Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prognostic scores for survival as decisional support for surgery in spinal metastases: a performance assessment systematic review

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

Abstract

Purpose

To review the evidence on the relative prognostic performance of the available prognostic scores for survival in spinal metastatic surgery in order to provide a recommendation for use in clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic review of comparative external validation studies assessing the performance of prognostic scores for survival in independent cohorts was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Eligible studies were identified through Medline and Embase until May 2021. Studies were included when they compared at least four survival scoring systems in surgical or mixed cohorts across all primary tumor types. Predictive performance was assessed based on discrimination and calibration for 3-month, 1-year and overall survival, and generalizability was assessed based on the characteristics of the development cohort and external validation cohorts. Risk of bias and concern regarding applicability were assessed based on the ‘Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool’ (PROBAST).

Results

Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and covered 17 scoring systems across 5.130 patients. Several scores suffer from suboptimal development and validation. The SORG Nomogram, developed in a large surgical cohort, showed good discrimination on 3-month and 1-year survival, good calibration and was superior in direct comparison with low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability. Machine learning algorithms are promising as they perform equally well in direct comparison. Tokuhashi, Tomita and other traditional risk scores showed suboptimal performance.

Conclusion

The SORG Nomogram and machine learning algorithms outline superior performance in survival prediction for surgery in spinal metastases. Further improvement by comparative validation in large multicenter, prospective cohorts can still be obtained. Given the heterogeneity of spinal metastases, superior methodology of development and validation is key in improving future machine learning systems.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Choi D, Fox Z, Albert T, Arts M, Balabaud L, Bunger C et al (2015) Prediction of quality of life and survival after surgery for symptomatic spinal metastases: a multicenter cohort study to determine suitability for surgical treatment. Neurosurgery 77:698–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fehlings MG, Nater A, Tetreault L, Kopjar B, Arnold P, Dekutoski M et al (2016) Survival and clinical outcomes in surgically treated patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: results of the prospective multicenter AOSpine study. J Clin Oncol 34:268–276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ibrahim A, Crockard A, Antonietti P, Boriani S, Bünger C, Gasbarrini A et al (2008) Does spinal surgery improve the quality of life for those with extradural (spinal) osseous metastases? An international multicenter prospective observational study of 223 patients: invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spin. J Neurosurg Spine 8:271–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio RJ 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 

  6. Fahed Z, Marie-Helene V, Patrick D, Aboukais R, Louis G (2015) Richard A (2015) Management of neoplastic spinal tumors in a spine surgery care unit. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 128:35–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi D, Crockard A, Bunger C, Harms J, Kawahara N, Mazel C et al (2010) 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, Cox BW, Stubblefield MD, Yamada Y et al (2013) The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist 18:744–751

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Barzilai O, Laufer I, Yamada Y, Higginson DS, Schmitt AM, Lis E 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 35:2419–2427

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chow E, Harth T, Hruby G, Finkelstein J, Wu J, Danjoux C (2001) How accurate are physicians’ clinical predictions of survival and the available prognostic tools in estimating survival times in terminally III cancer patients? A systematic review. Clin Oncol 13:209–218

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chow E, Davis L, Panzarella T, Hayter C, Szumacher E, Loblaw A et al (2005) Accuracy of survival prediction by palliative radiation oncologists. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 61:870–873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Verlaan JJ, Choi D, Versteeg A, Albert T, Arts M, Balabaud L 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 34:3054–3061

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wibmer C, Leithner A, Hofmann G, Clar H, Kapitan M, Berghold A, et al. (2011) Survival analysis of 254 patients after manifestation of spinal metastases: Evaluation of seven preoperative scoring systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:1977–86

  14. 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

  15. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Toriyama S, Kawano H, Ohsaka S (1990) Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15:1110–3

  16. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J (2005) A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:2186–91

  17. Karhade AV, Shin JH, Schwab JH (2019) Prognostic models for spinal metastatic disease: evolution of methodologies, limitations, and future opportunities. Ann Transl Med 7:219–219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y (2014) Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J 35:1925–1931

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Alba AC, Agoritsas T, Walsh M, Hanna S, Iorio A, Devereaux PJ et al (2017) Discrimination and calibration of clinical prediction models: Users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 318:1377–1384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cassidy JT, Baker JF, Lenehan B (2018) The role of prognostic scoring systems in assessing surgical candidacy for patients with vertebral metastasis: a narrative review. Global Spine J 8:638–651

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Moons KGM, Wolff RF, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS et al (2019) PROBAST: a tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 170:1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS et al (2019) PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med 170:51–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. (2020) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ 372

  24. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M et al (2012) The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 1:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Choi D, Ricciardi F, Arts M, Buchowski JM, Bunger C, Chung CK, et al. (2018) Prediction accuracy of common prognostic scoring systems for metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:1678–84

  26. Ahmed AK, Goodwin CR, Heravi A, Kim R, Abu-Bonsrah N, Sankey E et al (2018) Predicting survival for metastatic spine disease: a comparison of nine scoring systems. Spine J 18:1804–1814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nater A, Tetreault LA, Kopjar B, Arnold PM, Dekutoski MB, Finkelstein JA et al (2018) Predictive factors of survival in a surgical series of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression and complete external validation of 8 multivariate models of survival in a prospective North American multicenter study. Cancer 124:3536–3550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bollen L, Wibmer C, Van Der Linden YM, Pondaag W, Fiocco M, Peul WC, et al. (2016) Predictive value of six prognostic scoring systems for spinal bone metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41:E155–62

  29. Westermann L, Olivier AC, Samel C, Eysel P, Herren C, Sircar K et al (2020) Analysis of seven prognostic scores in patients with surgically treated epidural metastatic spine disease. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 162(1):109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Morgen SS, Fruergaard S, Gehrchen M, Bjørck S, Engelholm SA, Dahl B (2018) A revision of the Tokuhashi revised score improves the prognostic ability in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 144(1):33–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bauer HCF, Wedin R (1995) Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases: prognostication in 241 patients. Acta Orthop 66:143–146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Leithner A, Radl R, Gruber G, Hochegger M, Leithner K, Welkerling H et al (2008) Predictive value of seven preoperative prognostic scoring systems for spinal metastases. Eur Spine J 17:1488–1495

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Katagiri H, Takahashi M, Wakai K, Sugiura H, Kataoka T, Nakanishi K (2005) Prognostic factors and a scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:698–703

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sioutos PJ, Arbit E, Meshulam CF, Galicich JH (1995) Spinal metastases from solid tumors. Anal Factors Affect Surv Cancer 76:1453–1459

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Der Linden YM, Dijkstra SPDS, Vonk EJA, Marijnen CAM, Leer JWH (2005) 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 

  36. Bartels RHMA, Feuth T, Van Der Maazen R, Verbeek ALM, Kappelle AC, Grotenhuis JA 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 

  37. Rades D, Dunst J, Schild SE (2008) The first score predicting overall survival in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. Cancer 112:157–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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. J Bone Joint Surg Br 95:210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bollen L, Van Der Linden YM, Pondaag W, Fiocco M, Pattynama BPM, Marijnen CAM et al (2014) Prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with symptomatic spinal bone metastases: a retrospective cohort study of 1043 patients. Neuro Oncol 16:991–998

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ghori AK, Leonard DA, Schoenfeld AJ, Saadat E, Scott N, Ferrone ML et al (2015) Modeling 1-year survival after surgery on the metastatic spine. Spine J 15:2345–2350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pereira NRP, Janssen SJ, Van Dijk E, Harris MB, Hornicek FJ, Ferrone ML et al (2016) Development of a prognostic survival algorithm for patients with metastatic spine disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:1767–1776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Karhade AV, Thio QCBS, Ogink PT, Bono CM, Ferrone ML, Oh KS et al (2019) Predicting 90-Day and 1-Year mortality in spinal metastatic disease: development and internal validation. Clin Neurosurg 85:E671–E681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Paulino Pereira NR, Mclaughlin L, Janssen SJ, van Dijk CN, Bramer JAM, Laufer I et al (2017) The SORG nomogram accurately predicts 3- and 12-months survival for operable spine metastatic disease: external validation. J Surg Oncol 115:1019–1027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dardic M, Wibmer C, Berghold A, Stadlmueller L, Froehlich EV, Leithner A (2015) Evaluation of prognostic scoring systems for spinal metastases in 196 patients treated during 2005–2010. Eur Spine J 24:2133–2141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hibberd CS, Quan GMY (2017) Accuracy of preoperative scoring systems for the prognostication and treatment of patients with spinal metastases. Int Sch Res Not 2017:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pollner P, Horváth A, Mezei T, Banczerowski P, Czigléczki G (2018) Analysis of four scoring systems for the prognosis of patients with metastasis of the vertebral column. World Neurosurg 112:e675–e682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Karhade AV, Ahmed AK, Pennington Z, Chara A, Schilling A, Thio QCBS et al (2020) External validation of the SORG 90-day and 1-year machine learning algorithms for survival in spinal metastatic disease. Spine J 20:14–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nater A, Martin AR, Sahgal A, Choi D, Fehlings MG (2017) Symptomatic spinal metastasis: A systematic literature review of the preoperative prognostic factors for survival, neurological, functional and quality of life in surgically treated patients and methodological recommendations for prognostic studies. PLoS One 12: e0171507

  49. Luksanapruksa P, Buchowski JM, Hotchkiss W, Tongsai S, Wilartratsami S, Chotivichit A (2017) Prognostic factors in patients with spinal metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 17:689–708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bollen L, Jacobs WCH, Van der Linden YM, Van der Hel O, Taal W, Dijkstra PDS (2018) A systematic review of prognostic factors predicting survival in patients with spinal bone metastases. Eur Spine J 27:799–805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bongers MER, Karhade AV, Villavieja J, Groot OQ, Bilsky MH, Laufer I et al (2020) Does the SORG algorithm generalize to a contemporary cohort of patients with spinal metastases on external validation? Spine J 20(10):1646–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Shah AA, Karhade A V., Park HY, Sheppard WL, Macyszyn LJ, Everson RG, et al. (2021) Updated external validation of the SORG machine learning algorithms for prediction of ninety-day and one-year mortality after surgery for spinal metastasis. Spine J. 2021

  53. Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KGM (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med 162:735–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB, Ioannidis JPA, Macaskill P, Steyerberg EW et al (2015) Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 162:W1-73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Depreitere B, Ricciardi F, Arts M, Balabaud L, Buchowski JM, Bunger C et al (2018) Loss of local tumor control after index surgery for spinal metastases: a prospective cohort study. World Neurosurg 117:e8-16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Barzilai O, Fisher CG, Bilsky MH (2018) State of the art treatment of spinal metastatic disease. Neurosurg 82:757–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Lee CH, Chung CK, Jahng TA, Kim K, jeong, Kim CH, Hyun SJ, et al (2015) Which one is a valuable surrogate for predicting survival between Tomita and Tokuhashi scores in patients with spinal metastases? A meta-analysis for diagnostic test accuracy and individual participant data analysis. J Neurooncol 123:267–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Katagiri H, Okada R, Takagi T, Takahashi M, Murata H, Harada H et al (2014) New prognostic factors and scoring system for patients with skeletal metastasis. Cancer Med 3:1359–1367

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Rades D, Douglas S, Veninga T, Bajrovic A, Stalpers LJA, Hoskin PJ et al (2012) A survival score for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression from prostate cancer. Strahlentherapie und Onkol 188:802–806

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Goodwin CR, Schoenfeld AJ, Abu-Bonsrah NA, Garzon-Muvdi T, Sankey EW, Harris MB et al (2016) Reliability of a spinal metastasis prognostic score to model 1-year survival. Spine J 16:1102–1108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Tokuhashi Y, Uei H, Oshima M, Ajiro Y (2014) Scoring system for prediction of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. World J Orthop 5:262–271

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Tokuhashi Y, Uei H, Oshima M (2017) Classification and scoring systems for metastatic spine tumors: a literature review. Spine Surg Relat Res 1:44–55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Ulmar B, Reichel H, Catalkaya S, Naumann U, Schmidt R, Gerstner S et al (2007) Evaluation and modification of the tomita score in 217 patients with vertebral metastases. Onkologie 30:414–418

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Tokuhashi Y, Ajiro Y, Umezawa N (2009) Outcome of treatment for spinal metastases using scoring system for preoperative evaluation of prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:69–73

  65. Zoccali C, Skoch J, Walter CM, Torabi M, Borgstrom M, Baaj AA (2016) The Tokuhashi score: effectiveness and pitfalls. Eur Spine J 25:673–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    S. Smeijers & B. Depreitere

Authors
  1. S. Smeijers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Depreitere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was conceived by both authors. Literature search and analysis was performed by both authors. Both authors contributed to the manuscript drafting.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Depreitere.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Availability of data and material

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 38 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smeijers, S., Depreitere, B. Prognostic scores for survival as decisional support for surgery in spinal metastases: a performance assessment systematic review. Eur Spine J 30, 2800–2824 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06954-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06954-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation