MA MacLean, AJ Charles, M. Georgiopoulos, J. Phinney, R. Charest-Morin, C. Goodwin, MH Weber
{"title":"P.151 对脊柱肿瘤人群中虚弱和肌肉疏松症应用的批判性评估","authors":"MA MacLean, AJ Charles, M. Georgiopoulos, J. Phinney, R. Charest-Morin, C. Goodwin, MH Weber","doi":"10.1017/cjn.2024.250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Frailty and sarcopenia predict worse surgical outcomes among spinal degenerative and deformity-related populations; this association is less clear in the context of spinal oncology. Here, we identified frailty and sarcopenia tools applied in spinal oncology and appraised their clinimetric properties. Methods: A systematic review was conducted from January 1st, 2000, until June 2022. Study characteristics, frailty tools, measures of sarcopenia, component domains, individual items, cut-off values, and measurement techniques were collected. Clinimetric assessment was performed according to Consensus-based Standards for Health Measurement Instruments. Results: Twenty-two studies were included (42,514 patients). The three most employed frailty tools were the Metastatic Spine tumor Frailty Index (MSTFI), Modified Frailty Index-11 (mFI-11), and the mFI-5. The three most common sarcopenia measures were the L3-Total Psoas Area (TPA)/Vertebral Body Area (VBA), L3-TPA/Height2, and L3-Spinal Muscle Index (L3-Cross-Sectional Muscle Area/Height2). Frailty and sarcopenia measures lacked content and construct validity. Positive predictive validity was observed in select studies employing the HFRS, mFI-5, MSTFI, and L3-TPA/VBA. All frailty tools had floor or ceiling effects. Conclusions: Existing tools for evaluating frailty and sarcopenia in surgical spine oncology have poor clinimetric properties. Here, we provide a pragmatic approach to utilizing existing frailty and sarcopenia tools, until more clinimetrically robust instruments are developed.","PeriodicalId":9571,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"P.151 A critical appraisal of the application of frailty and sarcopenia in the spinal oncology population\",\"authors\":\"MA MacLean, AJ Charles, M. Georgiopoulos, J. Phinney, R. Charest-Morin, C. Goodwin, MH Weber\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cjn.2024.250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Frailty and sarcopenia predict worse surgical outcomes among spinal degenerative and deformity-related populations; this association is less clear in the context of spinal oncology. Here, we identified frailty and sarcopenia tools applied in spinal oncology and appraised their clinimetric properties. Methods: A systematic review was conducted from January 1st, 2000, until June 2022. Study characteristics, frailty tools, measures of sarcopenia, component domains, individual items, cut-off values, and measurement techniques were collected. Clinimetric assessment was performed according to Consensus-based Standards for Health Measurement Instruments. Results: Twenty-two studies were included (42,514 patients). The three most employed frailty tools were the Metastatic Spine tumor Frailty Index (MSTFI), Modified Frailty Index-11 (mFI-11), and the mFI-5. The three most common sarcopenia measures were the L3-Total Psoas Area (TPA)/Vertebral Body Area (VBA), L3-TPA/Height2, and L3-Spinal Muscle Index (L3-Cross-Sectional Muscle Area/Height2). Frailty and sarcopenia measures lacked content and construct validity. Positive predictive validity was observed in select studies employing the HFRS, mFI-5, MSTFI, and L3-TPA/VBA. All frailty tools had floor or ceiling effects. Conclusions: Existing tools for evaluating frailty and sarcopenia in surgical spine oncology have poor clinimetric properties. Here, we provide a pragmatic approach to utilizing existing frailty and sarcopenia tools, until more clinimetrically robust instruments are developed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9571,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.250\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
P.151 A critical appraisal of the application of frailty and sarcopenia in the spinal oncology population
Background: Frailty and sarcopenia predict worse surgical outcomes among spinal degenerative and deformity-related populations; this association is less clear in the context of spinal oncology. Here, we identified frailty and sarcopenia tools applied in spinal oncology and appraised their clinimetric properties. Methods: A systematic review was conducted from January 1st, 2000, until June 2022. Study characteristics, frailty tools, measures of sarcopenia, component domains, individual items, cut-off values, and measurement techniques were collected. Clinimetric assessment was performed according to Consensus-based Standards for Health Measurement Instruments. Results: Twenty-two studies were included (42,514 patients). The three most employed frailty tools were the Metastatic Spine tumor Frailty Index (MSTFI), Modified Frailty Index-11 (mFI-11), and the mFI-5. The three most common sarcopenia measures were the L3-Total Psoas Area (TPA)/Vertebral Body Area (VBA), L3-TPA/Height2, and L3-Spinal Muscle Index (L3-Cross-Sectional Muscle Area/Height2). Frailty and sarcopenia measures lacked content and construct validity. Positive predictive validity was observed in select studies employing the HFRS, mFI-5, MSTFI, and L3-TPA/VBA. All frailty tools had floor or ceiling effects. Conclusions: Existing tools for evaluating frailty and sarcopenia in surgical spine oncology have poor clinimetric properties. Here, we provide a pragmatic approach to utilizing existing frailty and sarcopenia tools, until more clinimetrically robust instruments are developed.