Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2121-2858
Die Wertigkeit von Scoringsystemen in der spinalen Metastasenchirurgie
The Value of Scoring Systems in the Surgical Treatment of Spinal MetastasisDurch moderne Systemtherapie vergrößert sich die Anzahl der Menschen, die mit einer malignen Erkrankung mit Wirbelsäulenmetastasen leben. Scoringsysteme können zum einen die Kommunikation zwischen den beteiligten Disziplinen verbessern und zum anderen einen standardisierten Rahmen für die Entscheidungsfindung schaffen. Interdisziplinäre Fallbesprechungen bleiben jedoch, mit Ausnahme von Notfallsituationen, unerlässlich.
Abstract
Through advances in systemic therapy, the number of patients living with spinal metastatic disease is steadily growing. Scoring systems can improve interdisciplinary communication and offer a standardized frame for decision-making. Interdisciplinary oncological case discussions remain, except for emergency cases, essential.
-
Durch die Fortschritte in der systemischen Therapie nimmt die Zahl der Patienten, die mit einer Wirbelsäulenmetastasierung leben, stetig zu.
-
Scoring-Systeme können die interdisziplinäre Kommunikation der betroffenen Fachdisziplinen verbessern und einen standardisierten Rahmen für die Entscheidungsfindung bieten, diese sollen jedoch nicht als starre Handlungsempfehlungen verstanden werden.
-
Scores sollten ebenfalls nicht dazu führen, dass die individuellen Therapieziele aus den Augen verloren werden.
-
Strukturierte Evaluierungen der Stabilität, wie z.B. der Spinal Instability in Neoplastic Diseases Score (SINS-Score), sowie standardisierte neurologische Untersuchungen sollten in den Klinikalltag integriert werden.
-
Interdisziplinäre onkologische Fallbesprechungen bleiben, abgesehen von bei Notfällen, unerlässlich.
-
Künstliche Intelligenz im Sinne einer computerassistierten Entscheidungsfindung könnte in der Zukunft eine größere Rolle spielen; Forschungsergebnisse zu diesem Thema bleiben abzuwarten.
Schlüsselwörter
NOMS - SINS - ESCC - spinale Metastasen - onkologische Scores - prognostische ScoresPublication History
Article published online:
13 August 2024
© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
Literatur
- 1 Jaipanya P, Chanplakorn P. Spinal metastasis: narrative reviews of the current evidence and treatment modalities. J Int Med Res 2022; 50: 3000605221091665 DOI: 10.1177/03000605221091665. (PMID: 35437050)
- 2 Van den Brande R, Cornips EM, Peeters M. et al. Epidemiology of spinal metastases, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression and pathologic vertebral compression fractures in patients with solid tumors: a systematic review. J Bone Oncol 2022; 35: 100446 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbo.2022.100446.
- 3 Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF. et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 643-648 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66954-1. (PMID: 16112300)
- 4 Bilsky M, Smith M. Surgical approach to epidural spinal cord compression. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2006; 20: 1307-1317 DOI: 10.1016/j.hoc.2006.09.009. (PMID: 17113465)
- 5 Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E. et al. The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist 2013; 18: 744-751 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0293. (PMID: 23709750)
- 6 Kirshblum SC, Waring W, Biering-Sorensen F. et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2011; 34: 547-554 DOI: 10.1179/107902611X13186000420242. (PMID: 22330109)
- 7 Wang JC, Boland P, Mitra N. et al. Single-stage posterolateral transpedicular approach for resection of epidural metastatic spine tumors involving the vertebral body with circumferential reconstruction: results in 140 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2004; 1 DOI: 10.3171/spi.2004.1.3.0287.
- 8 Katsoulakis E, Solomon S, Maybody M. et al. Temporary organ displacement coupled with image-guided, intensity-modulated radiotherapy for paraspinal tumors. Radiat Oncol 2013; 8: 150 DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-8-150.
- 9 Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Fourney DR. et al. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13: 324-328 DOI: 10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09459. (PMID: 20809724)
- 10 Gerszten PC, Mendel E, Yamada Y. Radiotherapy and radiosurgery for metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009; 34 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b8b6f5. (PMID: 19829280)
- 11 Guo L, Ke L, Zeng Z. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: a review. Med Oncol 2022; 39: 103 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-021-01613-8. (PMID: 35599266)
- 12 Husain ZA, Sahgal A, De Salles A. et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for de novo spinal metastases: systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 2017; 27: 295-302 DOI: 10.3171/2017.1.SPINE16684. (PMID: 28598293)
- 13 Fisher CG, Dipaola CP, Ryken TC. et al. A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35: E1221-9 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e16ae2. (PMID: 20562730)
- 14 Versteeg AL, Verlaan JJ, Sahgal A. et al. The spinal instability neoplastic score: impact on oncologic decision-making. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016; 41 (Suppl. 20) S231-S237 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001822. (PMID: 27488297)
- 15 Hussain I, Barzilai O, Reiner AS. et al. Patient-reported outcomes after surgical stabilization of spinal tumors: symptom-based validation of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) and surgery. Spine J 2018; 18: 261-267 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.07.008. (PMID: 28713049)
- 16 Wilson JR, Clarke MG, Ewings P. et al. The assessment of patient life-expectancy: how accurate are urologists and oncologists?. BJU Int 2005; 95: 794-798 DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05403.x. (PMID: 15794785)
- 17 Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Toriyama S. et al. Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990; 15: 1110-1113 DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199011010-00005. (PMID: 1702559)
- 18 Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H. et al. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 2186-2191 DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000180401.06919.a5. (PMID: 16205345)
- 19 Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T. et al. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 298-306 DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200102010-00016. (PMID: 11224867)
- 20 Paulino Pereira NR, McLaughlin L, Janssen SJ. et al. The SORG nomogram accurately predicts 3- and 12-months survival for operable spine metastatic disease: external validation. J Surg Oncol 2017; 115: 1019-1027 DOI: 10.1002/jso.24620.
- 21 Ahmed AK, Goodwin CR, Heravi A. et al. Predicting survival for metastatic spine disease: a comparison of nine scoring systems. Spine J 2018; 18: 1804-1814 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.03.011. (PMID: 29567516)
- 22 Choi D, Ricciardi F, Arts M. et al. Prediction accuracy of common prognostic scoring systems for metastatic spine disease: results of a prospective international multicentre study of 1469 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43: 1678-1684 DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002576. (PMID: 30422958)
- 23 Karhade AV, Ahmed AK, Pennington Z. et al. External validation of the SORG 90-day and 1-year machine learning algorithms for survival in spinal metastatic disease. Spine J 2020; 20: 14-21 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.09.003. (PMID: 31505303)
- 24 Yang JJ, Chen CW, Fourman MS. et al. International external validation of the SORG machine learning algorithms for predicting 90-day and one-year survival of patients with spine metastases using a Taiwanese cohort. Spine J 2021; 21: 1670-1678 DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.027.
- 25 Zegarek G, Tessitore E, Chaboudez E. et al. SORG algorithm to predict 3- and 12-month survival in metastatic spinal disease: a cross-sectional population-based retrospective study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2022; 164 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-960987/v1.
- 26 Fan Y, Zhou X, Wang H. et al. The timing of surgical intervention in the treatment of complete motor paralysis in patients with spinal metastasis. Eur Spine J 2016; 25: 4060-4066 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4406-7.