What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

Risk Factors for Postoperative Unfavorable Ambulatory Status After Spinal Surgery for Metastatic Spinal Tumor

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate factors associated with postoperative unfavorable ambulatory status following surgery for metastatic spinal tumors using a nationwide in-hospital database.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical treatment for metastatic spinal tumors can improve the ambulatory status and quality of life. However, some patients fail to regain the ability to walk, thereby resulting in poor quality of life. No large-scale study has previously evaluated factors associated with postoperative poor ambulatory status in this clinical context.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from 2018 to 2019 was used to extract data from patients who underwent surgical procedures for spinal metastasis. Postoperative unfavorable ambulatory status was defined as (1) nonambulatory at discharge or (2) a decreased mobility score of the Barthel Index between admission and discharge. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with postoperative unfavorable ambulatory status while adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 1786 eligible patients. Of whom, 1061 (59%) patients were ambulatory on admission and 1249 (70%) on discharge. Postoperative unfavorable ambulatory status was observed in 597 (33%) patients, with a significantly lower rate of discharge to home (41%/81%, P <0.001) and a longer postoperative hospital stay (46.2 days/31.4 days, P <0.001). Multivariable regression analysis revealed male sex [odds ratio (OR): 1.43, P =0.002], laminectomy without fusion (OR: 1.55, P =0.034), Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥7 (OR: 1.37, P =0.014), and preoperative nonambulatory status (OR: 6.61, P <0.001) as factors associated with postoperative unfavorable ambulatory status.

CONCLUSIONS

Our large-scale database analysis revealed that 33% of patients experienced unfavorable ambulatory status following spinal metastasis surgery. Laminectomy without fusion and preoperative nonambulatory status were among several factors influencing the prospect of unfavorable ambulatory status following surgery.

Determining patients with spinal metastases suitable for surgical intervention: A cost-effective analysis

BACKGROUND

Both nonoperative and operative treatments for spinal metastasis are expensive interventions. Patients' expected 3-month survival is believed to be a key factor to determine the most suitable treatment. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study lends support to the hypothesis. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of operative and nonoperative interventions, stratified by patients' predicted probability of 3-month survival.

METHODS

A Markov model with four defined health states was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for operative intervention with postoperative radiotherapy and radiotherapy alone (palliative low-dose external beam radiotherapy) of spine metastases. Transition probabilities for the model, including the risks of mortality and functional deterioration, were obtained from secondary and our institutional data. Willingness to pay thresholds were prespecified at $100,000 and $150,000. The analyses were censored after 5-year simulation from a health system perspective and discounted outcomes at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the study design.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $140,907 per QALY for patients with a 3-month survival probability >50%, $3,178,510 per QALY for patients with a 3-month survival probability <50%, and $168,385 per QALY for patients with independent ambulatory and 3-month survival probability >50%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the need to choose patients carefully and estimate preoperative survival for those with spinal metastases. In addition to reaffirming previous research regarding the influence of ambulatory status on cost-effectiveness, our study goes a step further by highlighting that operative intervention with postoperative radiotherapy could be more cost-effective than radiotherapy alone for patients with a better survival outlook. Accurate survival prediction tools and larger future studies could offer more detailed insights for clinical decisions.

Survival of Patients With Primary Osseous Malignancies of the Mobile Spine Is Associated With Access to "Standard Treatment" Protocols

INTRODUCTION

Malignancies of the mobile spine carry high morbidity and mortality. This study sought to examine factors associated with receipt of "standard" treatment and survival for patients with primary mobile spine tumors in the California Cancer Registry (CCR).

METHODS

The CCR (1988 to 2016) data were obtained for patients with primary tumors of the mobile spine and at least 1-year follow-up. Sacrum/pelvis tumors were excluded. Age at diagnosis, sex, race, neighborhood socioeconomic status, insurance, Charlson Comorbidity Index, histologic diagnosis, stage at diagnosis, and treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Center (NCICC) were collected. Multivariate analyses were done to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality and receipt of "standard" treatment.

RESULTS

Four hundred eighty-four patients (64% White, 56% low neighborhood socioeconomic status, and 36% privately insured) were included. Chordoma (37%) was the most common diagnosis. Only 16% had metastatic disease at presentation. Only 29% received treatment at an NCICC. Lower age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, less extensive stage of disease, and private insurance were associated with lower all-cause mortality (all P < 0.05). Medicaid/public insurance (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 2.41) and Medicare (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.59) were associated with higher mortality compared with private insurance. Patients who received no known treatment (HR, 2.41; CI, 1.51 to 3.84) or treatment other than the "standard" (HR, 1.45; CI, 1.11 to 1.91) had higher mortality compared with those who received the standard protocols. A critical predictor of receiving the standard treatment protocol was being treated at an NCICC. If patients did not receive care at such institutions, they received optimal treatment only 40% of the time (HR, 0.5; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of defined "standard treatment" protocols was associated with care received at an NCICC and lower all-cause mortality in patients with primary osseous malignancies of the mobile spine. Patients with public insurance are vulnerable to worse outcomes, regardless of age, disease burden, or receipt of standard treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Has the time come for regional periprosthetic joint infection centers in the United States? A first-year experience

Several fields of orthopedics have concluded benefits from volume thresholds. We postulate that we could similarly optimize periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treatment by creating a regional referral center, concentrating expertise and resources. Here, we review our reasoning and our first-year experience of a PJI referral center in the United States.