Safety, Efficacy, and Adjacent-level Fracture Risk Following Vertebral Augmentation and Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Spine Metastases in Patients with Cancer.

IF 5.6 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Jeremiah Stringam, Koustav Pal, Andrew Niekamp, Rahim Jiwani, Iwan Paolucci, Joshua D Kuban, Zeyad Metwalli, Steven Huang, Peiman Habibollahi, Stephen Chen, Steven Yevich, Milan Patel, Sumit K Subudhi, Matthew Campbell, Amol Ghia, Claudio Tatsui, Rahul A Sheth
{"title":"Safety, Efficacy, and Adjacent-level Fracture Risk Following Vertebral Augmentation and Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Spine Metastases in Patients with Cancer.","authors":"Jeremiah Stringam, Koustav Pal, Andrew Niekamp, Rahim Jiwani, Iwan Paolucci, Joshua D Kuban, Zeyad Metwalli, Steven Huang, Peiman Habibollahi, Stephen Chen, Steven Yevich, Milan Patel, Sumit K Subudhi, Matthew Campbell, Amol Ghia, Claudio Tatsui, Rahul A Sheth","doi":"10.1148/rycan.240122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vertebral augmentation (VA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating pathologic spinal fractures in patients with cancer and adjacent fracture risk following treatment. Materials and Methods This single-institution retrospective study, conducted from January 2017 to September 2020, included patients with cancer who underwent percutaneous VA with or without spine RFA for pathologic spine compression fractures. The primary outcome was pain reduction, assessed using the 10-point visual analog scale before the procedure, at first follow-up, and 2-4 weeks after the procedure. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with epidural cement leak. Results A total of 638 spinal levels in 335 patients (median age, 65 years [IQR, 58-74 years]; 147 female, 188 male) were treated. Epidural tumor and retropulsion of bone fragments were present in 15% (93 of 638) and 13% (81 of 638) of treated levels, respectively, while posterior wall erosion was observed in 30% (190 of 638). Substantial pain improvement (greater than two-point reduction) occurred in 81% (519 of 638) of cases. Factors associated with decreased risk of epidural cement leak included RFA (42% no leak vs 38% leak, <i>P</i> = .03) and lumbar treatments (49% no leak vs 38% leak, <i>P</i> = .02). Adjacent-level fractures occurred in 10.4% of patients. The total complication rate (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher) was 0.6% (four of 638). Conclusion VA and RFA are safe and efficacious treatments for spine fractures in patients with cancer. <b>Keywords:</b> Ablation Techniques, Kyphoplasty, Vertebroplasty © RSNA, 2025.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"7 3","pages":"e240122"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12130721/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.240122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vertebral augmentation (VA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating pathologic spinal fractures in patients with cancer and adjacent fracture risk following treatment. Materials and Methods This single-institution retrospective study, conducted from January 2017 to September 2020, included patients with cancer who underwent percutaneous VA with or without spine RFA for pathologic spine compression fractures. The primary outcome was pain reduction, assessed using the 10-point visual analog scale before the procedure, at first follow-up, and 2-4 weeks after the procedure. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with epidural cement leak. Results A total of 638 spinal levels in 335 patients (median age, 65 years [IQR, 58-74 years]; 147 female, 188 male) were treated. Epidural tumor and retropulsion of bone fragments were present in 15% (93 of 638) and 13% (81 of 638) of treated levels, respectively, while posterior wall erosion was observed in 30% (190 of 638). Substantial pain improvement (greater than two-point reduction) occurred in 81% (519 of 638) of cases. Factors associated with decreased risk of epidural cement leak included RFA (42% no leak vs 38% leak, P = .03) and lumbar treatments (49% no leak vs 38% leak, P = .02). Adjacent-level fractures occurred in 10.4% of patients. The total complication rate (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher) was 0.6% (four of 638). Conclusion VA and RFA are safe and efficacious treatments for spine fractures in patients with cancer. Keywords: Ablation Techniques, Kyphoplasty, Vertebroplasty © RSNA, 2025.

椎体增强和射频消融治疗癌症患者脊柱转移的安全性、有效性和邻接骨折风险
目的评价椎体增强术(VA)和射频消融术(RFA)治疗病理性脊柱骨折的安全性和有效性。材料和方法该单机构回顾性研究于2017年1月至2020年9月进行,纳入了因病理性脊柱压缩性骨折而接受经皮VA伴或不伴脊柱RFA的癌症患者。主要结果是疼痛减轻,在手术前、第一次随访时和手术后2-4周使用10分视觉模拟量表进行评估。采用Logistic回归方法确定与硬膜外水泥泄漏相关的因素。结果335例患者共638个脊柱节段(中位年龄65岁[IQR, 58-74岁];女性147例,男性188例)。硬膜外肿瘤和骨碎片后移分别出现在治疗水平的15%(638例中的93例)和13%(638例中的81例),而后壁糜烂出现在30%(638例中的190例)。638例患者中有519例(81%)疼痛明显改善(减轻2点以上)。与硬膜外水泥泄漏风险降低相关的因素包括RFA(42%无泄漏vs 38%泄漏,P = .03)和腰椎治疗(49%无泄漏vs 38%泄漏,P = .02)。10.4%的患者发生邻接水平骨折。总并发症发生率(美国国家癌症研究所不良事件通用术语标准3级或以上)为0.6%(638例中有4例)。结论VA和RFA是治疗癌症性脊柱骨折安全有效的方法。关键词:消融技术,后凸成形术,椎体成形术©RSNA, 2025。
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
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
2.30%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信