Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for the overall survival of patients living with spinal metastases

  • Clinical Study
  • Published:
Journal of Neuro-Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The primary goal of treatment in spinal metastasis is typically to extend patients’ lifespan as much as possible, and optimally to relieve the symptoms and so improve quality of life. It is crucial to avoid over- or under-treatment, according to each patient’s individual situation. Thus, this study aimed to identify significant prognostic factors for patients living with metastatic spine disease, and create a new nomogram for the prediction of survival rates.

Methods

Data from patients who had undergone operations for spinal metastasis between 2005 and 2016 were retrieved retrospectively, and randomized into training (70%) and validation groups (30%). A selection of pre-operative factors was analyzed using univariable and multivariable COX model for the training group. A nomogram was then developed using significant predictors in multivariable analysis. Accuracy was validated using a concordance index (C-index) and calibration curve for the training and validation groups, respectively.

Results

A total of 244 participants were enrolled, including 171 in the training group and 73 in the validation group. Primary tumor, Frankel Grade, Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) and adjuvant therapy were found to be significant for predicting survival rates. A nomogram was developed by utilizing these predictors. The C-indexes for the two groups were 0.711 and 0.703 respectively. Moreover, a favorable consistency between the predicted and actual survival probabilities was demonstrated using calibration curves.

Conclusions

A user-friendly nomogram model for facilitating medical procedures during clinical encounters was established to aid clinical decision making for individual patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Weilbaecher KN, Guise TA, McCauley LK (2011) Cancer to bone: a fatal attraction. Nat Rev Cancer 11:411–425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ell B, Kang Y (2012) SnapShot: bone metastasis. Cell 151:690

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ren G, Esposito M, Kang Y (2015) Bone metastasis and the metastatic niche. J Mol Med (Berl) 93:1203–1212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Quinn RH, Randall RL, Benevenia J, Berven SH, Raskin KA (2014) Contemporary management of metastatic bone disease: tips and tools of the trade for general practitioners. Instr Course Lect 63:431–441

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Prasad D, Schiff D (2010) Malignant spinal cord compression. Lancet Oncol 6:15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J (2005) A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine 30:2186–2191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T (2001) Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:298–306.

    Google Scholar 

  8. van der Linden YM, Dijkstra SP, Vonk EJ, Marijnen CA, Leer JW, Dutch Bone Metastasis Study Group (2005) Dutch Bone Metastasis Study Group**Prediction of survival in patients with metastases in the spinal column. Results based on a randomized trial of radiotherapy. Cancer 103:320–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Balain B, Jaiswal A, Trivedi JM, Eisenstein SM, Kuiper JH, Jaffray DC (2013) The Oswestry Risk Index: an aid in the treatment of metastatic disease of the spine. Bone Joint J 95:210–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sternberg CN (2006) Are nomograms better than currently available stage groupings for bladder cancer? J Clin Oncol 24:3819–3820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kattan MW (2003) Nomograms are superior to staging and risk grouping systems for identifying highrisk patients: preoperative application in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 13:111–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement. BMJ 350:g7594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Iasonos A, Schrag D, Raj GV, Panageas KS (2008) How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 26:1364–1370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E et al (2013) The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist 18:744–751

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jemal A, Clegg LX, Ward E et al (2004) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2001, with a special feature regarding survival. Cancer 101:3–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen LL, Nolan ME, Silverstein MJ et al (2009) The impact of primary tumor size, lymph node status, and other prognostic factors on the risk of cancer death. Cancer 115:5071–5083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rades D, Hueppe M, Schild SE (2013) A score to identify patients with metastatic spinal cord compression who may be candidates for best supportive care. Cancer 119:897–903

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Black P (1979) Spinal metastases: current status and recommended guidelines for management. Neurosurgery 5:726–746

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sorensen PS, Borgesen SE, Rohde K et al (1990) Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. results of treatment and survival. Cancer 65:1502–1508

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Young RF, Post EM, King GA (1980) Treatment of spinal epidural metastases: randomized prospective comparison of laminectomy and radiotherapy. J Neurosurg 53:741–748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Siegal T, Siegal T, Robin G, Lubetzki-Korn I, Fuks Z (1982) Anterior decompression of the spine for metastatic epidural cord compression: a promising avenue of therapy. Ann Neurol 11:28–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Overby MC, Rothman AS (1985) Anterolateral decompression for metastatic epidural spinal cord tumors. J Neurosurg 62:344–348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Klimo P Jr, Thompson CJ, Kestle JR, Schmidt MH (2005) A meta-analysis of surgery versus conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic spinal epidural disease. Neuro-oncol 7:64–76

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF et al (2005) Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 366:643–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Enkaoua EA, Doursounian L, Chatellier G, Mabesoone F, Aimard T, Saillant G (1997) Vertebral metastases: a critical appreciation of the preoperative prognostic tokuhashi score in a series of 71 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2293–2298.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rades D, Huttenlocher S, Bajrovic A et al (2011) Surgery followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for metastatic spinal cord compression from unfavorable tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81:e861–e868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rades D, Huttenlocher S, Evers JN et al (2012) Do elderly patients benefit from surgery in addition to radiotherapy for treatment of metastatic spinal cord compression? Strahlenther Onkol 188:424–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my special thanks to my partners for the encouragement and support they gave me during my study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bone Oncology, Tianjin Hospital, No. 406, Jiefang Southern Road, Hexi District, Tianjin, 300211, China

    Xiong-gang Yang, Xin He & Yong-cheng Hu

  2. Graduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300070, China

    Xiong-gang Yang, Jiang-tao Feng, Feng Wang, Hao Zhang, Li Yang & Hao-ran Zhang

Authors
  1. Xiong-gang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiang-tao Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Feng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xin He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Li Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hao-ran Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yong-cheng Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong-cheng Hu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, Xg., Feng, Jt., Wang, F. et al. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for the overall survival of patients living with spinal metastases. J Neurooncol 145, 167–176 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03284-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03284-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation