Metastatic/Myeloma Disease


118 Metastatic/Myeloma Disease


Marco Ferrone MD1 and Justin Bulcher MSc2


1 Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA


2 Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA


Clinical scenario



  • A 78‐year‐old man with a known history of widely metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer presents to the Emergency Department with atraumatic back pain and is found to have metastatic spinal cord compression.
  • He remains ambulatory with preserved bowel and bladder function, but he is objectively weak on examination.

Top three questions



  1. In patients with metastatic carcinoma or myeloma disease resulting in metastatic epidural spinal cord compression, does radiation combined with direct decompressive surgery result in improved functional status for patients compared to radiation alone?
  2. In patients with metastatic carcinoma or myeloma disease affecting the spine, does assessment of spinal stability by a scoring algorithm provide reliable and useful prognostic information compared to opinion alone?
  3. In patients with metastatic carcinoma or myeloma disease affecting the spine, do simple prognostication algorithms that take patient‐specific and tumor‐specific factors into account better predict outcomes than those that do not?

Question 1: In patients with metastatic carcinoma or myeloma disease resulting in metastatic epidural spinal cord compression, does radiation combined with direct decompressive surgery result in improved functional status for patients compared to radiation alone?


Rationale


There are two treatment modalities available for metastatic spinal cord compression: radiation and decompressive surgery. Decompressive surgery for metastatic spinal cord compression is an invasive and risky intervention relative to radiation alone, thus operative intervention may be justified only if the functional outcomes for the patient are improved when decompressive surgery is combined with radiation. This question of whether to offer surgery is pondered over daily by all physicians who regularly care for patients with metastatic spinal cord compression.


Clinical comment


For the patient in this scenario, making a shared, informed decision with his healthcare team of whether to undergo the risks of decompressive surgery versus pursuing radiation treatment alone is a critical branch point in his treatment course and can only be made once he understands what the benefits might be of taking on the risk of surgical decompression.


Available literature and quality of the evidence


There is one level I randomized controlled trial that addresses the question at hand published by Patchell et al. in 2005 comparing ambulatory function, urinary continence, muscle strength, functional status, corticosteroid and opioid analgesic use, and short‐term (30‐day) survival between patients undergoing radiotherapy alone and direct decompressive surgery followed by radiotherapy for metastatic extradural spinal cord compression.1 The study enrolled only adult patients with tissue‐proven noncentral nervous system (CNS) origin metastatic spinal cord compression affecting only a single area of the spine with at least one neurological sign or symptom (inclusive of pain) and who had not been paraplegic for greater than 48 hours prior to study enrollment and who did not have a particularly radiosensitive tumor (lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, germ cell tumor). This is the only level I evidence available.


Findings


The primary outcome from Patchell’s study is ambulatory function post treatment.1 In the radiotherapy alone group, post‐treatment ambulatory rate was 57% (29/51) versus 84% (42/50) in the surgery followed by radiotherapy group. The odds ratio (OR) for post‐treatment ambulatory function with surgery followed by radiotherapy was 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0–19.8) with p = 0.001. This fell below the predetermined criteria for early termination, so the trial was stopped early. Patients who underwent surgery plus radiation also retained the ability to ambulate for a longer period of time (median 122 days vs 13 days; p = 0.003).


In terms of secondary outcomes, patients who underwent surgery plus radiation maintained urinary continence for longer (156 days vs 17 days) with relative risk (RR) of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.25–0.87). Surgical patients also maintained their functional status for longer, as measured by the ASIA score (566 days vs 72 days) with RR = 0.28 (95% CI: 0.13–0.61). Survival time was longer in patients undergoing surgery of 126 days vs 100 days with RR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.38 – 0.96). All differences were statistically significant at p <0.05.


Resolution of clinical scenario



  • In patients with metastatic carcinoma resulting in spinal cord compression at a single level who have not been paraplegic for greater than 48 hours, direct decompressive surgery followed by radiation results in an increased rate of ambulation, increased rate of retaining the ability to ambulate (if relevant), decreased rate of urinary incontinence, increased rate of preservation of neurologic functional status, and increased survival time relative to radiation alone.
  • Patients who meet these criteria should be offered direct decompressive surgery followed by radiation.
  • This recommendation cannot necessarily be made for patients who are deemed to be poor candidates for surgery, have myelomatous disease (or other highly radiosensitive tumors), do not have any neurologic compromise, have had a more extended period of paraplegia, or who have multiple sites of spinal cord compression.

Question 2: In patients with metastatic carcinoma or myeloma disease affecting the spine, does assessment of spinal stability by a scoring algorithm provide reliable and useful prognostic information compared to opinion alone?


Rationale


The local tumor burden within the spine from metastatic disease occupies space within the spinal elements and can thus be a destructive presence that compromises the stability of the spine itself, but determining when spinal stability has been compromised by metastatic disease to the point of potentially benefiting from surgical stabilization is difficult to ascertain.


Clinical comment

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailThe Direct Anterior Approach Default ThumbnailPatient‐Specific Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty Default ThumbnailManagement of Glenoid Bone Loss Default ThumbnailDistal Femur Fractures Default ThumbnailAnkle Ligament Injuries Spinal Infections

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Tags:
Nov 28, 2021 | Posted by in ORTHOPEDIC | Comments Off on Metastatic/Myeloma Disease

Full access? Get Clinical Tree
Get Clinical Tree app for offline access