Abstract
Objective
To investigate whether visceral metastases have a significant impact on survival in patients with metastasis‐related spinal cord compression (MSCC), and to determine the difference in prognosis between patients with and without visceral metastases.
Methods
Three institutional databases were searched to identify all patients who had undergone spinal surgery for spinal metastases between March 2002 and June 2010. Data on patient characteristics including pre‐ and post‐operative medical conditions, were collected from medical records or by telephone follow‐up. Survival data were obtained either from medical records or by searching a governmental cancer registry.
Results
The mean age of study patients was 59.6 ± 10.5 years (range, 18–84 years), of whom 102 were male and 67 female. The median and mean postoperative survival times were 7.0 ± 0.5 (95% CI 6.0–8.0) months and 12.6 ± 1.2 (95% CI 10.1–15.0) months, respectively, in all patients, being 5.0 ± 0.5 (95% CI 4.0–6.0) months and 10.8 ± 2.4 (95% CI 6.1–15.5) months, respectively, for patients with visceral metastases and 7.0 ± 0.8 (95% CI 5.4–8.6) months and 13.0 ± 1.4 (95%CI 10.3–15.6) months, respectively, for patients without visceral metastases (P = 0.87). These survival times did not differ significantly between groups. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regressions showed that visceral metastases had no statistically significant association with survival (P = 0.277), whereas rate of growth of primary tumor (P = 0.003), preoperative Karnofsky performance status (KPS) (P < 0.001), change in KPS (P < 0.001), and Frankel grade (P = 0.091) were independent prognostic factors in the whole cohort (P = 0.005). Changes in KPS (P = 0.001) and major complications (P = 0.003) were significantly associated with survival in patients with visceral metastases, whereas rate of growth of primary tumor (P = 0.016), change in KPS (P = 0.001), and preoperative KPS (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with survival in patients without visceral metastases.
Conclusions
Visceral metastases do not appear to predict the prognosis of patients with MSCC; thus, more aggressive surgery should be considered in patients with MSCC who have visceral metastases. Additionally, prognostic factors differ according to visceral metastases status in these patients.
Keywords: Karnofsky performance status, Metastasis‐related spinal cord compression, Overall survival, Primary tumor, Prognostic factors
Introduction
Recent treatment regimens have prolonged median survival time in patients with cancer, which has consequently led to a high frequency of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) during the remaining lifetime of these patients. Approximately, 70% of patients with cancer develop spinal metastases1, 2, 20% of whom develop neurological deficits3, 4, 5. Almost 10% of patients with MSCC choose to undergo surgical decompression with or without stabilization4, 6, 7, 8, which can restore neurological function and improve their quality of life. However, it is not yet clear how to identify the patients who would benefit most from surgical treatment. It is generally accepted that life expectancy drives treatment regimens for spine metastases9. For example, decompressive surgery is generally not considered indicated in patients with life expectancies of less than 3 months10.
Some surgeons and radiologists have therefore established various prognostic scoring systems for predicting survival to help decide in selection of the most appropriate treatment strategy11. Unsurprisingly, because visceral metastases are considered to indicate the terminal stage in patients with cancer and their treatment is palliative rather than curative, visceral metastases have been regarded as one of the most important, and therefore commonly used, prognostic factors. This factor has therefore been incorporated into all of these scoring systems12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
However, recently published studies have reported significantly disparate findings concerning the effect of visceral metastases on survival. Arrigo et al. 20 reported that visceral metastases do not significantly influence survival after surgery in patients with MSCC. Chong et al. 21 investigated preoperative prognostic factors in 108 patients and showed that visceral metastases are not an independent prognostic factor despite the median survival of patients with visceral metastases at the time of surgery being 4.0 months and that of patients without visceral metastases 11.0 months. Therefore, there is controversy over whether visceral metastases are a prognostic factor in patients with spinal metastases.
The current study was performed with the goals of further identifying the role of visceral metastases in predicting survival time in patients with spinal metastases and determining the difference in prognosis between patients with and without visceral metastases.
Methods
This study was approved by the hospital Ethics Committee. Three institutional databases were searched to identify all patients with spinal metastases and Tokuhashi score 9–15 between March 2002 and June 201014.
The inclusion criteria for performing surgical interventions comprised intractable pain despite medication, rapidly progressive neurological deterioration, and evidence of clinical or radiographic instability.
The exclusion criteria comprised spinal metastases without cord compression, treatment by radiotherapy or revision procedures, operative procedure vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty only, life expectancy less than 3 months, and patients whose medical condition was considered too poor to tolerate surgery. Life expectancy was estimated on the basis of the revised Tokuhashi scoring system. Additionally, surgery was selected by mutual agreement between the surgeon and patient.
Survival data were obtained from medical records, by telephone follow‐up, or searching a governmental cancer registry. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they had visceral metastases. Patient characteristics, including preoperative and postoperative medical conditions, were collected from medical records or by telephone follow‐up. Selected possible prognostic factors were analyzed, and each variable was categorized into two or three groups as follows: age (<65 vs. ≥65 years), sex (female vs. male), rate of growth of primary tumor (rapid vs. moderate vs. slow), preoperative and postoperative Frankel scores (A–C vs. D–E), other bone metastases (no vs. yes), preoperative and postoperative Karnofsky performance status (KPS) (10–40 vs. 50–70 vs. 80–100), number of involved vertebrae (solitary vs. multiple), pathological fracture (no vs. yes), metastasis site (cervical vs. non‐cervical), serum albumin concentration(<35 g/L vs. ≥35 g/L), sphincter dysfunction (no vs. yes), and interval between developing motor deficits and surgery (≤5 vs. >5 days).
On the basis of findings reported by Tomita12, primary cancer types were categorized according to growth rate as follows: slow growth (breast, prostate, thyroid, etc.), moderate growth (kidney, uterus, etc.) and rapid growth (lung, colon, liver, gastric cancer, and other cancers).
Postoperative survival was defined as the time between the date of surgery and death or the latest follow‐up. Neurological function was graded according to Frankel grade preoperatively and 4 weeks postoperatively (patients with Frankel D and E are able to walk). Time to developing motor deficits was defined as interval between deterioration of motor function and surgery. Deterioration of motor function was defined as a change of at least one Frankel grade.
Statistical Analysis
Mean values are reported as mean ± standard deviation and median values with range. The characteristics of the two groups were compared using the χ2 or Student's t‐test, and a two‐tailed P <0.05 was considered to denote statistical significance. Univariate analysis of survival was performed using the Kaplan–Meier method and log‐rank test. Variables significant at P < 0.01 in the univariate analysis were tested through a backward stepwise selection process for their independent effect on overall survival (OS). Rate ratios and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed, as were odds ratios and their 95% CIs. P < 0.05 was considered to denote statistical significance.
Results
Patient Characteristics
Patient characteristic according to group are summarized in Table 1. There were 102 men and 67 women with a mean age of 59.6 ± 10.5 years (range, 18–84 years). Forty‐two patients had visceral metastases at the time of spinal surgery and 127 did not. The primary cancers were lung cancer (73 patients, 43%), breast cancer (13, 8%), renal cancer (12, 7%), hepatic cancer (10, 6%), gastrointestinal cancer (nine, 5%), prostate cancer (seven, 4%), and other (45, 27%).
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the study cohort and patient subgroups
| Variables | All patients | Patients with visceral metastasis | Patients without visceral metastasis | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 169 | 42 | 127 | — |
| Age(mean ± SD) | 59.6 ± 10.5 | 60.3 ± 11.4 | 59.4 ± 10.3 | 0.733 |
| Age‐N (%) | 0.477 | |||
| <65 | 109 | 29 | 80 | |
| ≥65 | 60 | 13 | 47 | |
| Gender‐N (%) | 0.423 | |||
| Male | 102 | 23 | 79 | |
| Female | 67 | 19 | 48 | |
| Systematic co‐morbidity‐N (%) | 0.729 | |||
| Yes | 56 | 13 | 43 | |
| No | 113 | 29 | 84 | |
| Type of primary tumor‐N (%) | 0.136 | |||
| Group A (rapid) | 78 | 14 | 64 | |
| Group B (moderate) | 65 | 19 | 46 | |
| Group C (slow) | 26 | 9 | 17 | |
| Location of involved vertebrae‐N (%) | 0.778 | |||
| Cervical | 22 | 6 | 16 | |
| Non‐cervical | 147 | 36 | 111 | |
| Frankel grade pre‐operation‐N (%) | 0.437 | |||
| A‐C | 37 | 11 | 26 | |
| D‐E | 132 | 31 | 101 | |
| Extrospinal bone metastasis‐N (%) | 0.229 | |||
| Yes | 113 | 22 | 53 | |
| No | 56 | 20 | 74 | |
| Pathological fracture‐N (%) | 0.720 | |||
| Yes | 33 | 9 | 24 | |
| No | 136 | 33 | 103 | |
| Number of involved vertebrae‐N(%) | 0.826 | |||
| Yes | 41 | 20 | 58 | |
| No | 128 | 22 | 69 | |
| Preoperative KPS‐N (%) | 0.044 * | |||
| 10–40 | 19 | 8 | 11 | |
| 50–70 | 94 | 17 | 77 | |
| 80–100 | 56 | 17 | 39 | |
| Time to developing motor deficit‐N (%) | 0.446 | |||
| ≤5 days | 121 | 32 | 89 | |
| >5 days | 48 | 10 | 38 | |
| Urinary retention/incontinence‐N (%) | 0.877 | |||
| Yes | 13 | 3 | 10 | |
| No | 156 | 39 | 117 | |
| Serum album level (g/l)‐N (%) | <0.001 * | |||
| <35g/l | 17 | 10 | 7 | |
| ≥35g/l | 96 | 18 | 78 | |
| Adjuvant therapy‐N (%) | 0.304 | |||
| Yes | 125 | 24 | 101 | |
| No | 44 | 4 | 40 | |
| Local relapse after treatment‐N (%) | 0.375 | |||
| Yes | 32 | 6 | 26 | |
| No | 137 | 36 | 101 | |
| Major complications post‐operation‐N (%) | 0.649 | |||
| Yes | 15 | 3 | 12 | |
| No | 154 | 39 | 115 | |
| Change on Frankel grade‐N (%) | 0.414 | |||
| Deteriorated | 15 | 2 | 13 | |
| Not changed | 75 | 24 | 51 | |
| Improved | 79 | 16 | 63 | |
| Change on Karnofsky performance score‐N (%) | 0.306 | |||
| Deteriorated | 22 | 6 | 16 | |
| Not changed | 46 | 14 | 32 | |
| Improved | 101 | 22 | 79 | |
Note: *, statistical significance; N, number.
The median and mean postoperative survival times were 7.0 ± 0.5 (95%CI 6.0–8.0) months and 12.6 ± 1.2 (95%CI 10.1–15.0) months, respectively, in the whole cohort, being 5.0 ± 0.5 (95%CI 4.0–6.0) months and 10.8 ± 2.4 (95%CI 6.1–15.5) months, respectively, in patients with visceral metastases and 7.0 ± 0.8 (95% CI 5.4–8.6) months and 13.0 ± 1.4 (95% CI 10.3–15.6) months, respectively, in patients without visceral metastases (P = 0.87) (Fig. 1). There was a trend toward lower OS rates in patients with visceral metastases compared with those without them; however, this difference was not significant (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.82–2.01, P = 0.277). The 6‐ and 12‐month OS rates for the entire cohort were 51.6% and 32.7%, respectively, being 39.0% and 23.3% for patients with visceral metastases and 55.7% and 35.8%, respectively, for patients without visceral metastases. Figure shows the Kaplan–Meier survival of the whole group, and the subgroups with and without visceral metastases.
Figure 1.
Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for whole cohort and subgroups with and without visceral metastases.
Compared with patients without visceral metastases, those with visceral metastases had significantly poorer performance status (eight [19.0%] vs. 11 [8.6%] had KPS <50, P < 0.044) and lower preoperative serum albumin concentrations (10 [35.7%] vs. seven [8.2%] had <35 g/L, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in any of the following characteristics between the two groups: age (P = 0.733), sex (P = 0.423), preoperative and postoperative Frankel scores (P = 0.437 and 0.507), other bone metastases (P = 0.292), postoperative KPS (P = 0.384), number of involved vertebrae (P = 0.826), pathological fracture (P = 0.720), metastasis site (P = 0.788), sphincter dysfunction (P = 0.877), interval between developing motor deficits and surgery (P = 0.466), change in Frankel grade (P = 0.414), and KPS (P = 0.306) (Table 1).
Overall Prognostic Factors
Univariate analysis by the Kaplan–Meier method and log‐rank test identified the following significant prognostic factors for OS: rate of growth of primary tumor (P = 0.015), preoperative Frankel grade (P < 0.001) and KPS (P < 0.001), change in Frankel grade (P < 0.001) and KPS (P < 0.001), adjuvant therapy (P = 0.001), location of metastases (P = 0.021), and local relapse (P = 0.020) (Table 2). However, multivariable analysis with maximal model identified rate of growth of primary tumor (P = 0.003), preoperative KPS (P < 0.001), change in KPS (P < 0.001), and Frankel grade (P = 0.091) as independent prognostic factors (Table 3).
Table 2.
Results of univariate analysis by log‐rank test
| Variables | Whole cohort (%) | Median (m) | P value | Patients with visceral metastasis (%) | Median (m) | P value | Patients without visceral metastasis (%) | Median (m) | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 m | 12 m | 6 m | 12 m | 6 m | 12 m | |||||||
| Type of primary tumor by growth speed | ||||||||||||
| Group A (Rapid) | 41.1 | 26.5 | 6.0 ± 0.5 | 0.015 * | 21.4 | 21.4 | 3.0 ± 0.9 | 0.074 | 45.6 | 27.7 | 6.0 ± 0.7 | 0.041 * |
| Group B (Moderate) | 54.9 | 32.6 | 7.0 ± 1.0 | 47.4 | 16.8 | 5.0 ± 1.5 | 58.1 | 38.6 | 8.0 ± 1.6 | |||
| Group C (slow) | 73.1 | 50.0 | 10.0 ± 3.5 | 55.6 | 44.4 | 5.0 ± 1.9 | 82.4 | 52.9 | 13.0 ± 4.8 | |||
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male | 59.8 | 36.3 | 6.0 ± 0.7 | 0.547 | 46.2 | 38.5 | 4.0 ± 0.6 | 0.250 | 50.9 | 31.7 | 7.0 ± 0.6 | 0.864 |
| Female | 46.2 | 30.3 | 8.0 ± 1.1 | 37.9 | 19.7 | 5.0 ± 1.1 | 62.7 | 41.2 | 9.0 ± 1.6 | |||
| Age | ||||||||||||
| ≥65 | 48.6 | 32.6 | 6.0 ± 1.1 | 0.931 | 30.4 | 26.1 | 5.0 ± 2.2 | 0.273 | 49.3 | 31.4 | 6.0 ± 1.0 | 0.370 |
| <65 | 53.2 | 32.6 | 7.0 ± 0.6 | 52.6 | 25.3 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 58.9 | 37.5 | 8.0 ± 1.0 | |||
| Systematic comorbidity | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 46.4 | 32.9 | 6.0 ± 0.9 | 0.721 | 46.2 | 23.1 | 5.0 ± 1.8 | 0.630 | 46.5 | 36.4 | 6.0 ± 0.8 | 0.995 |
| No | 54.3 | 32.6 | 7.0 ± 0.7 | 35.7 | 24.5 | 5.0 ± 0.6 | 60.6 | 35.5 | 8.0 ± 0.9 | |||
| Visceral metastasis | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 39.0 | 23.3 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 0.080 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| No | 55.7 | 35.8 | 7.0 ± 0.8 | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |||
| Preoperative Frankel grade | ||||||||||||
| A‐C | 42.4 | 13.8 | 5.0 ± 1.3 | <0.001 * | 27.3 | 9.1 | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 0.035 * | 49.0 | 17.8 | 6.0 ± 1.7 | 0.006 * |
| D‐E | 54.2 | 37.6 | 7.0 ± 0.8 | 45.2 | 31.5 | 5.0 ± 0.9 | 57.0 | 39.6 | 7.0 ± 1.4 | |||
| Preoperative KPS | ||||||||||||
| 80–100 | 58.3 | 43.3 | 8.0 ± 2.1 | <0.001 * | 41.2 | 29.4 | 5.0 ± 0.8 | 0.240 | 65.0 | 48.2 | 12.0 ± 3.5 | <0.001 * |
| 50–70 | 53.9 | 32.0 | 7.0 ± 0.7 | 47.1 | 26.5 | 4.0 ± 1.3 | 55.9 | 33.9 | 7.0 ± 0.9 | |||
| 10–40 | 21.1 | 0.0 | 3.0 ± 0.4 | 25.0 | 12.5 | 4.0 ± 0.7 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 3.0 ± 0.4 | |||
| Extrospinal bone metastasis | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 49.0 | 34.2 | 6.0 ± 0.8 | 0.234 | 36.4 | 27.3 | 5.0 ± 0.9 | 0.466 | 54.3 | 37.4 | 7.0 ± 1.2 | 0.437 |
| No | 53.7 | 31.5 | 7.0 ± 0.7 | 45.0 | 24.0 | 5.0 ± 0.7 | 56.2 | 33.6 | 7.0 ± 1.1 | |||
| Pathological fracture | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 61.4 | 39.9 | 9.0 ± 2.1 | 0.297 | 44.4 | 0.0 | 4.0 ± 0.5 | 0.868 | 68.2 | 48.7 | 10.0 ± 3.7 | 0.224 |
| No | 49.3 | 31.0 | 6.0 ± 0.5 | 39.4 | 27.3 | 5.0 ± 0.7 | 52.5 | 32.2 | 7.0 ± 0.5 | |||
| Number of involved vertebrae | ||||||||||||
| Solitary | 54.8 | 34.8 | 6.0 ± 0.6 | 0.075 | 40.0 | 24.0 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 0.791 | 52.6 | 30.3 | 7.0 ± 0.7 | 0.253 |
| Multiple | 56.8 | 38.5 | 7.0 ± 1.0 | 40.9 | 26.5 | 5.0 ± 0.9 | 57.8 | 39.5 | 8.0 ± 1.7 | |||
| Time to developing motor deficit | ||||||||||||
| ≤5 days | 48.2 | 33.1 | 6.0 ± 0.5 | 0.370 | 37.5 | 30.1 | 5.0 ± 1.6 | 0.549 | 52.0 | 34.1 | 7.0 ± 0.5 | 0.159 |
| >5 days | 60.8 | 31.4 | 8.0 ± 1.0 | 50.0 | 10.0 | 5.0 ± 0.6 | 64.0 | 38.1 | 9.0 ± 1.6 | |||
| Urinary retention/incontinence | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 38.5 | 15.4 | 4.0 ± 0.9 | 0.131 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.078 | 40.0 | 20.0 | 4.0 ± 1.6 | 0.322 |
| No | 52.7 | 34.2 | 7.0 ± 0.6 | 41.0 | 27.2 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 56.7 | 36.6 | 7.0 ± 0.8 | |||
| Serum album level pre‐operation | ||||||||||||
| ≥35g/L | 55.2 | 33.5 | 7.0 ± 0.9 | 0.300 | 43.8 | 27.1 | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 0.289 | 55.2 | 35.9 | 7.0 ± 1.1 | 0.791 |
| <35g/L | 44.4 | 27.8 | 4.0 ± 1.0 | 30.0 | 20.0 | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 57.1 | 28.6 | 7.0 ± 1.8 | |||
| Adjuvant therapy | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 59.3 | 33.7 | 8.0 ± 0.8 | 0.001 * | 50.0 | 32.8 | 6.0 ± 1.4 | 0.090 | 63.3 | 41.2 | 9.0 ± 1.3 | <0.001 * |
| No | 29.0 | 17.8 | 5.0 ± 0.6 | 27.8 | 16.7 | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 24.4 | 11.2 | 5.0 ± 0.6 | |||
| Location of involved vertebrae | ||||||||||||
| Cervical | 66.8 | 50.9 | 14.0 ± 7.0 | 0.021 * | 33.3 | 33.3 | 3.0 | 0.295 | 80.4 | 57.5 | 18.0 ± 6.5 | 0.043 * |
| Non‐cervical | 49.3 | 39.1 | 6.0 ± 0.6 | 41.7 | 23.6 | 5.0 ± 0.6 | 51.9 | 32.3 | 7.0 ± 0.7 | |||
| Change on Frankel grade | ||||||||||||
| Deteriorated | 13.3 | 6.7 | 3.0 ± 0.7 | <0.001 * | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.013 * | 15.4 | 7.7 | 5.0 ± 0.7 | <0.001 * |
| Not changed | 36.0 | 26.1 | 5.0 ± 0.4 | 25.0 | 20.8 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 41.2 | 28.8 | 6.0 ± 0.8 | |||
| Improved | 74.4 | 44.3 | 10.0 ± 2.0 | 66.7 | 30.0 | 8.0 ± 2.4 | 76.6 | 47.6 | 10.0 ± 1.8 | |||
| Change on KPS | ||||||||||||
| Deteriorated | 18.2 | 4.5 | 4.0 ± 0.7 | <0.001 * | 20.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 ± 1.1 | <0.001 * | 17.6 | 5.9 | 5.0 ± 1.0 | <0.001 * |
| Not change | 26.7 | 10.2 | 5.0 ± 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 ± 0.4 | 38.8 | 14.8 | 6.0 ± 0.9 | |||
| Improved | 70.5 | 49.4 | 12.0 ± 1.7 | 68.2 | 43.4 | 9.0 ± 3.4 | 71.1 | 51.1 | 13.0 ± 1.8 | |||
| Local relapse | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 70.0 | 52.1 | 14.0 ± 3.1 | 0.020 * | 66.7 | 66.7 | 14.0 ± 9.0 | 0.020 * | 70.8 | 48.7 | 10.0 ± 3.9 | 0.261 |
| No | 47.5 | 28.3 | 6.0 ± 0.5 | 34.3 | 15.7 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 52.1 | 32.6 | 7.0 ± 0.5 | |||
| Major complications | ||||||||||||
| Yes | 40.0 | 26.7 | 4.0 ± 1.5 | 0.823 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 ± 0.0 | <0.001 * | 50.0 | 33.3 | 6.0 ± 2.6 | 0.492 |
| No | 52.7 | 33.2 | 7.0 ± 0.6 | 42.1 | 25.1 | 5.0 ± 0.5 | 56.3 | 36.0 | 7.0 ± 0.8 | |||
Note: *, statistical significance; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; m, months; −, not included.
Table 3.
Significant prognostic factors according to multivariate analysis by Cox hazard proportional model
| Prognostic factors | Hazard ratio | 95% confidence interval | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whole cohort | |||
| Primary tumor | |||
| Group C(slow) | 1 | ‐ | 0.003 |
| Group B (moderate) | 1.76 | 1.05–2.95 | 0.032 |
| Group A (rapid) | 2.43 | 1.45–4.09 | 0.001 |
| Preoperative KPS | |||
| 80–100 | 1 | ‐ | <0.001 |
| 50–70 | 1.66 | 1.08–2.53 | 0.020 |
| 10–40 | 3.72 | 2.05–6.76 | <0.001 |
| Change on KPS | |||
| Improved | 1 | ‐ | <0.001 |
| Not change | 2.62 | 1.69–4.04 | <0.001 |
| Deteriorated | 4.26 | 1.98–9.17 | <0.001 |
| Change on Frankel grade | |||
| Improved | 1 | ‐ | 0.091 |
| Not changed | 1.58 | 1.02–2.45 | 0.043 |
| Deteriorated | 1.84 | 0.76–4.46 | 0.179 |
| Patients with visceral metastasis | |||
| Change on KPS | |||
| Improved | 1 | ‐ | 0.001 |
| Not change | 2.39 | 1.45–3.92 | 0.037 |
| Deteriorated | 3.12 | 1.07–9.09 | 0.001 |
| Major complications | |||
| No | 1 | ‐ | 0.003 |
| Yes | 11.59 | 2.27–59.17 | |
| Patients without visceral metastasis | |||
| Primary tumor | |||
| Group C (Slow) | 1 | ‐ | 0.016 |
| Group B (Moderate) | 1.67 | 0.88–3.17 | 0.116 |
| Group A (Rapid) | 2.37 | 1.29–4.37 | 0.005 |
| Change on KPS | |||
| Improved | 1 | ‐ | 0.001 |
| Not change | 2.45 | 1.36–3.71 | 0.002 |
| Deteriorated | 3.69 | 1.26–10.80 | 0.017 |
| Preoperative KPS | |||
| 80–100 | 1 | ‐ | <0.001 |
| 50–70 | 1.93 | 1.17–3.19 | 0.010 |
| 10–40 | 6.72 | 3.12–14.50 | <0.001 |
Note: P < 0.05 was considered to denote a significant difference; KPS, Karnofsky performance status.
Prognostic Factors in Patients with Visceral Metastases
Preoperative Frankel score (P = 0.035), change in Frankel grade (P = 0.013) and KPS (P < 0.001), local relapse (P = 0.020), and major complications (P < 0.001) were potential prognostic factors according to univariate log‐rank test (Table 2). The multivariate Cox regression model identified change in KPS (P = 0.001) and major complications (P = 0.003) as the only variables that were independent predictors of OS (Table 3).
Prognostic Factors in Patients without Visceral Metastases
Univariate analysis identified the potential prognostic factors of rate of growth of primary tumor (P = 0.041), preoperative Frankel score (P = 0.006) and KPS (P < 0.001), adjuvant therapy (P < 0.001), change in Frankel grade (P < 0.001) and KPS (P < 0.001), and location of metastases (P = 0.043) (Table 2). The multivariate Cox regression model showed that primary tumor (P = 0.016), change in KPS (P = 0.001), and preoperative KPS (P < 0.001) had significant influence on OS (Table 3).
Discussion
Currently, most published studies that have focused on assessing prognostic factors in patients with MSCC have failed to distinguish between patients with and without visceral metastases. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the impact of visceral metastases on OS and identify different prognostic factors according to visceral metastases status.
A randomized controlled study10 and a meta‐analysis22 have found that surgery is superior to radiotherapy alone in terms of functional outcome, pain control, and OS. However, not all patients with MSCC benefit from undergoing a surgical procedure. Especially in patients with short survival times, post‐operative complications may offset the intended benefits of surgery, or death may occur before wound healing or functional recovery.
In general, patients with very short survival times are not suitable candidates for decompressive surgery10. Therefore, means of accurately predicting survival time in patients with MSCC is currently an important topic to research. Various prognostic scoring systems for predicting life expectancy of patients with MSCC have been developed. The scoring systems reported by Tomita12 and Tokuhashi13, 14 are the most representative and commonly used systems; both use visceral metastases as an important prognostic factor for survival in these patients.
Effect of Visceral Metastases on Prognosis
Understandably, development of visceral metastases, an indicator of more aggressive tumors, is usually regarded as denoting an advanced stage of cancer. Patients with visceral metastases tend to have shorter survival because of cancer progression3. Lei et al. 23 reported that visceral metastases have a significant impact on survival in patients with MSCC from lung cancer. Crnalic et al. 24 observed that visceral metastases have a detrimental effect on survival of patients with prostate cancer, the median survival of patients with visceral metastases being only 4 months, as compared twitho 10 months for patients without visceral metastases. Drzymalski et al. 25 found that the presence of additional metastases at the time of diagnosis of spinal metastases is independently associated with a shorter overall survival.
Surprisingly, our results differed substantially from those previously reported using the scoring systems of Tokuhashi13, 14 and Tomita12. Our results were conflicting in that patients with visceral metastases did not have a significantly shorter survival time than those with spinal metastases alone. However, this finding was in accordance with other previous reports. Sellin26 reported that visceral metastases do not affect prognosis according to multivariate analysis, their univariate analysis showed that it was significantly associated with worse overall survival. Jiang27 identified no significant effect of the absence or presence of visceral metastases on postoperative recurrence or survival. In another study by Sciubba28, the median survival of patients without visceral metastases was 28.0 months, compared with 17.4 months for those with visceral metastases. However, the results of our multivariate analysis were similar to those of Arrigo20 and Chong21 in showing no statistically significant difference between patients with versus without visceral metastases.
In addition, visceral metastases status reportedly has a similar impact on prognosis in patients with different primary tumor types. Zadnik29 examined the relationship of visceral metastases to survival in patients with MSCC from breast cancer and found that the median survival for those without visceral metastases was 25.9 months, compared with 28.1 months for those with visceral metastases; this difference was not significant on Mantel‐Cox testing. Chen30 reported that visceral metastases had no statistically significant association with survival in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer and spinal metastases who underwent spinal surgery. The findings of Park et al. were similar31. In addition, Ju32 demonstrated that visceral metastases had no statistically significant association with survival in patients with MSCC from prostate cancer and Bakker33 found that they were not significantly associated with survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Walcott34 found that the concomitant presence of visceral lesions or multi‐focal bony disease did not have prognostic significance in patients with breast cancer. Thus, the presence of progressive systemic disease should not be a contradiction to aggressive surgery, which is in agreement with previous reports by Walcott et al. 34.
The explanation for our results is unclear. One possible explanation is that the presence of spinal metastases in itself denotes a more aggressive and advanced stage of cancer than the presence of visceral metastases. Thus, survival is equivalent for patients with and without visceral metastases. Another possible explanation is that advanced treatment strategies, such as targeted therapy, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy, effectively control systemic metastases and significantly prolong the survival time of patients with MSCC. It is also possible that there was a bias in selecting patients for surgery, because patients with visceral metastasis usually have lower performance scale scores, which can be considered a contraindication for surgery. Additionally, differences in stage at diagnosis may have influenced our results. Another possibility is that visceral metastases may not affect the prognosis of certain types of primary cancer and those types may have accounted for a larger proportion of our study cohort, which may in turn have influenced our results.
Difference in Prognosis between Patients with and without Visceral Metastases
In the current study, we did not find a correlation between the presence of visceral metastases and decreased survival. However, we found to our surprise that patients with and without visceral metastases have different prognostic factors. The factors influencing survival times of patients with visceral metastases were change on KPS and postoperative complications, whereas rate of growth of primary tumor, pre‐operative KPS, and change in KPS were significantly associated with survival in patients without visceral metastases. These findings are in agreement with previous reports that have demonstrated that KPS, neurological compromise, and primary cancer type are associated with decreased survival. However, we did no further analysis to determine why and how other prognostic factors affect survival, because we only aimed to investigate the correlation between visceral metastases and survival. Of course, we believe that identifying these prognostic differences is important for selecting optimal treatment.
Primary Tumor
The prognostic impact of type of primary tumor on survival of patients with MSCC has been reported previously12, 13, 14. Favorable histologic types such as breast and prostate cancer are associated with better survival prognosis than other types, whereas survival of patients with lung cancer is extraordinarily poor20, 35. In our study, the rate of growth of the primary tumor was a significant prognostic factor in the whole group and the group without visceral metastases. However, we did not determine whether the type of primary tumor influences survival of patients with visceral metastases.
KPS or Change in KPS
In our study, change in KPS 4 weeks postoperatively was a significant prognostic factor in the whole cohort, as well as in both groups with and without visceral metastases. Preoperative KPS was a significant prognostic factor in the whole cohort and the group without visceral metastases, but not in the group with visceral metastases. One possible explanation is that poor preoperative KPS, or no or worsening KPS, denotes a more aggressive cancer or more advanced stage. Additionally, major complications may affect the prognosis of patients with visceral metastases. However, few studies have reported the prognostic impact of complications in patients with MSCC. In our study, the findings concerning influence of complications on prognosis may be questionable because of the large difference in the number of patients with or without complications (15 vs. 154). Further study is required to better address this question.
Limitations of the Study
First, this was a retrospective review with a small number of patients with visceral metastases, the small number possibly being attributable to financial considerations and the negative attitude of Chinese people toward seeking surgical treatment, especially for patients with visceral metastases. Second, a wide variety of primary tumors were included and different tumor types may have different biological behavior and different prognoses. It would likely be useful to analyze prognosis for individual tumor types rather than grouping all tumor types together. However, Abouret et al. 36 reported similar results in that they found that visceral metastases were not significantly predictive of long‐term survival for various primary tumors. Third, in the present study we did not investigate the effect of chemotherapy because previous chemotherapy regimens varied between patients; those variations may have influenced survival. Last, we found it difficult to decrease heterogeneity between the two groups. Nonetheless, we believe that our findings are valid. Additionally, selection bias is inevitable in retrospective cohort studies37.
In summary, visceral metastases had no statistically significant association with survival in patients with MSCC; thus, more aggressive surgery should be considered for patients with visceral metastases.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.81472140) and the Science and Technology of Tianjin Municipal Bureau of Health grants. (No.15KG124). We thank Dr Trish Reynolds, MBBS, FRACP, from Liwen Bianji, Edanz Group China (www.liwenbianji.cn/ac), for editing the English text of a draft of this manuscript.
Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
- 1. Byrne TN. Spinal cord compression from epidural metastases. N Engl J Med, 1992, 327: 614–619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Jacobs WB, Perrin RG. Evaluation and treatment of spinal metastases: an overview. Neurosurg Focus, 1992, 11: e10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Barron KD, Hirano A, Araki S, Terry RD. Experiences with metastatic neoplasms involving the spinal cord. Neurology, 1959, 9: 91–106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Sundaresan N, Digiacinto GV, Hughes JE, Cafferty M, Vallejo A. Treatment of neoplastic spinal cord compression: results of a prospective study. Neurosurgery, 1991, 29: 645–650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Schaberg J, Gainor BJ. A profile of metastatic carcinoma of the spine. Spine, 1985, 10: 19–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Bell GR. Surgical treatment of spinal tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1997, 335: 54–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Bilsky MH, Lis E, Raizer J, Lee H, Boland P. The diagnosis and treatment of metastatic spinal tumor. Oncologist, 1999, 4: 459–469. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Walsh GL, Gokaslan ZL, McCutcheon IE, Mineo MT, Yasko AW, Swisher SG. Anterior approaches to the thoracic spine in patients with cancer: indications and results. Ann Thorac Surg, 1997, 64: 1611–1618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Han S, Wang T, Jiang D, et al. Surgery and survival outcomes of 30 patients with neurological deficit due to clear cell renal cell carcinoma spinal metastases. Eur Spine J, 2015, 24: 1786–1791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Patchell R, Tibbs PA, Regine WF. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet, 2005, 366: 643–648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Prasad D, Schiff D. Malignant spinal‐cord compression. Lancet Oncol, 2005, 6: 15–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine, 2001, 26: 298–306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Toriyama S, Kawano H, Ohsaka S. Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine, 1990, 15: 1110–1113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine, 2005, 30: 2186–2191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Bauer HC, Wedin R. Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases. Prognostication in 241 patients. Acta Orthop Scand, 1995, 66: 143–146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Sioutos PJ, Arbit E, Meshulam CF, Galicich JH. Spinal metastases from solid tumors. Analysis of factors affecting survival. Cancer, 1995, 76: 1453–1459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. North RB, LaRocca VR, Schwartz J, et al. Surgical management of spinal metastases: analysis of prognostic factors during a 10‐year experience. J Neurosurg Spine, 2005, 2: 564–573. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Van der Linden YM, Dijkstra SP, Vonk EJ, Marijnen CA, Leer JW, Dutch Bone Metastasis Study Group . Prediction of survival in patients with metastases in the spinal column: results based on a randomized trial of radiotherapy. Cancer, 2005, 103: 320–328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Leithner A, Radl R, Gruber G, et al. Predictive value of seven preoperative prognostic scoring systems for spinal metastases. Eur Spine J, 2008, 17: 1488–1495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Arrigo RT, Kalanithi P, Cheng I, et al. Predictors of survival after surgical treatment of spinal metastasis. Neurosurgery, 2011, 68: 674–681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Chong S, Shin SH, Yoo H, et al. Single‐stage posterior decompression and stabilization for metastasis of the thoracic spine: prognostic factors for functional outcome and patients' survival. Spine J, 2012, 12: 1083–1092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Lee CH, Kwon JW, Lee J, et al. Direct decompressive surgery followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a meta‐analysis. Spine, 2014, 39: 587–592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Lei M, Liu Y, Tang C, Yang S, Liu S, Zhou S. Prediction of survival prognosis after surgery in patients with symptomatic metastatic spinal cord compression from non‐small cell lung cancer. BMC Cancer, 2015, 15: 853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Crnalic S, Hildingsson C, Wikström P, Bergh A, Löfvenberg R, Widmark A. Outcome after surgery for metastatic spinal cord compression in 54 patients with prostate cancer. Acta Orthop, 2012, 83: 80–86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Drzymalski DM, Oh WK, Werner L, Regan MM, Kantoff P, Tuli S. Predictors of survival in patients with prostate cancer and spinal metastasis. Presented at the 2009 Joint Spine Section Meeting. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine, 2010, 13: 789–794. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Sellin JN, Suki D, Harsh V, et al. Factors affecting survival in 43 consecutive patients after surgery for spinal metastases from thyroid carcinoma. J Neurosurg Spine, 2015, 23: 419–428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Jiang L, Ouyang H, Liu X, et al. Surgical treatment of 21 patients with spinal metastases of differentiated thyroid cancer. Chin Med J (Engl), 2014, 127: 4092–4096. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Sciubba DM, Gokaslan ZL, Suk I, et al. Positive and negative prognostic variables for patients undergoing spine surgery for metastatic breast disease. Eur Spine J, 2007, 16: 1659–1667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Zadnik PL, Hwang L, Ju DG, et al. Prolonged survival following aggressive treatment for metastatic breast cancer in the spine. Clin Exp Metastasis, 2014, 31: 47–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Chen YJ, Chen HT, Hsu HC. Preoperative palsy score has no significant association with survival in non‐small‐cell lung cancer patients with spinal metastases who undergo spinal surgery. J Orthop Surg Res, 2015, 10: 149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Park SJ, Lee CS, Chung SS. Surgical results of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) from non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): analysis of functional outcome, survival time, and complication. Spine J, 2016. Mar, 16: 322–328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Ju DG, Zadnik PL, Groves ML, et al. Factors associated with improved outcomes following decompressive surgery for prostate cancer metastatic to the spine. Neurosurgery, 2013, 73: 657–666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Bakker NA, Coppes MH, Vergeer RA, Kuijlen JM, Groen RJ. Surgery on spinal epidural metastases (SEM) in renal cell carcinoma: a plea for a new paradigm. Spine J, 2014, 14: 2038–2041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Walcott BP, Cvetanovich GL, Barnard ZR, Nahed BV, Kahle KT, Curry WT. Surgical treatment and outcomes of metastatic breast cancer to the spine. J Clin Neurosci, 2011. Oct, 18: 1336–1339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Padalkar P, Tow B. Predictors of survival in surgically treated patients of spinal metastasis. Indian J Orthop, 2011, 45: 307–313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Tabouret E, Gravis G, Cauvin C, Loundou A, Adetchessi T, Fuentes S. Long‐term survivors after surgical management of metastatic spinal cord compression. Eur Spine J, 2015, 24: 209–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Choi D, Fox Z, Albert T, et al. Prediction of quality of life and survival after surgery for symptomatic spinal metastases: a multicenter cohort study to determine suitability for surgical treatment. Neurosurgery, 2015, 77: 698–708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]