Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36518924›Full record

ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2022

Validation of Traditional Prognosis Scoring Systems and Skeletal Oncology Research Group Nomogram for Predicting Survival of Spinal Metastasis Patients Undergoing Surgery.

Pongsthorn Chanplakorn, Chanthong Budsayavilaimas, Pilan Jaipanya, Chaiwat Kraiwattanapong, Gun Keorochana, Pittavat Leelapattana, Thamrong Lertudomphonwanit

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pongsthorn ChanplakornDepartment of Orthopedic, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7496-2670
Chanthong BudsayavilaimasDepartment of Orthopedic, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3588-593X
Pilan JaipanyaDepartment of Orthopedic, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1941-2051
Chaiwat KraiwattanapongDepartment of Orthopedic, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4519-0920
Gun KeorochanaDepartment of Orthopedic, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1378-4591
Pittavat LeelapattanaDepartment of Orthopedic, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-9072
Thamrong LertudomphonwanitDepartment of Orthopedic, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1670-8789
Ramathibodi Hospital · THPhramongkutklao Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Many scoring systems that predict overall patient survival are based on clinical parameters and primary tumor type. To date, no consensus exists regarding which scoring system has the greatest predictive survival accuracy, especially when applied to specific primary tumors. Additionally, such scores usually fail to include modern treatment modalities, which influence patient survival. This study aimed to evaluate both the overall predictive accuracy of such scoring systems and the predictive accuracy based on the primary tumor. Methods: A retrospective review on spinal metastasis patients who were aged more than 18 years and underwent surgical treatment was conducted between October 2008 and August 2018. Patients were scored based on data before the time of surgery. A survival probability was calculated for each patient using the given scoring systems. The predictive ability of each scoring system was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis at postoperative time points; area under the curve was then calculated to quantify predictive accuracy. Results: A total of 186 patients were included in this analysis: 101 (54.3%) were men and the mean age was 57.1 years. Primary tumors were lung in 37 (20%), breast in 26 (14%), prostate in 20 (10.8%), hematologic malignancy in 18 (9.7%), thyroid in 10 (5.4%), gastrointestinal tumor in 25 (13.4%), and others in 40 (21.5%). The primary tumor was unidentified in 10 patients (5.3%). The overall survival was 201 days. For survival prediction, the Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) nomogram showed the highest performance when compared to other prognosis scores in all tumor metastasis but a lower performance to predict survival with lung cancer. The revised Katagiri score demonstrated acceptable performance to predict death for breast cancer metastasis. The Tomita and revised Tokuhashi scores revealed acceptable performance in lung cancer metastasis. The New England Spinal Metastasis Score showed acceptable performance for predicting death in prostate cancer metastasis. SORG nomogram demonstrated acceptable performance for predicting death in hematologic malignancy metastasis at all time points. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated inconsistent predictive performance among the prediction models for the specific primary tumor types. The SORG nomogram revealed the highest predictive performance when compared to previous survival prediction models.

Indexed as

Hematologic NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsSpinal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNomogramsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSurvival RatePrediction modelsPrognosis scoreSkeletal Oncology Research Group nomogramSpinal metastasisSurvival prediction

Identifiers

PMID36518924
PMCPMC9715924
OpenAlexW4289690304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.