Spinal Metastases and the Evolving Role of Molecular Targeted Therapy, Chemotherapy, and Immunotherapy

Metastatic involvement of the spine is a common complication of systemic cancer progression. Surgery and external beam radiotherapy are palliative treatment modalities aiming to preserve neurological function, control pain and maintain functional status. More recently, with development of image guidance and stereotactic delivery of high doses of conformal radiation, local tumor control has improved; however recurrent or radiation refractory disease remains a significant clinical problem with limited treatment options. This manuscript represents a narrative overview of novel targeted molecular therapies, chemotherapies, and immunotherapy treatments for patients with breast, lung, melanoma, renal cell, prostate, and thyroid cancers, which resulted in improved responses compared to standard chemotherapy. We present clinical examples of excellent responses in spinal metastatic disease which have not been specifically documented in the literature, as most clinical trials evaluate treatment response based on visceral disease. This review is useful for the spine surgeons treating patients with metastatic disease as knowledge of these responses could help with timing and planning of surgical interventions, as well as promote multidisciplinary discussions, allowing development of an individualized treatment strategy to patients presenting with widespread multifocal progressive disease, where surgery could lead to suboptimal results

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

Health related quality of life outcomes following surgery and/or radiation for patients with potentially unstable spinal metastases.

Currently there is no prospective pain and health related quality of life (HRQOL) data of patients with potentially unstable spinal metastases who were treated with surgery ± radiation or radiation alone.An international prospective cohort multicenter study of patients with potentially unstable spinal metastases, defined by a SINS score 7 to 12, treated with surgery ± radiation or radiotherapy alone was conducted. HRQOL was evaluated with the numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, the SOSGOQ2.0, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D at baseline and 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after treatment.A total of 136 patients were treated with surgery ± radiotherapy and 84 with radiotherapy alone. At baseline, surgically treated patients were more likely to have mechanical pain, a lytic lesion, a greater median Spinal Instability Neoplastic score, vertebral compression fracture, lower performance status, HRQOL, and pain scores. From baseline to 12 weeks post-treatment, surgically treated patients experienced a 3.0-point decrease in NRS pain score (95% CI -4.1 to -1.9, p.001), and a 12.7-point increase in SOSGOQ2.0 score (95% CI 6.3-19.1, p.001). Patients treated with radiotherapy alone experienced a 1.4-point decrease in the NRS pain score (95% CI -2.9 to 0.0, p=.046) and a 6.2-point increase in SOSGOQ2.0 score (95% CI -2.0 to 14.5, p=.331). Beyond 12 weeks, significant improvements in pain and HRQOL metrics were maintained up to 52-weeks follow-up in the surgical cohort, as compared with no significant changes in the radiotherapy alone cohort.Patients treated with surgery demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvements in pain and HRQOL up to 1-year postsurgery. Treatment with radiotherapy alone resulted in improved pain scores, but these were not sustained beyond 3 months and HRQOL outcomes demonstrated nonsignificant changes over time. Within the SINS potentially unstable group, distinct clinical profiles were observed in patients treated with surgery or radiotherapy alone

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1–2 trial

SummaryBackgroundSpinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to manage spinal metastases, yet the technique's effectiveness in controlling the symptom burden of spinal metastases has not been well described. We investigated the clinical benefit of SBRT for managing spinal metastases and reducing cancer-related symptoms.Methods149 patients with mechanically stable, non-cord-compressing spinal metastases (166 lesions) were given SBRT in a phase 1–2 study. Patients received a total dose of 27–30 Gy, typically in three fractions. Symptoms were measured before SBRT and at several time points up to 6 months after treatment, by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the M D Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI). The primary endpoint was frequency and duration of complete pain relief. The study is completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00508443.FindingsMedian follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·5–30·3). The number of patients reporting no pain from bone metastases, as measured by the BPI, increased from 39 of 149 (26%) before SBRT to 55 of 102 (54%) 6 months after SBRT (p<0·0001). BPI-reported pain reduction from baseline to 4 weeks after SBRT was clinically meaningful (mean 3·4 [SD 2·9] on the BPI pain-at-its-worst item at baseline, 2·1 [2·4] at 4 weeks; effect size 0·47, p=0·00076). These improvements were accompanied by significant reduction in opioid use during the first 6 months after SBRT (43 [28·9%] of 149 patients with strong opioid use at baseline vs 20 [20·0%] of 100 at 6 months; p=0·011). Ordinal regression modelling showed that patients reported significant pain reduction according to the MDASI during the first 6 months after SBRT (p=0·00003), and significant reductions in a composite score of the six MDASI symptom interference with daily life items (p=0·0066). Only a few instances of non-neurological grade 3 toxicities occurred: nausea (one event), vomiting (one), diarrhoea (one), fatigue (one), dysphagia (one), neck pain (one), and diaphoresis (one); pain associated with severe tongue oedema and trismus occurred twice; and non-cardiac chest pain was reported three times. No grade 4 toxicities occurred. Progression-free survival after SBRT was 80·5% (95% CI 72·9–86·1) at 1 year and 72·4% (63·1–79·7) at 2 years.InterpretationSBRT is an effective primary or salvage treatment for mechanically stable spinal metastasis. Significant reductions in patient-reported pain and other symptoms were evident 6 months after SBRT, along with satisfactory progression-free survival and no late spinal cord toxicities.FundingNational Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health

Research Practices and Needs Among Spine Surgeons Worldwide

Objective: Resource allocation to research activities is challenging and there is limited evidence to justify decisions. Members of AO Spine were surveyed to understand the research practices and needs of spine surgeons worldwide. Methods: An 84-item survey was distributed to the AO Spine community in September of 2020. Respondent demographics and insights regarding research registries, training and education, mentorship, grants and financial support, and future directions were collected. Responses were anonymous and compared among regions. Results: A total of 333 spine surgeons representing all geographic regions responded; 52.3% were affiliated with an academic/university hospital, 91.0% conducted clinical research, and 60.9% had 5+ years of research experience. There was heterogeneity among research practices and needs across regions. North American respondents had more research experience (P =.023), began conducting research early on (P <.001), had an undergraduate science degree (P <.001), and were more likely to have access to a research coordinator or support staff (P =.042) compared to other regions. While all regions expressed having the same challenges in conducting research, Latin America, and Middle East/Northern Africa respondents were less encouraged to do research (P <.001). Despite regional differences, there was global support for research registries and research training and education. Conclusion: To advance spine care worldwide, spine societies should establish guidelines, conduct studies on pain management, and support predictive analytic modeling. Tailoring local/regional programs according to regional needs is advised. These results can assist spine societies in developing long-term research strategies and provide justified rationale to governments and funding agencies