Cargando…

Evaluation of different scoring systems for spinal metastases based on a Chinese cohort

INTRODUCTIONS: The spine is one of the most common sites of metastasis for malignancies. This study aimed to compare the predictive performance of seven commonly used prognostic scoring systems for surgically treated spine metastases. It is expected to assist surgeons in selecting appropriate scorin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Zhehuang, Guo, Liangyu, Guo, Bairu, Zhang, Peng, Wang, Jiaqiang, Wang, Xin, Yao, Weitao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9972034/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36128836
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5272
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTIONS: The spine is one of the most common sites of metastasis for malignancies. This study aimed to compare the predictive performance of seven commonly used prognostic scoring systems for surgically treated spine metastases. It is expected to assist surgeons in selecting appropriate scoring systems to support clinical decision‐making and better inform patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study involving 268 surgically treated patients with spine metastases between 2017 and 2020 at a single regional oncology center in China. The revised Tokuhashi, Tomita, modified Bauer, revised Katagiri, van der Linden, Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) nomogram, and SORG machine‐learning (ML) scoring systems were externally validated. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate sensitivity and specificity at different postoperative time points. The actual survival time was compared with the reference survival time provided in the original publication. RESULTS: In the present study, the median survival was 16.6 months. The SORG ML scoring system demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting 90‐day (AUC: 0.743) and 1‐year survival (AUC: 0.787). The revised Katagiri demonstrated the highest accuracy (AUC: 0.761) in predicting 180‐day survival. The revised Katagiri demonstrated the highest accuracy (AUC: 0.779) in predicting 2‐year survival. Based on this series, the actual life expectancy was underestimated compared with the original reference survival time. CONCLUSIONS: None of the scoring systems can perform optimally at all time points and for all pathology types, and the reference survival times provided in the original study need to be updated. A cautious awareness of the underestimation by these models is of paramount importance in relation to current patients.