AB074. Propensity-score matched analysis to evaluate the safety and utility of intraoperative cell-salvaged autologous blood transfusion in metastatic spine tumour surgery.

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY

Chinese clinical oncology Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.21037/cco-24-ab074

Si Jian Hui, Naresh Kumar, Yiong Huak Chan, James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan, Jiong Hao Tan

{"title":"AB074. Propensity-score matched analysis to evaluate the safety and utility of intraoperative cell-salvaged autologous blood transfusion in metastatic spine tumour surgery.","authors":"Si Jian Hui, Naresh Kumar, Yiong Huak Chan, James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan, Jiong Hao Tan","doi":"10.21037/cco-24-ab074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Blood loss is an important consideration in metastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS). Allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) is the current standard of blood replenishment for MSTS despite known complications. Salvaged blood transfusion (SBT) through intraoperative cell salvage addresses the majority of complications related to ABT. However, the use of SBT in MSTS still remains controversial. We aim to conduct a prospective propensity-score (PS) matched analysis to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of intraoperative cell salvage (IOCS) in MSTS.Methods: Our study included 98 patients who underwent MSTS from 2014-2017. A PS matched cohort was created using the relevant and available predictors of treatment assignment and outcomes of interest. Clinical outcomes consisting of overall survival (OS), as well tumour progression (TP) that was evaluated using RECIST (v1.1) were compared in the matched cohort.Results: Our study had a total of 98 patients with a mean age of 60 years old. A total of 33 patients received SBT. Overall median blood loss was 600 mL [interquartile range (IQR): 300-1,000 mL] and overall median blood transfusion (BT) was 620 mL (IQR: 110-1,600 mL). Group PS matching included 30 patients who received ABT and 28 patients who received SBT. There was also no significant difference between the OS of patients who underwent ABT or SBT (P=0.19). SBT did not show any significant increase in 4-year tumour progression [PS matched hazard ratio (HR) 3.659; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.346-38.7; P=0.28].Conclusions: SBT has been shown to have similar clinical outcomes to that of ABT in patients undergoing MSTS, with potential benefits of avoiding complications and costs of ABT. This will be the first long-term PS matched analysis to report on the clinical outcomes of SBT and affirms the clinical role of SBT in MSTS today.","PeriodicalId":9945,"journal":{"name":"Chinese clinical oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese clinical oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/cco-24-ab074","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Blood loss is an important consideration in metastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS). Allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT) is the current standard of blood replenishment for MSTS despite known complications. Salvaged blood transfusion (SBT) through intraoperative cell salvage addresses the majority of complications related to ABT. However, the use of SBT in MSTS still remains controversial. We aim to conduct a prospective propensity-score (PS) matched analysis to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of intraoperative cell salvage (IOCS) in MSTS.

Methods: Our study included 98 patients who underwent MSTS from 2014-2017. A PS matched cohort was created using the relevant and available predictors of treatment assignment and outcomes of interest. Clinical outcomes consisting of overall survival (OS), as well tumour progression (TP) that was evaluated using RECIST (v1.1) were compared in the matched cohort.

Results: Our study had a total of 98 patients with a mean age of 60 years old. A total of 33 patients received SBT. Overall median blood loss was 600 mL [interquartile range (IQR): 300-1,000 mL] and overall median blood transfusion (BT) was 620 mL (IQR: 110-1,600 mL). Group PS matching included 30 patients who received ABT and 28 patients who received SBT. There was also no significant difference between the OS of patients who underwent ABT or SBT (P=0.19). SBT did not show any significant increase in 4-year tumour progression [PS matched hazard ratio (HR) 3.659; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.346-38.7; P=0.28].

Conclusions: SBT has been shown to have similar clinical outcomes to that of ABT in patients undergoing MSTS, with potential benefits of avoiding complications and costs of ABT. This will be the first long-term PS matched analysis to report on the clinical outcomes of SBT and affirms the clinical role of SBT in MSTS today.

查看原文本刊更多论文

AB074.倾向得分匹配分析评估转移性脊柱肿瘤手术中术中细胞保存自体输血的安全性和实用性。

背景：失血是转移性脊柱肿瘤手术（MSTS）的一个重要考虑因素。异体输血（ABT）是目前脊柱转移瘤手术的补血标准，尽管存在已知的并发症。通过术中细胞抢救进行挽救性输血（SBT）可解决与异体输血相关的大部分并发症。然而，在 MSTS 中使用 SBT 仍存在争议。我们旨在进行前瞻性倾向分数（PS）匹配分析，以评估术中细胞挽救（IOCS）在 MSTS 中的长期临床效果：我们的研究纳入了2014-2017年接受MSTS的98例患者。利用治疗分配和相关结果的相关可用预测因素，创建了一个 PS 匹配队列。在匹配队列中比较了总生存期（OS）和肿瘤进展（TP）等临床结果，肿瘤进展采用 RECIST（v1.1）进行评估：我们的研究共有 98 名患者，平均年龄为 60 岁。共有 33 名患者接受了 SBT。总失血量中位数为 600 毫升[四分位距（IQR）：300-1,000 毫升]，总输血量（BT）中位数为 620 毫升（IQR：110-1,600 毫升）。PS 组配对包括 30 名接受 ABT 的患者和 28 名接受 SBT 的患者。接受 ABT 或 SBT 的患者的 OS 也无明显差异（P=0.19）。SBT未显示出4年肿瘤进展的显著增加[PS匹配危险比（HR）3.659；95%置信区间（CI）：0.346-38.7；P=0.28]：在接受 MSTS 治疗的患者中，SBT 的临床疗效与 ABT 相似，其潜在优势是避免了 ABT 的并发症和费用。这将是首个报告 SBT 临床疗效的长期 PS 匹配分析，并肯定了 SBT 在当今 MSTS 中的临床作用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Chinese clinical oncology ONCOLOGY-

CiteScore

3.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Chinese Clinical Oncology (Print ISSN 2304-3865; Online ISSN 2304-3873; Chin Clin Oncol; CCO) publishes articles that describe new findings in the field of oncology, and provides current and practical information on diagnosis, prevention and clinical investigations of cancer. Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to: multimodality therapy, biomarkers, imaging, tumor biology, pathology, chemoprevention, and technical advances related to cancer. The aim of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of original research articles as well as review articles in all areas related to cancer. It is an international, peer-reviewed journal with a focus on cutting-edge findings in this rapidly changing field. To that end, Chin Clin Oncol is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into best multimodality practice. The journal features a distinguished editorial board, which brings together a team of highly experienced specialists in cancer treatment and research. The diverse experience of the board members allows our editorial panel to lend their expertise to a broad spectrum of cancer subjects.