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/

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/

Development of a Patient-Oriented Intervention to Support Patient-Provider Conversations about Unnecessary Lower Back Pain Imaging

Background: despite the efforts of multiple stakeholders to promote appropriate care throughout the healthcare system, studies show that two out of three lower back pain (LBP) patients expect to receive imaging. We used the Choosing Wisely Canada patient-oriented framework, prioritizing patient engagement, to develop an intervention that addresses lower back pain imaging overuse. Methods: to develop this intervention, we collaborated with a multidisciplinary advisory team, including two patient partners with lower back pain, researchers, clinicians, healthcare administrators, and the Choosing Wisely Canada lead for Saskatchewan. For this qualitative study, data were collected through two advisory team meetings, two individual interviews with lower back pain patient partners, and three focus groups with lower back pain patient participants. A lower back pain prescription pad was developed as an outcome of these consultations. Results: participants reported a lack of interactive and informative communication was a significant barrier to receiving appropriate care. The most cited content information for inclusion in this intervention was treatments known to work, including physical activity, useful equipment, and reliable sources of educational material. Participants also suggested it was important that benefits and risks of imaging were explained on the pad. Three key themes derived from the data were also used to guide development of the intervention: (a) the role of imaging in LBP diagnosis; (b) the impact of the patient-physician relationship on LBP diagnosis and treatment; and (c) the lack of patient awareness of Choosing Wisely Canada and their recommendations. Conclusions: the lower back pain patient-developed prescription pad may help patients and clinicians engage in informed conversations and shared decision making that could support reduce unnecessary lower back pain imaging

Supplemental Material, RCC_Supp_tables - The Challenges of Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastatic to the Spine: A Systematic Review of Survival and Treatment

<p> Supplemental Material, RCC_Supp_tables for The Challenges of Renal Cell Carcinoma Metastatic to the Spine: A Systematic Review of Survival and Treatment by C. Rory Goodwin, A. Karim Ahmed, Christine Boone, Nancy Abu-Bonsrah, Risheng Xu, Niccole Germscheid, Daryl R. Fourney, Michelle Clarke, Ilya Laufer, Charles G. Fisher, Chetan Bettegowda, and Daniel M. Sciubba in Global Spine Journal </p

Systemic considerations for the surgical treatment of spinal metastatic disease: a scoping literature review.

Systemic assessment is a pillar in the neurological, oncological, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) decision-making framework for the treatment of patients with spinal metastatic disease. Despite this importance, emerging evidence relating systemic considerations to clinical outcomes following surgery for spinal metastatic disease has not been comprehensively summarised. We aimed to conduct a scoping literature review of this broad topic. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from Jan 1, 2000, to July 31, 2021. 61 articles were included, accounting for a total of 22 335 patients. Preoperative systemic variables negatively associated with postoperative clinical outcomes included demographics (eg, older age [&gt;60 years], Black race, male sex, low or elevated body-mass index, and smoking status), medical comorbidities (eg, cardiac, pulmonary, hepatic, renal, endocrine, vascular, and rheumatological), biochemical abnormalities (eg, hypoalbuminaemia, atypical blood cell counts, and elevated C-reactive protein concentration), low muscle mass, generalised motor weakness (American Spinal Cord Injury Association Impairment Scale grade and Frankel grade) and poor ambulation, reduced performance status, and systemic disease burden. This is the first comprehensive scoping review to broadly summarise emerging evidence relevant to the systemic assessment component of the widely used NOMS framework for spinal metastatic disease decision making. Medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists can consider these findings when prognosticating spinal metastatic disease-related surgical outcomes on the basis of patients' systemic condition. These factors might inform a shared decision-making approach with patients and their families