Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between different prognostic models to be used for metastatic bone disease on appendicular skeleton in a Chilean population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Several preoperation prognosis models used on the treatment of metastatic bone disease on appendicular skeleton have been devised. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of different survival prognostic models on patients with metastatic bone disease in long bones in a Chilean population.

Methods

This is a multicentric retrospective study. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 136 patients who were confirmed with metastatic bone disease of the appendicular skeleton and who were treated surgically from 2016 to 2019. The minimum follow-up time was 12 months. All patients were assessed using four appendicular metastatic bone disease scoring systems. A preoperative predicted survival time for all 136 patients was retrospectively calculated making use of the revised Katagiri, PathFx, Optimodel and IOR score model.

Results

The PathFx model demonstrated an accuracy at predicting 3 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.61) and 6-month (AUC = 0.65) survival time after surgical management. IOR score model demonstrated an accuracy at predicting 12-month survival time (AUC = 0.64). The survival rate reached the 44% in a year. The median survival time to death or last follow-up time was 14.9 months (SD ± 15).

Conclusion

PathFx score model demonstrated the highest accuracy at predicting a survival time of 3 and 6 months. IOR score model was the most accurate measure at predicting a survival time of 12-months. To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting a comparative analysis of metastatic bone disease with predicting models in a country located in Latin America. PathFx’s and IOR score models are the ones to be used in the Chilean population as the predictive models in metastatic bone disease of the appendicular skeleton.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Errani C, Mavrogenis AF, Cevolani L et al (2017) Treatment for long bone metastases based on a systematic literature review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27:205–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-016-1857-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Levin AS, Alcorn SR, Neuman BJ, Meyer CF (2019) Team Approach: Emergencies in Patients with Skeletal Metastases. JBJS Rev 7:e8. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.18.00036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Coleman RE, Croucher PI, Padhani AR et al (2020) Bone metastases Nat Rev Dis Primer 6:83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-020-00216-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bryson DJ, Wicks L, Ashford RU (2015) The investigation and management of suspected malignant pathological fractures: a review for the general orthopaedic surgeon. Injury 46:1891–1899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.07.028

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hansen BH, Keller J, Laitinen M et al (2004) The Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Skeletal Metastasis Register. Survival after surgery for bone metastases in the pelvis and extremities. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 75:11–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470410001708270

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meares C, Badran A, Dewar D (2019) Prediction of survival after surgical management of femoral metastatic bone disease – A comparison of prognostic models. J Bone Oncol 15:100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2019.100225

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Errani C, Bazzocchi A, Spinnato P et al (2019) What’s new in management of bone metastases? Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29:1367–1375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02446-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maccauro G, Muratori F, Liuzza F et al (2008) Anterograde femoral nail for the treatment of femoral metastases. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 18:509–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-008-0343-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Errani C, Cosentino M, Ciani G et al (2021) C-reactive protein and tumour diagnosis predict survival in patients treated surgically for long bone metastases. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04921-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Katagiri H, Okada R, Takagi T et al (2014) New prognostic factors and scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis. Cancer Med 3:1359–1367. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.292

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Forsberg JA, Eberhardt J, Boland PJ et al (2011) Estimating survival in patients with operable skeletal metastases: an application of a bayesian belief network. PLoS ONE 6:e19956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019956

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Piccioli A, Maccauro G, Spinelli MS et al (2015) Bone metastases of unknown origin: epidemiology and principles of management. J Orthop Traumatol 16:81–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-015-0344-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Willeumier JJ, van der Linden YM, van der Wal CWPG et al (2018) An Easy-to-Use Prognostic Model for Survival Estimation for Patients with Symptomatic Long Bone Metastases: J Bone Jt Surg 100:196–204. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ratasvuori M, Wedin R, Keller J et al (2013) Insight opinion to surgically treated metastatic bone disease: Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Skeletal Metastasis Registry report of 1195 operated skeletal metastasis. Surg Oncol 22:132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2013.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shimada H, Setoguchi T, Nakamura S et al (2015) Evaluation of prognostic scoring systems for bone metastases using single-center data. Mol Clin Oncol 3:1361–1370. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2015.637

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Thio QCBS, Karhade AV, Bindels BJ et al (2020) Development and Internal Validation of Machine Learning Algorithms for Preoperative Survival Prediction of Extremity Metastatic Disease. Clin Orthop 478:322–333. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000997

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bollen L, van der Linden YM, Pondaag W et al (2014) Prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with symptomatic spinal bone metastases: a retrospective cohort study of 1 043 patients. Neuro-Oncol 16:991–998. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/not318

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mirels H (1989) Metastatic disease in long bones. A proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures. Clin Orthop 256–264

  19. Piccioli A, Spinelli MS, Forsberg JA et al (2015) How do we estimate survival? External validation of a tool for survival estimation in patients with metastatic bone disease-decision analysis and comparison of three international patient populations. BMC Cancer 15:424. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1396-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ogura K, Gokita T, Shinoda Y et al (2017) Can A Multivariate Model for Survival Estimation in Skeletal Metastases (PATHFx) Be Externally Validated Using Japanese Patients? Clin Orthop 475:2263–2270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5389-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Anderson AB, Wedin R, Fabbri N et al (2020) External Validation of PATHFx Version 3.0 in Patients Treated Surgically and Nonsurgically for Symptomatic Skeletal Metastases. Clin Orthop 478:808–818. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Forsberg JA, Wedin R, Boland PJ, Healey JH (2017) Can We Estimate Short- and Intermediate-term Survival in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Metastatic Bone Disease? Clin Orthop 475:1252–1261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-5187-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tanaka T, Imanishi J, Charoenlap C, Choong PFM (2016) Intramedullary nailing has sufficient durability for metastatic femoral fractures. World J Surg Oncol 14:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-016-0836-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funds were received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital Traumatológico de Concepción, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de Concepción, San Martin 1580, Concepción, Chile

    Patricio A. Alfaro, Carlos Herrera & Fabian Padilla

  2. Hospital Base de Valdivia, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Austral, Valdivia, Chile

    Javier Delgado

  3. Orthopedic Oncology Department, Instituto Traumatológico, Santiago, Chile

    Andrés Dumas & Orlando Wevar

  4. Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca, Chile

    Cecilia Mesa

  5. Hospital Clínico Universidad Católica, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Eduardo Botello

Authors
  1. Patricio A. Alfaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javier Delgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrés Dumas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cecilia Mesa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Orlando Wevar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carlos Herrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fabian Padilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Eduardo Botello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricio A. Alfaro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Patricio A. Alfaro, Javier Delgado, Andres Dumas, Cecilia Mesa, Orlando Wevar, Carlos Herrera and Fabian Padilla declared not to have financial interests in this project. Eduardo Botello work with consultant honoraria from Company Zimmer-Biomet and Implancast. Also, he is President of the Latin American Orthopedic Musculoskeletal Tumors Society (SLATME), and a member of the Board of the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) and SICOT Chairman.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with both, the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration (considering even its later amendments or comparable ethical standards).

Informed consent

This research was approved by the local research Ethics Committee to be carried out with waiver of informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alfaro, P.A., Delgado, J., Dumas, A. et al. Comparison between different prognostic models to be used for metastatic bone disease on appendicular skeleton in a Chilean population. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 31, 1657–1662 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-021-03153-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-021-03153-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation