings, a revision of the TR2005 score was defined as the Tokuhashi revised score 2017 (TR2017). The prognostic abilities of the TR2005 and the TR2017 were compared by Kaplan Meyer (KM) curves, and receiver-operating characteristics’ (ROC) analysis was compared in a cohort of patients admitted in 2012 (n = 599). Results KM curves and ROC analysis showed that the TR2017 had better prognostic ability compared to the TR2005. The ROC areas were as follows: p = 0.003; for ≥6-month survival, TR2017 = 0.71 and TR2005 = 0.65, and p = 0.003; for ≥12-month survival TR2017 = 0.72 and TR2005 = 0.67, and p = 0.0015. Conclusions The TR2017 can improve the prognostic ability of the TR2005 in patients with MSCC. This could affect the preoperative evaluation of patients suffering from MSCC.

Objective: Improvements in cancer treatment have resulted in an increased number of patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). Because patients with MSCC often have a limited expected survival time, maintenance of a high functional level and quality of life are important. However, there is limited information about health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with MSCC. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of routine assessment of HRQoL based on the Euroqol‐5 dimensions (EQ‐5D) questionnaire in a cohort of patients consecutively admitted for evaluation of acute symptoms of MSCC.Methods: From 1 January to 31 December 2011, 544 patients diagnosed with acute symptoms of MSCC were consecutively enrolled in a cohort study. All patients were evaluated through a centralized referral system at one treatment facility. Data were prospectively registered, the variables age, sex, primary oncologic diagnosis, Tokuhashi Revised score, EQ‐5D score and treatment modality being recorded on admission. The study patients were treated conservatively with radiotherapy alone or with surgery and subsequent radiotherapy. The EQ‐5D questionnaire was administered on admission (baseline) and 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks after admission. Response rates, completion rates and HRQoL scores were analyzed by relevant subgroups. Response rates were based on all questionnaires returned regardless of whether or not they had been completed, whereas completion rates were based on fully completed questionnaires (i.e., containing responses to all five questions.Results: The mean age was 65 years (range, 20–95 years); 57% of the patients were men. The overall response rate to the Euroqol‐5 dimensions (EQ‐5D) questionnaires was 84% and the overall completion rate 72%. At baseline, mean EQ‐5D scores were significantly lower for patients treated with surgery and subsequent radiotherapy 0.28 (95% CI, 0.19–0.36) than for those treated with radiotherapy alone 0.42 (95% CI, 0.38–0.46). At the one‐year follow‐up, the mean EQ‐5D scores had improved to 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64–0.77) for patients treated with surgery and subsequent radiotherapy and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.56–0.70) for patients treated with radiotherapy alone.Conclusions: Measurement of HRQoL in patients consecutively admitted for evaluation of acute symptoms of MSCC is feasible and detects significant changes over time between treatment modalities and different strata of expected survival.

Cancer treatment, and in particular end-of-life treatment, is associated with substantial healthcare costs. The purpose of this study was to analyse healthcare costs attributable to the treatment of patients with spinal metastases. The study population (n = 629) was identified from clinical databases in Denmark. Patients undergoing spinal metastasis treatment from January 2005 through June 2012 were included. Clinical data were merged with national register data on healthcare resource use, costs and death date. The analytic period ranged from treatment initiation until death or administrative censoring in October 2013. Analysis of both survival and costs were stratified into four treatment regimens of increasing invasiveness: radiotherapy (T1), decompression (T2), decompression + instrumentation (T3) and decompression + instrumentation + reconstruction (T4). Survival was analysed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective. Lifetime costs were defined as accumulated costs from treatment initiation until death. The Kaplan-Meier Sampling Average method was used to estimate these costs; 95% CIs were estimated using nonparametric bootstrapping. Mean age of the study population was 65.2 years (range: 19-95). During a mean follow-up period of 9.2 months (range: 0.1-94.5 months), post treatment survival ranged from 4.4 months (95% CI 2.5-7.5) in the T1 group to 8.7 months (95% CI 6.7-14.1) in the T4 group. Inpatient hospitalisation accounted for 65% and outpatient services for 31% of the healthcare costs followed by hospice placements 3% and primary care 1%. Lifetime healthcare costs accounted for €36,616 (95% CI 33,835-39,583) per T1 patients, €49,632 (95% CI 42,287-57,767) per T2 patient, €70997 (95% CI 62,244-82,354) per T3 patient and €87,814 (95% CI 76,638-101,528) per T4 patient. Overall, 45% of costs were utilised within the first month. T1 and T4 patients had almost identical distributions of costs: inpatient hospitalisation averaged 59% and 36% for outpatient services. Costs of T2 and T3 were very similarly distributed with an average of 71% for inpatient hospitalisation and 25% for outpatient services. The index treatment accounts for almost half of lifetime health care costs from treatment initiation until death. As expected, lifetime healthcare costs are positively association with invasiveness of treatment.

Study Design. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 151 patients with breast cancer spinal metastases. Objective. To investigate the influence of breast cancer subtypes on survival duration of patients with breast cancer spinal metastases, and to aid spine surgeons in selecting treatments on a more precise basis. Summary of Background Data. There is lack of knowledge about specific prognosis of patients with spinal metastases in various breast cancer subtypes. Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2) status are the key factors in determining breast cancer subtypes and predicting patients' response to adjuvant treatments. Methods. Until August 2013, we retrieved 151 surgically treated patients with breast cancer spinal metastases and followed up all the patients for at least 2 years. Survival duration analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression model unadjusted and adjusted by age were used. Results. Patients with ER-negative (−) breast cancer had 11 months shorter median survival duration (10.6 vs. 21.5 mo) and 48% higher mortality risk (P = 0.03) than those with ER-positive (+) breast cancer. Patients with PgR (−) status had 59% higher mortality risk than those with PgR (+) status (P = 0.02). Hormone receptor (HR) status is a combination of ER and PgR status. Patients with HR (−) status had an 11-month shorter median survival duration and 52% higher mortality risk (P = 0.01) than patients with HR (+) status. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 subtypes had similar median survival duration and mortality risk. Patients with triple-negative breast cancer had a median survival duration of only 9.9 months. Conclusion. Patients with spinal metastases with ER/HR (−) status and triple-negative breast cancer could be downgraded from score “5” to “3” in Tokuhashi scoring system and from “slow growth” to “moderate growth” in Tomita scoring system. Spine surgeons should be critical before performing high-risk extensive surgery in patients with ER/HR (−) status, and especially, in those with triple-negative status. Level of Evidence: 3

Improved survival among cancer patients and diverse conclusions from recent studies make it relevant to reassess the performance of the Tokuhashi Revised score and the Tomita score. The aim of this study was to validate and compare these two scoring systems in a recent and unselected cohort of patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). In 2011, we conducted a prospective cohort study of 544 patients who were consecutively admitted with MSCC to one treatment facility. Patients estimated survival were assessed with the Tokuhashi Revised score and the Tomita score and compared to the observed survival. We assessed how precise the scoring systems predicted survival with McNemar’s test. The prognostic value was illustrated with Kaplan–Meier curves, and the individual prognostic components were analyzed with Cox regression analysis. The mean age was 65 years (range 20–95), and 57 % of the patients were men. The majority of tumors were lung (23 %), prostate (21 %), and breast tumors (18 %). The overall precision of predicted survival was 58.7 % for the Tokuhashi Revised score and 52.9 % for the Tomita score. The observed survival in each of the scoring groups categorized by the scoring systems was statistically significantly different (p < 0.0001). The Tokuhashi Revised score and the Tomita score are useful in categorizing patients into prognostic groups, and the individual components have important prognostic values. The Tokuhashi Revised score was most precise in predicting survival. However, due to the relatively low precision, we suggest that a modification of both scoring systems is necessary.

Study Design. A retrospective cohort study of 2321 patients consecutively admitted to one center and diagnosed with acute symptoms of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). Objective. To assess the possible change in 1-year survival for patients with MSCC from year 2005 through 2010 with respect to the primary cancer diagnosis. Summary of Background Data. An increasing number of patients are offered surgical treatment for MSCC. Among the reasons for this development are high evidence clinical studies, improved surgical techniques, and an increasing number of patients being treated for an oncological condition. Preoperative scoring systems are routinely used in the evaluation of these patients, and the primary oncological diagnosis is an important variable in all these systems. To our knowledge, no studies in a large group of patients have assessed the change in survival in these patients. This is of relevance because such changes in survival could have implications on the scoring systems used in the preoperative evaluation. Methods. All patients referred to the university hospital, Rigshospitalet, suspected of acute symptoms caused by spinal metastases and diagnosed with MSCC from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2010, were included in a retrospective cohort, n = 2321. For all patients primary tumor, treatment, and 1-year survival was registered. Results. The overall 1-year survival did not change significantly from 2005 to 2010, but there was a significant increase in 1-year survival for the subgroups of patients with lung cancer hazard ratio = 0.93 (P= 0.008, 95% CI: 0.83–0.98) and renal cancer hazard ratio = 0.77 (P= 0.004, 95% CI: 0.56–0.92). Conclusion. Patients with MSCC from pulmonary and renal cancers experienced improved survival in the study period. No improvement was seen for patients with other oncological diagnoses. This corresponds to reports from oncological studies and could affect preoperative scoring systems. Level of Evidence: 3