Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Review of metastatic spine tumour classification and indications for surgery: the consensus statement of the Global Spine Tumour Study Group

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Choosing the right operation for metastatic spinal tumours is often difficult, and depends on many factors, including life expectancy and the balance of the risk of surgery against the likelihood of improving quality of life. Several prognostic scores have been devised to help the clinician decide the most appropriate course of action, but there still remains controversy over how to choose the best option; more often the decision is influenced by habit, belief and subjective experience. The purpose of this article is to review the present systems available for classifying spinal metastases, how these classifications can be used to help surgical planning, discuss surgical outcomes, and make suggestions for future research. It is important for spinal surgeons to reach a consensus regarding the classification of spinal metastases and surgical strategies. The authors of this article constitute the Global Spine Tumour Study Group: an international group of spinal surgeons who are dedicated to studying the techniques and outcomes of surgery for spinal tumours, to build on the existing evidence base for the surgical treatment of spinal tumours.

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. Hatrick NC, Lucas JD, Timothy AR et al (2000) The surgical treatment of metastatic disease of the spine. Radiother Oncol 56:335–339

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bailar JC III, Gornik HL (1997) Cancer undefeated. N Eng J Med 336:1569–1574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jacobs WB, Perrin RG (2001) Evaluation and treatment of spinal metastases: an overview. Neurosurg Focus 11 (article 10)

  4. Ibrahim AG, Crockard HA, Antonetti P et al (2005) Does spinal surgery improve the quality of life for those with extradural (spinal) osseous metastases? An international multi-centre prospective observational study of 223 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 8:271–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Heary RF, Bono CM (2001) Metastatic spinal tumors. Neurosurg Focus 11(6):e1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y et al (2004) Outcome of total en bloc spondylectomy for solitary metastasis of the thoracolumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:297–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T et al (2001) Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine 26:298–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Aebi M (2003) Spinal metastasis in the elderly. Eur Spine J 12(Suppl 2):S202–S213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. North RB, LaRocca VR, Schwartz J et al (2005) Surgical management of spinal metastases: analysis of prognostic factors during 10-year experience. J Neurosurg Spine 2:564–573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H et al (2005) A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine 30:2186–2191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Findlay GF (1984) Adverse effects of the management of malignant spinal cord compression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 47:761–768

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Steinmetz MP, Mekhail A, Benzel EC (2001) Management of metastatic tumors of the spine: strategies and operative indications. Neurosurg Focus 11(6):e2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Weigel B, Maghsudi M, Neumann C et al (1999) Surgical management of symptomatic spinal metastases. Post-operative outcome and quality of life. Spine 24:2240–2246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. 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 

  16. Wai EK, Finkelstein JA, Tangente RP et al (2003) Quality of life in surgical treatment of metastatic spine disease. Spine 28:508–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wise JJ, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN et al (1999) Complication, survival rates, and risk factors of surgery for metastatic disease of the spine. Spine 24:1943–1951

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cooper PR, Errico TJ, Martin R et al (1993) A systematic approach to spinal reconstruction after anterior decompression for neoplastic disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 32:1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gokaslan ZL, York JE, Walsh GL et al (1998) Transthoracic vertebrectomy for metastatic spinal tumours. J Neurosurg 89:599–609

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sundaresan N, Digiacinto GV, Hughes JE et al (1991) Treatment of neoplastic spinal cord compression: results of a prospective study. Neurosurgery 29:645–650

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mazel C, Balabaud L, Bennis S et al (2009) Cervical and thoracic spine tumor management: surgical indications, techniques, and outcomes. Orthop Clin N Am 40:75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (2008) Metastatic spinal cord compression. Diagnosis and management of adults at risk of and with metastatic spinal cord compression. NICE Guidelines CG75, TJ International Ltd, Cardiff, UK

  23. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Toriyama S et al (1990) Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine 15:1110–1113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hirabayashi H, Ebara S, Kinoshita T et al (2003) Clinical outcome and survival after palliative surgery for spinal metastases. Cancer 97:476–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hosono N, Ueda T, Tamura D et al (2005) Prognostic relevance of clinical symptoms in patients with spinal metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:196–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bartels RHMA, Feuth T, van der Maazen R et al (2007) Development of a model with which to predict the life expectancy of patients with spinal epidural metastasis. Cancer 110:2042–2049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tatsui H, Onomura T, Morishita S et al (1996) Survival rates of patients with metastatic spinal cancer after scintigraphic detection of abnormal radioactive accumulation. Spine 21:2143–2148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. van der Linden YM, Dijkstra SPDS, Vonk EJA et al (2005) Prediction of survival in patients with metastases in the spinal column. Cancer 103:320–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Enkaoua EA, Doursounian L, Chatellier G et al (1997) Vertebral metastases: a critical appreciation of the preoperative prognostic Tokuhashi score in a series of 71 cases. Spine 22:2293–2298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Spiegel DA, Sampson JH, Richardson WJ et al (1995) Metastatic melanoma to the spine. Demographics, risk factors, and prognosis in 114 patients. Spine 20:2141–2146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sioutos PJ, Arbit E, Meshulam CF et al (1995) Spinal metastases from solid tumors. Analysis of factors affecting survival. Cancer 76:1453–1459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zeng JC, Song YM, Liu H et al (2007) The predictive value of the Tokuhashi revised scoring system for the survival time of patients with spinal metastases (Chinese). Sichan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 38:488–491

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zou XN, Grejs A, Li HS et al (2006) Estimation of life expectancy for selecting surgical procedure and predicting prognosis of extradural spinal metastases. Ai Zheng 25:1406–1410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harrington KD (1986) Metastatic disease of the spine. J Bone Joint Surg 68A:1110–1115

    Google Scholar 

  35. McLain RF, Weinstein JN (1990) Tumors of the spine. Semin Spine Surg 2:157–180

    Google Scholar 

  36. Enneking WF, Spainer SS, Goodman MA (1980) A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcomas. Clin Orthop 153:106–120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Boriani S, Weinstein JN, Biagini R (1997) Primary bone tumors of the spine: terminology and surgical staging. Spine 22:1036–1044

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ghogawala Z, Mansfield FL, Borges LF (2001) Spinal radiation before surgical decompression adversely affects outcomes of surgery for symptomatic metastatic spinal cord compression. Spine 26:818–824

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Falicov A, Fisher CG, Sparkes J et al (2006) Impact of surgical intervention on quality of life in patients with spinal metastases. Spine 31:2849–2856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53–72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Choi D, Crockard HA (2009) How and why should we benchmark clinical outcomes and quality of life for surgery in spinal metastases? Br J Neurosurg 23(1):3–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Baba H et al (1997) Total en bloc spondylectomy: a new surgical technique for primary malignant vertebral tumors of the spine. Spine 22:324–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Liljenqvist U, Lerner T, Halm H, Buerger H, Gosheger G, Winkelmann W (2008) En bloc spondylectomy in malignant tumors of the spine. Eur Spine J 17(4):600–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Oberndorfer S, Grisold W (2000) The management of malignant spinal cord compression. Spine 25:653–654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

DePuy Spine funding for database design and IT support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Box 3, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK

    David Choi & A. Crockard

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

    C. Bunger

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Klinikum Karlsbad-Langensteinbach, Karlsbad, Germany

    J. Harms & R. Melcher

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan

    N. Kawahara & K. Tomita

  5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, L’Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France

    C. Mazel

Authors
  1. David Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Crockard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Bunger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Harms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Kawahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Mazel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Melcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. K. Tomita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Choi.

Additional information

On behalf of the Global Spine Tumour Study Group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Choi, D., Crockard, A., Bunger, C. et al. Review of metastatic spine tumour classification and indications for surgery: the consensus statement of the Global Spine Tumour Study Group. Eur Spine J 19, 215–222 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1252-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1252-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation