No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundCancer patients’ survival time has obviously improved, with the development of systemic treatment techniques. However, the probability of metastases to the vertebrae has also been increased which makes some adverse effects on patients’ quality of life. The prediction of survival plays a key role in choosing therapeutic modality, and Tokuhashi Score was established as one of the most commonly used predictive systems for spinal metastases. Thus, this study was conducted to identify the prognostic effect of factors involved in revised Tokuhashi Score (RTS).MethodsTwo investigators independently retrieved relevant literature on platforms of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. We identified eligible studies through title/abstract and full-text perusing. Data was extracted including general information of studies, participants’ characteristics, therapeutic modality, overall survival and prognostic effect of factors. Hazard ratio (HR) for each factor was synthesized if available through fixed- or random-effect models as appropriate.ResultsA total of 63 eligible studies with 10,411 participants were identified. Overall, cases with thyroid cancer had the highest survival rate, while the ones with non-small cell lung cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma lived for the shorted survival time. Performance status, bone metastasis, number of involved vertebrae, visceral metastasis, primary tumor and neurological status were regarded as significant predictors in 71.4, 40.0, 18.2, 63.4, 73.1 and 44.7% of the involved studies respectively. Thirty-eight articles were included in meta-analysis, and prognostic effects of five factors (apart from primary tumor) were analyzed. Factors were all proved to be significant except comparisons between KPS (Karnofsky Performance Status) 10–40 VS. 50–70 and single VS. multiple spinal metastases.ConclusionAll factors of RTS were significant on prognosis predicting and should be considered when choosing therapeutic modality for spinal metastases. What’s more, we believe that more accurate prognosis may be obtained after removal of the cut-offs for KPS 10–40 VS. 50–70 and single VS. multiple involved vertebrae.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-5139-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

This study was conducted to identify the influence of ambulatory status prior to treatment on survival of patients with spinal metastases. Two investigators independently retrieved relevant electronic literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, to identify eligible studies. Effect estimates for hazard risk (HR) were extracted and synthesized through fixed-effects or random-effects models as appropriate. A total of 17 eligible studies were identified, with an accumulated number of 3962 participants. HR from 14 studies regarding comparison between ambulatory versus non-ambulatory groups were pooled using a random-effects model, and statistical significance was presented for the pooled HR (HR = 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.34). In subgroups of mixed primary tumor and lung cancer, ambulatory status was considered to be a significant prognostic factor (P < 0.05), while in the subgroup of prostate cancer it was not (HR = 1.72; 95% CI, 0.79-3.74). HR from 4 studies related to comparison between Frankel E versus Frankel C-D were pooled using a fixed-effects model, which revealed statistical significance (HR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.27-2.36). Ambulatory status is a significant prognostic factor in patients with spinal metastases. However, in patients with primary prostate cancer, the prognostic effect of ambulatory status has not yet been confirmed to be significant.

No abstract