Table 5.
Reported Series of Clinical Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Spinal Metastasis
| Author | Study type | No. | Treatment (%) | OS after SM, mo | OS after treatment for SM | Prognostic factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chang et al.15 | Retrospective | 102 | RT (82.3), OP (8.8) | 3 | - | RT response, ECOG performance |
| Chang et al.16 | Retrospective | 27 (SRS group) | SRS (100), OP (10.3) | 14 | 7 | Age, Child-Pugh class, KPS |
| 32 (cRT croup) | cRT (100) | 3 | ||||
| Lee et al.14 | Retrospective | 33 | OP (100), RT (36.4) | 8.7 | 6 | Tomita score |
| Sohn et al.28 | Retrospective | 28 (SRS group) | SRS (100), OP (10.3) | - | 8 | - |
| 28 (cRT group) | cRT (100), OP (10.3) | 10 | ||||
| Goodwin et al.3 | Meta-analysis | 26 Articles, 152 patients | OP (84.2), RT (61.8) | 10.6 | - | Multimodal treatment |
OS, overall survival; SM, spine metastasis; RT, radiotherapy; OP, operation; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; KPS, Karnofsky Performance Status scale; cRT, conventional RT.