Time to Surgical Treatment for Metastatic Spinal Disease: Identification of Delay Intervals

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Minimizing delays in referral, diagnosis and treatment of patients with symptomatic spinal metastases is important for optimal treatment outcomes. The primary objective of this study was to investigate several forms of delay from the onset of symptoms until surgical treatment of spinal metastases for patients with and without a known preexisting known malignancy. METHODS: All patients receiving surgical treatment for spinal metastases in a single tertiary spine center were identified. Referral patterns were reconstructed and the total delay was divided into 4 categories: patient delay (onset of symptoms until medical consultation), diagnostic delay (medical consultation until diagnosis), referral delay (diagnosis until referral to spine surgeon) and treatment delay (referral spine to surgeon until treatment). These intervals were compared between patients with and without a known preexisting malignancy. RESULTS: The median total delay was 99 days, patient delay 19 days, diagnostic delay 21,5 days, referral delay 7 days, treatment delay 8 days and diagnosis and treatment delay combined 18,5 days. No difference in total delay was observed between patients with and without a known preexisting malignancy. Total delay was not significantly associated with patient age, sex, oncological history, tumor prognosis and spinal level of the tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic spinal metastases experience considerable delays, even after metastatic spinal disease has been diagnosed, regardless of a preexisting malignancy. By identifying and eliminating the causes of these delays, diagnosis, referral and treatment may be expedited leading to improved patient outcome

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

Patient Expectations About Palliative Treatment for Symptomatic Spinal Metastases: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES: Patients with spinal metastases often receive palliative surgery or radiation therapy to maintain or improve health-related quality of life. Patients with unrealistic expectations regarding treatment outcomes have been shown to be less satisfied with their post-treatment health status. This study evaluated expectations of patients with spinal metastases scheduled for surgery and/or radiation therapy. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with patients with symptomatic spinal metastases before and 6 weeks after surgery and/or radiation therapy. Expectations regarding treatment outcomes were discussed before treatment, and level of fulfillment of these pretreatment expectations was discussed after treatment. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed according to the thematic analysis method to identify themes. RESULTS: Before treatment, patients thought they were not, or minimally, informed about (expected) treatment outcomes, but they felt well informed about treatment procedures and possible complications. Although patients expected pain relief and improvement in daily functioning, they found it difficult to describe any recovery timeline or the impact of these expected improvements on their daily life. Patients generally understood that treatment was not curative, but lacked insight into the impact of treatment on life expectancy given that this was hardly discussed by their surgeon and/or radiation oncologist. Pretreatment expectations regarding pain and daily functioning were only partially met in most patients post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients thought they were not, or only minimally, informed about expected outcomes after surgery and/or radiation therapy for symptomatic spinal metastases. Improvements in patient-physician communication and counseling could help guide patients toward realistic pretreatment expectations

The use of red flags during the referral chain of patients surgically treated for symptomatic spinal metastases

BACKGROUND: The use of so-called "red flags" may be beneficial in identifying patients with metastatic spinal disease. This study examined the utility and efficacy of these red flags in the referral chain of patients surgically treated for spinal metastases. METHODS: The referral chains from the onset of symptoms until surgical treatment for all patients receiving surgery for spinal metastases between March 2009 and December 2020 were reconstructed. The documentation of red flags, as defined by the Dutch National Guideline on Metastatic Spinal Disease, was assessed for each healthcare provider involved. RESULTS: A total of 389 patients were included in the study. On average, 33.3% of red flags were documented as present, 3.6% were documented as absent, and 63.1% were undocumented. A higher rate of red flags documented as present was associated with a longer time to diagnosis, but a shorter time to definitive treatment by a spine surgeon. Moreover, red flags were documented as present more often in patients who developed neurological symptoms at any point during the referral chain than those who remained neurologically intact. CONCLUSIONS: The association of red flags with developing neurological deficits highlights their significance in clinical assessment. However, the presence of red flags was not found to decrease delays prior to referral to a spine surgeon, indicating that their relevance is currently not sufficiently recognized by healthcare providers. Raising awareness of symptoms indicative of spinal metastases may expedite timely (surgical) treatment and thus improve treatment outcome

Introducing the New Patient Expectations in Spine Oncology Questionnaire

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It has been hypothesized that a discrepancy between pretreatment expectations and perceived outcomes is a significant source of patient dissatisfaction. Currently, there is lack in understanding and tools to assess patient expectations regarding the outcomes of treatment for spinal metastases. The objective of this study was therefore to develop a patient expectations questionnaire regarding the outcomes after surgery and/or radiotherapy for spinal metastases. METHODS: A multiphase international qualitative study was conducted. Phase 1 of the study included semistructured interviews with patients and relatives to understand their expectations of the outcomes of treatment. In addition, physicians were interviewed about their communication practices with patients regarding treatment and expected outcomes. In phase 2, items were developed based on the results of the interviews in phase 1. In phase 3, patients were interviewed to validate the content and language of the questionnaire. Selection of the final items was based on feedback from patients regarding content, language, and relevance. RESULTS: In phase 1, 24 patients and 22 physicians were included. A total of 34 items were developed for the preliminary questionnaire. After phase 3, a total of 22 items were retained for the final version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire is divided into 3 sections: (1) patient expectations regarding treatment outcomes, (2) prognosis, and (3) consultation with the physician. The items cover expectations related to pain, analgesia requirements, daily and physical function, overall quality of life, life expectancy, and information provided by the physician. CONCLUSION: The new Patient Expectations in Spine Oncology questionnaire was developed to evaluate patient expectations regarding the outcomes after treatment for spinal metastases. The Patient Expectations in Spine Oncology questionnaire will allow physicians to systematically assess patient expectations of planned treatment and thus help guide patients toward realistic expectations of treatment outcome

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