Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 165–171 | Cite as

Serum alkaline phosphatase and 30-day mortality after surgery for spinal metastatic disease

  • Aditya V. Karhade
  • Quirina C. B. S. Thio
  • Paul T. Ogink
  • Joseph H. Schwab
Clinical Study

Abstract

Background

Elevated serum alkaline phosphatase has been previously studied as a biomarker for progression of metastatic disease and implicated in adverse skeletal events and worsened survival. The purpose of this study was to determine if serum alkaline phosphatase was a predictor of short-term mortality of patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastatic disease.

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients undergoing spinal surgery for metastatic disease. Bivariate and multivariable analyses was undertaken to determine the relationship between serum alkaline phosphatase and 30-day mortality.

Results

For the 1788 patients undergoing operative intervention for spinal metastatic disease between 2009 and 2016 the 30-day mortality was 8.49% (n = 151). In patients who survived beyond 30-days after surgery, n = 1627 (91.5%) the median [interquartile range] serum alkaline phosphatase levels were 126.4 [75–138], whereas in patients who had 30-day mortality, the serum alkaline phosphatase levels were 179.8 [114–187]. The optimal cut-off for alkaline phosphatase was determined to be 113 IU/L. On multivariable analysis, elevated serum alkaline phosphatase levels were associated with 30-day mortality (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.12–2.32, p = 0.011).

Conclusion

Elevated preoperative serum alkaline phosphatase is a marker for 30-day mortality in patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastatic disease. Future retrospective and prospective study designs should incorporate assessment of this serum biomarker to better understand the role for serum alkaline phosphatase in improving prognostication in spinal metastatic disease.

Keywords

Alkaline phosphatase Spine tumor Metastases 30-day Survival 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

The HIPPA-compliant de-identified NSQIP database has been exempted from individual review by our institutional review board.

Supplementary material

11060_2018_2947_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 KB)
11060_2018_2947_MOESM2_ESM.docx (88 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 88 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Barzilai O, Laufer I, Yamada Y et al (2017) Integrating evidence-based medicine for treatment of spinal metastases into a decision framework: neurologic, oncologic, mechanicals stability, and systemic disease. J Clin Oncol 35(21):2419–2427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roodman GD (2004) Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med 350(16):1655–1664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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(9486):643–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang EJ, Lee SY, Kim HJ et al (2016) Prognostic factors and skeletal-related events in patients with small cell lung cancer with bone metastases at the time of diagnosis. Oncology 90(2):103–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown JE, Cook RJ, Lipton A, Costa L, Coleman RE (2010) Prognostic factors for skeletal complications from metastatic bone disease in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 123(3):767–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 4(10):e296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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. BMC Med 13(1):1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM (2006) REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 100(2):229–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raval MV, Pawlik TM (2018) Practical guide to surgical data sets: national surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP) and pediatric NSQIP. JAMA Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0486 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karhade AV, Larsen AMG, Cote DJ, Dubois HM, Smith TR (2017) National databases for neurosurgical outcomes research: options, strengths, and limitations. Neurosurgery.  https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hussain AK, Vig KS, Cheung ZB et al (2017) The impact of metastatic spinal tumor location on 30-day perioperative mortality and morbidity after surgical decompression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:E648–E655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoenfeld AJ, Le HV, Marjoua Y et al (2016) Assessing the utility of a clinical prediction score regarding 30-day morbidity and mortality following metastatic spinal surgery: the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS). Spine J 16(4):482–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarkiss CA, Hersh EH, Ladner TR et al (2018) Risk factors for thirty-day morbidity and mortality in extradural lumbar spine tumor resection. World Neurosurg 114:e1101–e1106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karhade AV, Vasudeva VS, Dasenbrock HH et al (2016) Thirty-day readmission and reoperation after surgery for spinal tumors: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis. Neurosurg Focus 41(2):E5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    López-Ratón M, Cadarso-Suárez C, Gude-Sampedro F (2014) OptimalCutpoints: an R package for selecting optimal cutpoints in diagnostic tests. J Stat Softw 61:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stekhoven DJ, Bühlmann P (2011) MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics 28(1):112–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Verlaan JJ, Choi D, Versteeg A et al (2016) Characteristics of patients who survived < 3 months or > 2 years after surgery for spinal metastases: can we avoid inappropriate patient selection? J Clin Oncol 34(25):3054–3061CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schoenfeld AJ, Leonard DA, Saadat E, Bono CM, Harris MB, Ferrone ML (2016) Predictors of 30- and 90-day survival following surgical intervention for spinal metastases: a prognostic study conducted at four academic centers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(8):E503–E509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Achbarou A, Kaiser S, Tremblay G et al (1994) Urokinase overproduction results in increased skeletal metastasis by prostate cancer cells in vivo. Cancer Res 54(9):2372–2377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berruti A, Dogliotti L, Bitossi R et al (2000) Incidence of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastatic prostate cancer and hormone refractory disease: predictive role of bone resorption and formation markers evaluated at baseline. J Urol 164(4):1248–1253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tartter PI, Slater G, Gelernt I, Aufses AH Jr (1981) Screening for liver metastases from colorectal cancer with carcinoembryonic antigen and alkaline phosphatase. Ann Surg 193(3):357–360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kohne CH, Cunningham D, Di Costanzo F et al (2002) Clinical determinants of survival in patients with 5-fluorouracil-based treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a multivariate analysis of 3825 patients. Ann Oncol 13(2):308–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations