ArticleSpine surgery and related research2026
Analysis of Skeletal-Related Events in a Liaison Treatment for Metastatic Spinal Tumors: A 10-Year Retrospective Study.
Article in Spine surgery and related research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Skeletal-Related Events in a Liaison Treatment for Metastatic Spinal Tumors: A 10-Year Retrospective Study.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Comment on "Analysis of skeletal-related events in a liaison treatment for metastatic spinal tumors: A 10-year retrospective study".Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Skeletal-related events (SREs), including pathological fractures and spinal cord compression, significantly reduce the quality of life and survival in patients with metastatic spinal tumors. Although multidisciplinary "liaison treatment" has been implemented at our institution to detect and manage all metastatic spinal lesions, some patients still develop SREs. This study aims to analyze the characteristics and circumstances of patients who experienced SREs despite this system, with particular focus on referrals from other hospitals. Methods: We reviewed patients who developed SREs between December 2013 and December 2023 at our institution. Clinical data including age, sex, performance status (PS), spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS), primary tumor type, spinal lesion level, histologic subtype, epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) grade, and timing of spine intervention were analyzed. PS at initial and final visits was compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Among 1,479 patients with metastatic spinal tumors, 72 (4.8%) developed SREs. Median age was 71 years; 69% were male. PS significantly improved from 3.1 to 2.4 (p=0.0002). SINS averaged 8.9, with 72.4% of cases showing intermediate instability. Thoracic spine involvement was most frequent (59.7%). Prostate, lung, and breast cancers accounted for over 50% of cases. ESCC grade ≥II was present in 62.5%. Notably, 54.2% (39/72) were referred after the onset of an SRE; 77% of these occurred at other hospitals. Furthermore, 69.5% had no prior cancer diagnosis before the SRE. Conclusions: Despite an in-house liaison system, SREs frequently occurred in patients referred from external institutions. Early recognition of red-flag symptoms, such as back pain in cancer patients and timely referral for imaging and specialist evaluation are essential. Regional collaboration and education are crucial to prevent avoidable SREs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.