Patient-reported assessment of outcome after surgery for bone metastases

The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scoring system is a valid subjective and objective tool to evaluate outcomes of surgical treatment of patients affected by upper and lower extremity tumors

PURPOSE

The main purpose of the present study was to evaluate if there is a difference between objective or subjective administration of the MSTS score in a cohort of patients affected by musculoskeletal oncological diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery for bone or soft tissue localization of neoplastic disease in lower or upper limb from June 2015 to June 2020 were considered eligible. In order to administer the score as a PROM, the MSTS was first translated and cross-culturally adapted in Italian. During follow up visits, all patients filled out Italian versions of SF36, TESS and MSTS. Psychometric properties of the Italian version of MSTS were analyzed. Correlation between objective and self-administered MSTS score was assessed through Pearson's coefficient.

RESULTS

A finale sample of 110 patients were included: 59 affected by lower extremity involvement and 51 affected by upper extremity involvement. The Italian version of the MSTS score showed good psychometric properties for both lower and upper extremity. The correlation between self-administered and hetero-administered version of the questionnaire was as high as r = 0.97 for lower extremities and r = 0.96 for upper extremities.

CONCLUSIONS

The Italian version of the MSTS is a valid tool to evaluate outcomes of surgical treatment of patients affected by extremities tumors and it can be used as a subjective tool for both lower and upper extremity.

Metastatic bone disease: new quality performance indicator development

OBJECTIVES

Patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) should receive the same standard of care regardless of which centre they are treated in. The aim was to develop and test a set of quality performance indicators (QPIs) to evaluate care for patients with MBD referred to orthopaedics.

METHODS

QPIs were adapted from the literature and ranked on feasibility and necessity during a modified RAND/Delphi consensus process. They were then validated and field tested in a retrospective cohort of 108 patients using indicator-specific targets set during consensus.

RESULTS

2568 articles including six guidelines were reviewed. 43 quality objectives were extracted and 40 proceeded to expert consensus. After two rounds, 18 QPIs for MBD care were generated, with the following generating the highest consensus: 'Patients with high fracture risk should receive urgent assessment' (combined mean 6.7/7, 95% CI 6.5 to 6.8) and 'preoperative workup should include full blood tests including group and save' (combined mean 6.7/7, 95% CI 6.5 to 6.9). In the pilot test, targets were met for 5/18 QPIs (mean 52%, standard deviation 22%). The median deviation from projected target was -14% (interquartile range -11% to -31%, range -74% to 11%). The highest scoring QPI was 'adults with fractures should have surgery within 7 days' (target 80%:actual 92%).

CONCLUSIONS

The published evidence and guidelines were adapted into a set of validated QPIs for MBD care which can be used to evaluate variation in care between centres. These QPIs should be correlated with outcome scores to determine whether they can act as predictors of outcome after surgery.