Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31240346›Full record

ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2019

Stability and survival analysis of elderly patients with osteolytic spinal bone metastases after palliative radiotherapy : Results from a large multicenter cohort.

Tilman Bostel, Robert Förster, Ingmar Schlampp, Tanja Sprave, Sati Akbaba, Daniel Wollschläger, Jürgen Debus, Arnulf Mayer, Heinz Schmidberger, Harald Rief and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Radiotherapy of the oldest old-feasibility and institutional analysis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Tilman BostelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. tilman.bostel@unimedizin-mainz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3006-2379
Robert FörsterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ingmar SchlamppDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tanja SpraveDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sati AkbabaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Daniel WollschlägerInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Jürgen DebusDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Arnulf MayerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Heinz SchmidbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Harald RiefDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nils Henrik NicolayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis retrospective study aimed to evaluate the stability and fracture rates of osteolytic spinal bone metastases (SBM) in elderly patients following palliative radiotherapy (RT) and to derive prognostic factors for stability and survival.

methodsA total of 322 patients aged at least 70 years received palliative RT at two major German academic medical centers or at the German Cancer Research Center. Stability assessment was based on the validated Taneichi score prior to RT and at 3 and 6 months after RT. The survival time following RT was assessed, and prognostic factors for stability and survival were analyzed.

resultsPrior to RT, 183 patients (57%) exhibited unstable SBM and 68 patients (21%) pathological fractures. At 3 and 6 months after RT, significant recalcification and stabilization were evident in 19% (23/118) and 40% (31/78) of surviving patients, respectively. Only 17 patients (5%) experienced new pathological fractures following RT. Tumor histology was found to significantly influence stabilization rates with only breast cancer patients exhibiting increased stabilization compared to patients with other histologies. The median survival time and 6‑month survival rates following RT were 5.4 months (95% confidence interval 4.4-7.2 months) and 48%, respectively. The patients' performance status was found to be the strongest predictor for survival after RT in this patient cohort; further factors demonstrating a significant association with survival were the application of systemic treatment, the number of SBM and the primary tumor histology. To analyze the influence of age on survival after RT, study patients were stratified into 3 age groups (i.e., 70-74 years, 75-79 years, and ≥80 years). The subgroup of patients aged at least 80 years showed a strong trend towards a worse survival time following RT compared to younger patients (i.e., 6‑month survival rate 39% vs. 51%; p = 0.06, log-rank test).

conclusionsPrognostic factors influencing overall survival such as performance status and histology should guide the choice for palliative RT for SBM. Strongly hypofractionated RT regimes may be advisable for most elderly patients considering the overall poor prognosis in order to reduce hospitalization times.

Indexed as

Palliative CareAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCohort StudiesFemaleFractures, SpontaneousGermanyHumansMaleOsteolysisPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSpinal FracturesSpinal NeoplasmsSurvival AnalysisAgedFractureGeriatricsNeoplasm metastasesSpine

Identifiers

PMID31240346
PMCPMC6867989
OpenAlexW2953798790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.