Outcomes of Retreatment for Local Recurrence After Surgery for Metastatic Spine Cancer: A Multicenter Study.

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Sehan Park, Dong-Ho Lee, Chang Ju Hwang, Bong-Soon Chang, Hyoungmin Kim, Sam Yeol Chang, Se-Jun Park, Jin-Sung Park, Dong-Ho Kang, Young-Hoon Kim, Sang-Il Kim, Chung-Won Bang, Jae Hwan Cho
{"title":"Outcomes of Retreatment for Local Recurrence After Surgery for Metastatic Spine Cancer: A Multicenter Study.","authors":"Sehan Park, Dong-Ho Lee, Chang Ju Hwang, Bong-Soon Chang, Hyoungmin Kim, Sam Yeol Chang, Se-Jun Park, Jin-Sung Park, Dong-Ho Kang, Young-Hoon Kim, Sang-Il Kim, Chung-Won Bang, Jae Hwan Cho","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.10.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Local recurrence (LR) after surgery for metastatic spine cancer (MSC) is a challenging complication, and evidence guiding optimal retreatment strategies remains limited.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate prognosis following retreatment for LR after surgery for MSC, compare treatment outcomes based on retreatment modality, and identify risk factors associated with retreatment failure.</p><p><strong>Study design/setting: </strong>A multicenter retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Patient sample: </strong>Ninety-nine patients from four tertiary hospitals who developed symptomatic LR after surgery for MSC and underwent reoperation or radiation therapy (RT).</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Motor grade, pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, ambulatory function, retreatment failure rate, and overall survival after LR diagnosis were assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients were grouped based on retreatment modality into reoperation (n=36), RT (n=38), and conservative management (n=25) groups. Conservative management included symptomatic care for LR without surgery or RT, with or without systemic treatments such as chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Retreatment failure was defined as symptom progression despite treatment or recurrence after initial improvement. Clinical outcomes were compared among the groups, and logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with retreatment failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reoperation significantly improved motor grade (p=0.041) and pain VAS score (p=0.002), whereas RT and conservative treatment showed no significant improvement. Ambulatory status decreased significantly in the RT group (p=0.031) but was preserved in the reoperation group. Retreatment failure occurred in 41.9% of patients (15/36 after reoperation, 16/38 after RT; p=0.414) and was associated with increased pain (p=0.042) and reduced ambulation (p=0.012). The only significant predictor of retreatment failure was a shorter interval between initial surgery and LR (odds ratio, 0.953; p=0.045). A cutoff of 12.5 months was predictive of retreatment failure (area under the curve, 0.713; p=0.056).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Only reoperation resulted in significant functional improvement after retreatment for LR. RT was associated with decreased ambulatory function and did not provide significant symptom relief. Retreatment failure was common and associated with increased pain and diminished function. A significant predictor of retreatment failure was a shorter interval-less than 12.5 months-between the initial surgery and LR. These findings highlight the importance of patient selection and the limited utility of retreatment in aggressive or early-recurrent cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.10.029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background context: Local recurrence (LR) after surgery for metastatic spine cancer (MSC) is a challenging complication, and evidence guiding optimal retreatment strategies remains limited.

Purpose: To evaluate prognosis following retreatment for LR after surgery for MSC, compare treatment outcomes based on retreatment modality, and identify risk factors associated with retreatment failure.

Study design/setting: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Patient sample: Ninety-nine patients from four tertiary hospitals who developed symptomatic LR after surgery for MSC and underwent reoperation or radiation therapy (RT).

Outcome measures: Motor grade, pain visual analog scale (VAS) score, ambulatory function, retreatment failure rate, and overall survival after LR diagnosis were assessed.

Methods: Patients were grouped based on retreatment modality into reoperation (n=36), RT (n=38), and conservative management (n=25) groups. Conservative management included symptomatic care for LR without surgery or RT, with or without systemic treatments such as chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Retreatment failure was defined as symptom progression despite treatment or recurrence after initial improvement. Clinical outcomes were compared among the groups, and logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with retreatment failure.

Results: Reoperation significantly improved motor grade (p=0.041) and pain VAS score (p=0.002), whereas RT and conservative treatment showed no significant improvement. Ambulatory status decreased significantly in the RT group (p=0.031) but was preserved in the reoperation group. Retreatment failure occurred in 41.9% of patients (15/36 after reoperation, 16/38 after RT; p=0.414) and was associated with increased pain (p=0.042) and reduced ambulation (p=0.012). The only significant predictor of retreatment failure was a shorter interval between initial surgery and LR (odds ratio, 0.953; p=0.045). A cutoff of 12.5 months was predictive of retreatment failure (area under the curve, 0.713; p=0.056).

Conclusions: Only reoperation resulted in significant functional improvement after retreatment for LR. RT was associated with decreased ambulatory function and did not provide significant symptom relief. Retreatment failure was common and associated with increased pain and diminished function. A significant predictor of retreatment failure was a shorter interval-less than 12.5 months-between the initial surgery and LR. These findings highlight the importance of patient selection and the limited utility of retreatment in aggressive or early-recurrent cases.

转移性脊柱癌术后局部复发再治疗的结果:一项多中心研究。
背景背景:转移性脊柱癌(MSC)术后局部复发(LR)是一个具有挑战性的并发症,指导最佳再治疗策略的证据仍然有限。目的:评估骨髓间充质干细胞术后LR再治疗的预后,比较基于再治疗方式的治疗结果,并确定与再治疗失败相关的危险因素。研究设计/设置:多中心回顾性队列研究。患者样本:来自四家三级医院的99例MSC术后出现症状性LR并接受再手术或放射治疗(RT)的患者。结果测量:评估LR诊断后的运动评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、运动功能、再治疗失败率和总生存率。方法:根据再治疗方式将患者分为再手术组(36例)、放疗组(38例)和保守治疗组(25例)。保守治疗包括对LR的对症治疗,不进行手术或放疗,有或没有全身治疗,如化疗或激素治疗。再治疗失败被定义为尽管治疗后症状进展或最初改善后复发。比较各组的临床结果,并进行logistic回归以确定与再治疗失败相关的因素。结果:再手术明显改善了运动评分(p=0.041)和疼痛VAS评分(p=0.002),而放疗和保守治疗无明显改善。动态状态在放疗组显著下降(p=0.031),而在再手术组则保持不变。41.9%的患者(再手术后15/36,放疗后16/38,p=0.414)出现再治疗失败,并伴有疼痛增加(p=0.042)和活动减少(p=0.012)。再次治疗失败的唯一显著预测因素是初始手术与LR之间的间隔时间较短(优势比,0.953;p=0.045)。12.5个月的截止时间预测再治疗失败(曲线下面积,0.713;p=0.056)。结论:LR再治疗后,只有再次手术才能显著改善功能。RT与运动功能下降有关,并没有提供显著的症状缓解。再治疗失败是常见的,并与疼痛增加和功能下降有关。再次治疗失败的一个重要预测因素是初始手术和LR之间的间隔时间较短(小于12.5个月)。这些发现强调了患者选择的重要性,以及在侵袭性或早期复发病例中再治疗的有限效用。
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
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
×
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