Reliability of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) among radiation oncologists: an assessment of instability secondary to spinal metastases

BACKGROUND: The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) categorizes tumor related spinal instability. It has the potential to streamline the referral of patients with established or potential spinal instability to a spine surgeon. This study aims to define the inter- and intra-observer reliability and validity of SINS among radiation oncologists. METHODS: Thirty-three radiation oncologists, across ten international sites, rated 30 neoplastic spinal disease cases. For each case, the total SINS (0-18 points), three clinical categories (stable: 0-6 points, potentially unstable: 7-12 points, and unstable: 13-18 points), and a binary scale (‘stable’: 0-6 points and ‘current or possible instability’; surgical consultation recommended: 7-18 points) were recorded. Evaluation was repeated 6-8 weeks later. Inter-observer agreement and intra-observer reproducibility were calculated by means of the kappa statistic and translated into levels of agreement (slight, fair, moderate, substantial, and excellent). Validity was determined by comparing the ratings against a spinal surgeon’s consensus standard. RESULTS: Radiation oncologists demonstrated substantial (κ = 0.76) inter-observer and excellent (κ = 0.80) intra-observer reliability when using the SINS binary scale (‘stable’ versus ‘current or possible instability’). Validity of the binary scale was also excellent (κ = 0.85) compared with the gold standard. None of the unstable cases was rated as stable by the radiation oncologists ensuring all were appropriately recommended for surgical consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Among radiation oncologists SINS is a highly reliable, reproducible, and valid assessment tool to address a key question in tumor related spinal disease: Is the spine ‘stable’ or is there ‘current or possible instability’ that warrants surgical assessment

Stereotactic Radiotherapy Followed by Surgical Stabilization Within 24 h for Unstable Spinal Metastases; A Stage I/IIa Study According to the IDEAL Framework

Background: Routine treatment for unstable spinal metastases consists of surgical stabilization followed by external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) after a minimum of 1–2 weeks to allow for initial wound healing. Although routine treatment, there are several downsides. First, radiotherapy induced pain relief is delayed by the time interval required for wound healing. Second, EBRT often requires multiple hospital visits and only 60% of the patients experience pain relief. Third, spinal implants cause imaging artifacts hindering SBRT treatment planning and delivery. Reversing the order of surgery and radiotherapy, with dose sparing of the surgical area by SBRT, could overcome these disadvantages and by eliminating the interval between the two treatments, recovery, and palliation may occur earlier.Design: The safety of SBRT followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases was investigated. Safety was evaluated using the Common-Toxicity-Criteria-Adverse-Events-4.0, with the occurrence of wound complications within 90-days being the primary concern.Results: Between June-2015 and January-2017, 13 patients underwent SBRT followed by surgical stabilization for unstable spinal metastases. The median time between SBRT and surgery was 17-h (IQR 5–19). None of the patients experienced wound complications. Improvements in pain and quality of life were observed over time for all patients.Conclusion: SBRT followed by surgical stabilization within 24 h for the treatment of unstable spinal metastases is safe. Palliation may be experienced earlier and with both treatments being performed in one hospital admission the treatment burden decreases

Inhibition of Interferon Induction and Action by the Nairovirus Nairobi Sheep Disease Virus/Ganjam Virus

The Nairoviruses are an important group of tick-borne viruses that includes pathogens of man (Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever virus) and livestock animals (Dugbe virus, Nairobi sheep disease virus (NSDV)). NSDV is found in large parts of East Africa and the Indian subcontinent (where it is known as Ganjam virus). We have investigated the ability of NSDV to antagonise the induction and actions of interferon. Both pathogenic and apathogenic isolates could actively inhibit the induction of type 1 interferon, and also blocked the signalling pathways of both type 1 and type 2 interferons. Using transient expression of viral proteins or sections of viral proteins, these activities all mapped to the ovarian tumour-like protease domain (OTU) found in the viral RNA polymerase. Virus infection, or expression of this OTU domain in transfected cells, led to a great reduction in the incorporation of ubiquitin or ISG15 protein into host cell proteins. Point mutations in the OTU that inhibited the protease activity also prevented it from antagonising interferon induction and action. Interestingly, a mutation at a peripheral site, which had little apparent effect on the ability of the OTU to inhibit ubiquitination and ISG15ylation, removed the ability of the OTU to block the induction of type 1 and the action of type 2 interferons, but had a lesser effect on the ability to block type 1 interferon action, suggesting that targets other than ubiquitin and ISG15 may be involved in the actions of the viral OTU

The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score : Impact On Oncologic Decision-Making

STUDY DESIGN.: Systematic literature review OBJECTIVE.: To address the following questions in a systematic literature review: 1. How is spinal neoplastic instability defined or classified in the literature before and after the introduction of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS)? 2. How has SINS affected daily clinical practice? 3. Can SINS be used as a prognostic tool? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Spinal neoplastic-related instability was defined in 2010 and simultaneously SINS was introduced as a novel tool with criteria agreed upon by expert consensus to assess the degree of spinal stability. METHODS.: Pubmed, Embase, and clinical trial databases were searched with the key words “spinal neoplasm”, “spinal instability”, “spinal instability neoplastic score”, and synonyms. Studies describing spinal neoplastic-related instability were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included studies describing and/or defining neoplastic-related instability, SINS, and studies using SINS as a prognostic factor. RESULTS.: The search identified 1414 articles, of which 51 met the inclusion criteria. No precise definition or validated assessment tool was used specific to spinal neoplastic-related instability prior to the introduction of SINS. Since the publication of SINS in 2010, the vast majority of the literature regarding spinal instability has used SINS to assess or describe instability. Twelve studies specifically investigated the prognostic value of SINS in patients who underwent radiotherapy or surgery. CONCLUSION.: No consensus could be determined regarding the definition, assessment, or reporting of neoplastic-related instability before introduction of SINS. Defining spinal neoplastic-related instability and the introduction of SINS have led to improved uniform reporting within the spinal neoplastic literature. Currently, the prognostic value of SINS is controversial.Level of Evidence: N/

Expectations of treatment outcomes in patients with spinal metastases; what do we tell our patients? A qualitative study

Background Realistic pre-treatment expectations are important and have been associated with post-treatment health related quality of life (HRQOL). Patient expectations are greatly influenced by physicians, as they are the primary resource for information. This study aimed to explore the communication practices of physicians regarding treatment outcomes for patients with spinal metastases, and physician experiences with patients’ pre-treatment expectations. Methods An international qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with physicians routinely involved in treating metastatic spine disease (spine surgeons, radiation and medical oncologists, and rehabilitation specialists) was conducted. Physicians were interviewed about the content and extent of information they provide to patients with spinal metastases regarding treatment options, risks and treatment outcomes. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a thematic coding network. Results After 22 interviews data saturation occurred. The majority of the physicians indicated that they currently do not establish patients’ pre-treatment expectations, despite acknowledging the importance of these expectations. Spine surgeons often believe that patient expectations are disproportionate. Physicians expressed they manage expectations by detailing the most common risks and providing a broad but nonspecific overview of treatment outcomes. While the palliative intent seems clear to the physicians, their perception is that the implications of a palliative treatment remains elusive to most patients. Conclusion This study highlights the current gap in patient-physician communication regarding expectations of treatment outcomes of patients with spinal metastases. These results warrant further research to improve communication practices and determine the effect of patient expectations on patient reported outcomes in this population.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCMedicine, Department ofOrthopaedic Surgery, Department ofReviewedFacultyOthe

The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score : Impact On Oncologic Decision-Making

STUDY DESIGN.: Systematic literature review OBJECTIVE.: To address the following questions in a systematic literature review: 1. How is spinal neoplastic instability defined or classified in the literature before and after the introduction of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS)? 2. How has SINS affected daily clinical practice? 3. Can SINS be used as a prognostic tool? SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Spinal neoplastic-related instability was defined in 2010 and simultaneously SINS was introduced as a novel tool with criteria agreed upon by expert consensus to assess the degree of spinal stability. METHODS.: Pubmed, Embase, and clinical trial databases were searched with the key words “spinal neoplasm”, “spinal instability”, “spinal instability neoplastic score”, and synonyms. Studies describing spinal neoplastic-related instability were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included studies describing and/or defining neoplastic-related instability, SINS, and studies using SINS as a prognostic factor. RESULTS.: The search identified 1414 articles, of which 51 met the inclusion criteria. No precise definition or validated assessment tool was used specific to spinal neoplastic-related instability prior to the introduction of SINS. Since the publication of SINS in 2010, the vast majority of the literature regarding spinal instability has used SINS to assess or describe instability. Twelve studies specifically investigated the prognostic value of SINS in patients who underwent radiotherapy or surgery. CONCLUSION.: No consensus could be determined regarding the definition, assessment, or reporting of neoplastic-related instability before introduction of SINS. Defining spinal neoplastic-related instability and the introduction of SINS have led to improved uniform reporting within the spinal neoplastic literature. Currently, the prognostic value of SINS is controversial.Level of Evidence: N/

Overview of articles identified in this study on neuromuscular concomitant abnormalities, sorted per category and ranked by risk-of-bias.

<p>Abbreviations: AIS = adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; CS = cross-sectional; NS = not significant X = impossible to calculate Cohen’s d.</p

Overview of articles identified in this study on metabolic concomitant abnormalities, sorted per category and ranked by risk-of-bias.

<p>Abbreviations: AIS = adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; CS = cross-sectional; NS = not significant.</p

PRISMA flow diagram [13].

<p>PRISMA flow diagram <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0097461#pone.0097461-Moher1" target="_blank">[13]</a>.</p