Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_6036_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1: MOSS: A Patient-Centered Approach
- •Background
- •Historical Approaches
- •Medical/Mental Component
- •Oncologic Component
- •Stenosis (Ambulatory/Neurologic) Component
- •Stability Component
- •Summary
- •Application of MOSS: Three Case Reports
- •Case 1
- •Case 2
- •MOSS, A Patient-Centered Approach to Metastatic Disease of the Spine
- •Case 3
- •References
- •2: Relative Radiosensitivity of Metastatic Spine Disease
- •References
- •3: Relative Chemo-, Hormonal, and Immunosensitivity
- •Introduction
- •Assessing Response to Treatment
- •Tissue Procurement
- •Variability of Sensitivity
- •Breast Cancer
- •Lung Cancer
- •Prostate Cancer
- •Renal Cell Carcinoma
- •Lymphoma
- •Myeloma
- •Sarcoma
- •Bone Antiresorptive Therapy
- •References
- •4: NOMS
- •NOMS Framework
- •Neurologic
- •Oncologic
- •Radiation
- •Mechanical
- •Systemic
- •Surgical Considerations
- •Separation Surgery
- •Surgical Stabilization
- •Case Illustrations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Initial Evaluation
- •Clinical Evaluation
- •Radiographic Evaluation
- •Plain Radiographs
- •Nuclear Medicine Scans
- •Computed Tomography
- •Magnetic Resonance
- •Denis
- •Taneichi
- •Asdourian
- •SINS
- •References
- •6: Imaging Metastatic Spinal Disease
- •Background
- •Imaging Considerations
- •Radiography
- •Computed Tomography
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •Bone Scintigraphy
- •Positron-Emission Tomography
- •Approach to Evaluating the Spine
- •Illustrative Cases in Diagnostic Imaging
- •Case 1
- •Case 2
- •Case 3
- •Case 4
- •Case 5
- •Case 6
- •Case 7
- •Case 8
- •Case 9
- •References
- •7: Management of Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression Without Stereotactic Radiotherapy and Targeted Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •Introduction
- •Role of Spine Surgery in Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression Treatment
- •The Role of Minimally Invasive (MI) Techniques in MESCC
- •Decision-Making in Case of Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression
- •Flow Chart for Multidisciplinary Management of Metastases in the Mobile Spine
- •Experience at Our Institution
- •Materials and Methods
- •Results
- •References
- •8: Metastatic Spine Disease: Critical Evaluation of the Current Literature
- •Introduction
- •Steroids
- •Radiotherapy
- •Background
- •Indications
- •Stereotactic Radiosurgery
- •Surgery
- •Treatment Framework
- •References
- •9: Indications for En Bloc Spondylectomy for Metastatic Spine Disease
- •Surgical Considerations
- •Outcomes
- •References
- •10: Occipitocervical and Upper Cervical Metastatic Spinal Disease
- •Introduction
- •Epidemiology
- •Presentation
- •Diagnostic Workup
- •Laboratory Studies
- •Treatment Strategy
- •Radiation
- •Surgery
- •References
- •11: Mid-cervical Metastatic Spinal Disease
- •Epidemiology
- •Pathology
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Diagnosis
- •Surgical Approaches
- •Anterior
- •Posterior
- •Complication Avoidance
- •References
- •12: Cervicothoracic Metastatic Spine Disease
- •General Spinal Metastasis
- •Patient Presentation
- •Evaluation, Imaging, and Work-Up
- •General Indications for Surgery
- •Surgical Goals and Approaches
- •Cervical Spine
- •Thoracic Spine
- •Tumor Resection Strategies and Extent of Resection
- •Surgical Complications
- •References
- •13: Surgical Treatment for Patients with Thoracic Spinal Metastasis
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Identify the Problem
- •Establish Reasonable Goals
- •Select an Approach
- •Establish the Surgical Plan and a Backup Plan
- •Optimize the Patient
- •Surgical Techniques
- •Biopsy Technique
- •Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy
- •Core Needle or Trephine Biopsy
- •Posterolateral Decompression and Fusion in the Upper Thoracic Spine
- •Surgical Techniques
- •MIS Fixation Techniques
- •Separation Surgery
- •Mid-thoracic Metastases: Combined Anterior and Posterior Reconstruction
- •Reconstruction of the Thoracic Spine
- •Posterior Instrumentation
- •Anterior Reconstruction
- •MIS Techniques for the Lower Thoracic and Thoracolumbar Spine
- •Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty
- •References
- •14: Thoracolumbar Metastatic Spinal Disease
- •Introduction
- •Anterolateral Corridor Techniques
- •Anterolateral Corridor Obstacles
- •Patient Selection
- •Surgical Approaches: Localization
- •Planning the Surgical Incision
- •Open Thoracoabdominal Approach (Retroperitoneal, Intrathoracic)
- •Intrathoracic Portion
- •Retroperitoneal Portion
- •Extracoelomic Approach Technique
- •Chest Tube Placement
- •Red Rubber Catheter Technique for Evacuation of Retropleural Air
- •Minimal Access Lateral Corpectomy Approach
- •Approach
- •Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches
- •Positioning
- •Optimizing Fluoroscopic Imaging
- •Retractor Placement
- •Corpectomy and Tumor Resection
- •Exposure of T12
- •Exposure of L1
- •Discectomies
- •T12 Corpectomy
- •Place Anterior Column Support With or Without Side Plate and Screw Instrumentation
- •Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Indications
- •Biomechanics
- •Cervicothoracic Junction Approaches
- •Low Anterior Approach
- •Sternal-Splitting Approaches
- •Reconstruction Techniques
- •Complications
- •Thoracic/Thoracolumbar Approaches
- •Transthoracic Approach (T3-T11)
- •Corpectomy Technique
- •Thoracoabdominal Transdiaphragmatic Approach (T10–L2)
- •Reconstruction Techniques
- •Complications
- •Lumbar Approaches
- •Anterior Retroperitoneal Approach
- •Transperitoneal Approach
- •Lateral Flank Retroperitoneal Approach
- •Reconstruction Techniques
- •Complications
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Imaging
- •Workup
- •Treatment Strategy
- •Nonoperative Treatment
- •Corticosteroids
- •Chemotherapy
- •Radiotherapy
- •Operative Treatment
- •Neural Compression
- •Instability
- •Local Control
- •Pain
- •References
- •17: Vertebral Body Reconstruction in Metastatic Spine Disease
- •Introduction
- •Fixation
- •Augmentation
- •Surgical Selection
- •Radiographic Studies
- •Preoperative Diagnosis
- •Presurgical Planning and Approach
- •Positioning
- •Reconstruction of the Vertebral Body
- •Technical Considerations
- •Discussion
- •References
- •18: Lumbosacral Metastatic Spine Disease
- •Introduction
- •Lumbopelvic Bony Anatomy and Biomechanics
- •Neurovascular Anatomy
- •Surgical Indications and Preoperative Management
- •Resection Considerations
- •Anterior Approach
- •Posterior Approach
- •Reconstruction and Stabilization
- •Authors’ Preferred Technique for Resection and Reconstruction
- •Postoperative Care
- •References
- •19: Sacral Metastases
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy of the Sacrum
- •Clinical and Diagnostic Features
- •Imaging and Biopsy
- •Management of Sacral Metastasis
- •References
- •20: Radiation Therapy for Spinal Metastases
- •References
- •21: Reconstructive Flap Coverage
- •Background
- •Principles of Flap Coverage
- •Surgical Timing and Risk Factors for Wound Complications
- •Strategies for Delayed Management of Complex Spine Wounds
- •Regional Approach to Flap Selection
- •Summary
- •References
- •22: Complications
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Biopsy
- •Surgical Decision-Making and Approach
- •Positioning
- •Appropriate Level and Side
- •Complications
- •Neurological Complications
- •Dural Tears
- •Complications Associated with Spinal Instrumentation
- •Visceral Injury
- •Pulmonary Complications
- •Genitourinary Complications
- •Dysphagia and Hoarseness
- •Ileus/Gastrointestinal
- •Vascular
- •Thoracic Duct Injury
- •Thromboembolic Disease
- •Infection
- •Wound Complications
- •Radiation-Associated
- •Complications Associated with Corticosteroid Utilization
- •Deformity
- •Fluid and Electrolyte Imbalance
- •References
- •23: Percutaneous Thermal Ablation of Spine Metastasis
- •Background
- •Fundamental Concepts
- •Procedural Technique
- •Risks and Limitations
- •References
- •24: Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery for Metastatic Spine Disease
- •Introduction
- •Survival
- •Quality of Life
- •Adjuvant Therapy
- •Vertebral Augmentation with Cement
- •Posterior Percutaneous Stabilization
- •Minimally Invasive Decompression
- •Case Example No. 1
- •References
- •Index

1 MOSS: A Patient-Centered Approach
15
Fig. 1.6 Recommendations for surgery plus stereotactic
radiation therapy for a high-grade spinal cord compression associated with a radioresistant tumor based on
ab
Fig. 1.7 (a, b) Sagittal
T2-weighted MRI (a)
demonstrating spinal cord
compression and 100%
vertebral body collapse
associated with multiple
myeloma. Axial T1-weighted
MRI (b) with contrast
demonstrating bilobed,
high-grade spinal cord
compression
NOMS as presented by Yamada and Bilsky at IAEA
Singapore SBRT Symposium in 2013. With permission
from Yoshiya (Josh) Yamada, MD

16
R. A. W. Marco et al.
Fig. 1.8 Recommendations for conventional external
beam radiation therapy for high-grade spinal cord compression associated with a radiation sensitive tumor based
median survival time was estimated to be 5years.
Stenosis evaluation revealed high-grade spinal
cord compression. Despite this, the patient was
still ambulatory. Stability evaluation, done using
White and Panjabi’s criteria, further showed her
to be physiologically stable, in that there were no
signs of progressive deformity, progressive neurologic dysfunction, or persistent pain under
physiologic loading.
Because multiple myeloma is exquisitely sensitive to radiation therapy, steroids and
chemotherapy, these were at the top of the list of
treatment options in this patient. In fact, because
invasive surgery is generally not called for in
such patients, Tokuhashi etal., Tomita etal., and
Patchell et al. excluded patients with multiple
myeloma from their studies [6, 35, 36]. If the
NOMS assessment had been done in this patient,
it too may have guided the practitioner to recom-
on NOMS as presented by Yamada and Bilsky at IAEA
Singapore SBRT Symposium in 2013. With permission
from Yoshiya (Josh) Yamada, MD
mend external beam radiation therapy (Fig.1.8)
[43]. A further concern in this patient was that,
although physiologic stability had been indicated
by White and Panjabi’s assessment criteria, the
patient’s SINS score of 11 indicated that her
spine was potentially unstable. However, in our
experience with vertebral plana (100% vertebral
body collapse), we have found that the spine is
usually physiologically stable unless there is
facet incongruity, diastasis, or subluxation seen
on MRI or CT scans.
On the basis of all these collective ndings
and our personal experience, our team recommended non-operative treatment consisting of
corticosteroids and radiation therapy followed by
systemic chemotherapy. The patient agreed to
this approach. She remained physiologically stable (Fig.1.9a, b) and went on to regain full lower
extremity strength.

1 MOSS: A Patient-Centered Approach
17
Case 3
A 67-year-old male presented with T11 spinal
cord compression associated with previously radiated prostate carcinoma (Fig.1.10a, b). Medically,
he had hypertension. Mentally he was alert and
oriented and had a desire to live. His ECOG performance status was 3 as he was in bed greater
than 50% of the time. Oncologically, his tumor
was resistant to hormonal treatment and radiation
Fig. 1.9 (a, b) Sagittal (a)
and axial (b) T2-weighted
MRI 2years after radiation
therapy demonstrates
elimination of spinal cord
compression and maintenance
of spinal alignment.
Reproduced with permission
from: Marco R, Ashana D,
Kay A: Modern Techniques in
the Treatment of Patients with
Metastatic Spine Disease, in
Parvizi J, Huddleston JI III
(eds): Instructional Course
Lectures 67. Rosemont, IL,
American Academy of
Orthopaedic Surgeons, 2018
a b
therapy. His Tokuhashi score was 12, indicating
that he could expect to survive for more than
1year. Thus palliative surgery was considered reasonable in this patient. His Tomita score of 3 indicated that “wide or marginal excision” was a
reasonable. Stenosis evaluation revealed highgrade spinal cord compression. Of further note,
stenosis evaluation revealed high- grade spinal
cord compression. Despite this, the patient
ab
Fig. 1.10 (a, b) Sagittal T2-weighted MRI (a) demon-
strating recurrent spinal cord compression associated with
previously irradiated and hormonally treated prostate
carcinoma. Axial T1-weighted MRI (b) demonstrates
high- grade, bilobed spinal cord compression with pedicle,
lamina, and transverse process involvement

18
ab
Fig. 1.11 (a, b) AP and
lateral radiograph of the
thoracic spine following
transpedicular excision
of tumor with anterior
column reconstruction
with
polymethylmethacrylate
cement and Steinman
pins and posterior
stabilization with spinal
instrumentation
R. A. W. Marco et al.
remained ambulatory. Stability evaluation done
using White and Panjabi’s criteria showed this
patient to be physiologically unstable as his associated pain was recalcitrant to medical management. His SINS score of 8 likewise suggested
potential spinal instability.
On the basis of these ndings, our team recommended a transpedicular excision with anterior cement and pin reconstruction and posterior
spinal instrumentation (Fig.1.11a, b). The patient
regained full strength and was alive and well at
his last follow-up.
References
1. Dunn RC, Kelly WA, Wohns RNW, Howe JF.Spinal
epidural neoplasia. J Neurosurg. 1980;52(1):47–51.
https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1980.52.1.0047.
2. Gilbert RW, Kim J-H, Posner JB.Epidural spinal cord
compression from metastatic tumor: diagnosis and
treatment. Ann Neurol. 1978;3(1):40–51. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ana.410030107.
3. Livingston KE, Perrin RG.The neurosurgical man-
agement of spinal metastases causing cord and cauda
equina compression. J Neurosurg. 1978;49(6):839–
43. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1978.49.6.0839.
4. Young RF, Post EM, King GA.Treatment of spinal
epidural metastases. J Neurosurg. 1980;53(6):741–8.
https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1980.53.6.0741.
5. Rompe JD, Hopf CG, Eysel P. Outcome after
palliative posterior surgery for metastatic disease of the spine—evaluation of 106 consecutive
patients after decompression and stabilisation with
the Cotrel- Dubousset instrumentation. Arch Orthop
Trauma Surg. 1999;119(7–8):394–400.
6. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R,
Saris S, Kryscio RJ, et al. Direct decompressive
surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord
compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9486):643–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66954-1.
7. Cassady JR, Sagerman RH, Chang CH. Radiation
therapy for lymphoma of the spinal canal. Radiology.
1967;89(2):313–5. https://doi.org/10.1148/89.2.313.
8. Friedman M, Kim TH, Panahon AM. Spinal cord
compression in malignant lymphoma—treatment
and results. Cancer. 1976;37(3):1485–91. https://
doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197603)37:3<1485::aidcncr2820370334>3.0.co;2-l.
9. Khan FR, Glicksman AS, Chu FCH, Nickson
JJ. Treatment by radiotherapy of spinal cord compression due to extradural metastases. Radiology.
1967;89(3):495–500. https://doi.org/10.1148/89.3.495.
10. Martin WE.Radiation therapy for paraplegia due to
multiple myeloma. JAMA. 1965;191(3):247. https://
doi.org/10.1001/jama.1965.03080030091020.
11. Mones RJ, Dozier D, Berrett A. Analysis of medical treatment of malignant extradural spinal cord
tumors. Cancer. 1966;19(12):1842–53. https://doi.
org/10.1002/1097-0142(196612)19:12<1842::aidcncr2820191212>3.0.co;2-v.
12. Murphy WT, Bilge N.Compression of the spinal cord
in patients with malignant lymphoma. Radiology.
1964;82(3):495–501. https://doi.org/10.1148/82.3.495.
13. Raichle ME, Posner JB. The treatment of extradural
spinal cord compression. Neurology. 1970;20(4):391.
14. Rubin P, Miller G.Extradural spinal cord compression by tumor. Radiology. 1969;93(6):1243–8. https://
doi.org/10.1148/93.6.1243.

1 MOSS: A Patient-Centered Approach
19
15. Rubin P, Mayer E, Poulter C. Part II: high daily
dose experience without laminectomy. Radiology.
1969;93(6):1248–60. https://doi.org/10.1148/93.6.1248.
16. Chi JH, Gokaslan Z, McCormick P, Tibbs PA, Kryscio
RJ, Patchell RA.Selecting treatment for patients with
malignant epidural spinal cord compression—does
age matter? Spine. 2009;34(5):431–5. https://doi.
org/10.1097/brs.0b013e318193a25b.
17. George R, Jeba J, Ramkumar G, Chacko AG, Leng
M, Tharyan P.Interventions for the treatment of metastatic extradural spinal cord compression in adults.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Wiley; 2008.
18. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, Cox BW, Stubbleeld MD,
Yamada Y, etal. The NOMS framework: approach to
the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist.
2013;18(6):744–51. https://doi.org/10.1634/
theoncologist.2012-0293.
19. Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Fourney DR, Groff M, Schmidt
MH, Varga PP, etal. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg
Spine. 2010;13(3):324–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/20
10.3.spine09459.
20. Lim ZD, Mahajan A, Weinberg J, Tannir
NM. Outcome of patients with renal cell carcinoma
metastatic to the brain treated with sunitinib without
local therapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36(3):258–60.
https://doi.org/10.1097/coc.0b013e3182467b9a.
21. Rousseau B, Kempf E, Desamericq G, Boissier E,
Chaubet-Houdu M, Joly C, et al. First-line antiangiogenics for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a
systematic review and network meta-analysis. Crit
Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;107:44–53. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.08.012.
22. Gerszten PC, Mendel E, Yamada Y. Radiotherapy
and radiosurgery for metastatic spine disease. Spine.
2009;34(22 Suppl):S78–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/
brs.0b013e3181b8b6f5.
23. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, Welch
WC. Radiosurgery for spinal metastases. Spine.
2007;32(2):193–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
brs.0000251863.76595.a2.
24. Ryu S, Rock J, Jain R, Lu M, Anderson J, Jin J-Y,
et al. Radiosurgical decompression of metastatic
epidural compression. Cancer. 2010;116(9):2250–7.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24993.
25. Ryu S, Rock J, Rosenblum M, Kim JH.Patterns of
failure after single-dose radiosurgery for spinal metastasis. J Neurosurg. 2004;101(Suppl 3):402–5. https://
doi.org/10.3171/jns.2004.101.supplement3.0402.
26. Gerszten PC, Burton SA, Ozhasoglu C, Vogel WJ,
Welch WC, Baar J, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery
for spinal metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J
Neurosurg Spine. 2005;3(4):288–95. https://doi.
org/10.3171/spi.2005.3.4.0288.
27. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH,
Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, et al. A novel classication system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease. Spine. 2010;35(22):E1221–E9. https://doi.
org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181e16ae2.
28. Kris MG, Natale RB, Herbst RS, Lynch JTJ, Prager
D, Belani CP, et al. Efcacy of getinib, an inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine
kinase, in symptomatic patients with non–small cell
lung cancer. JAMA. 2003;290(16):2149. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jama.290.16.2149.
29. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A,
Massuti B, Felip E, et al. Erlotinib versus standard
chemotherapy as rst-line treatment for European
patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive
non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet
Oncol. 2012;13(3):239–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s1470-2045(11)70393-x.
30. Paez JG.EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation
with clinical response to getinib therapy. Science.
2004;304(5676):1497–500. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1099314.
31. Berenson J, Pugmacher R, Jarzem P, Zonder J,
Schechtman K, Tillman JB, etal. Balloon kyphoplasty
versus non-surgical fracture management for treatment of painful vertebral body compression fractures
in patients with cancer: a multicentre, randomised
controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(3):225–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70008-0.
32. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis
TE, McFadden ET, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–56. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014.
33. Conill C, Verger E, Salamero M. Performance
status assessment in cancer patients.
Cancer. 1990;65(8):1864–6. https://doi.
org/10.1002/1097-0142(19900415)65:8<1864::aidcncr2820650832>3.0.co;2-u.
34. Maranzano E, Latini P. Effectiveness of radiation
therapy without surgery in metastatic spinal cord
compression: nal results from a prospective trial. Int
J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;32(4):959–67. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)00572-g.
35. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu
J. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine.
2005;30(19):2186–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
brs.0000180401.06919.a5.
36. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A,
Murakami H, Akamaru T.Surgical strategy for spinal
metastases. Spine. 2001;26(3):298–306. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00007632-200102010-00016.
37. Panjabi MM.Clinical spinal instability and low back
pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(4):371–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00044-0.
38. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu
J.A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. In: Tumors
TRESftPoMS, editor. Spine (Phila Pa 1976): Ovid
Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health); 2005. p.
Table2. Revised Evaluation System for the Prognosis
of Metastatic Spine Tumors.

20
R. A. W. Marco et al.
39. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A,
Murakami H, Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. In: metastases FSsfs, editor. Spine:
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health); 2001. p.
Figure1. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases.
40. Wang JC, Boland P, Mitra N, Yamada Y, Lis E,
Stubbleeld M, et al. Single-stage posterolateral
transpedicular approach for resection of epidural metastatic spine tumors involving the vertebral body with
circumferential reconstruction: results in 140 patients.
J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1(3):287–98. Figure1.
41. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH,
Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, etal. A novel classication
system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease.
Spine: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health);
2010. p. Table1 The SINS classication according to
Fisher etal.
42. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH,
Shaffrey CI, Berven SH etal. A novel classication
system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease.
Spine: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health);
2010. p. Table 2 SINS scores organized as a total
score, three-clinical categories, and binary scale with
their corresponding levels of stability where surgical
consultation is recommended for a total score >7.
43. Yamada Y, Bilsky MH. IAEA Singapore SBRT
Symposium. 2013.

Relative Radiosensitivity of Metastatic Spine Disease
Waqar Haque and Bin S. Teh
2
Cancer metastasizing to the spine is a common
clinical condition seen in approximately 10% of
all patients with cancer and up to 40% of patients
with metastatic disease [1–3]. Spinal metastases
often initially present as back pain, though other
symptoms include sensory decit, radicular pain,
weakness, bowel/bladder dysfunction, and paralysis. The goals of treatment with radiation therapy are to provide palliation, tumor control,
improvement or recovery of neurologic function,
spine stability, and improvement of quality of life
[4]. There is substantial heterogeneity of response
to EBRT among patients, different tumor histologies, different metastatic nodules within the same
patient, and even different regions of the same
tumor. The present report will describe radiosensitivity of metastatic disease within the spine and
the implications this has in guiding treatment for
this disease process.
Before describing radiosensitivity, it may be
benecial to provide a brief summary of the
mechanism of action of EBRT delivered with the
use of photons. Please note that the mechanism
of action of radiation therapy delivered by
charged particles is different than the process
described herein. Typically, a linear accelerator
W. Haque, MD • B. S. Teh, MD (*)
Radiation Oncology Department, Houston Methodist
Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: bteh@houstonmethodist.org
shoots high-energy photons into tissue, ejecting
orbital electrons from atoms in a process called
ionization [5]. Radiation can damage DNA
directly, in which the electron ejected from the
atom damages DNA, or indirectly, in which the
electron ejected from the atom interacts with a
water molecule to create a hydroxyl free radical
which then causes DNA damage. Types of DNA
damage induced by ionizing radiation include
single-strand breaks, double-strand breaks
(DSBs), base damage, and DNA-protein crosslinks, with DSBs thought to be the primary
method of radiation-induced cell kill [6, 7]. The
predominant pathway of cell killing caused by
radiation is mitotic cell death, a process in which
cells attempting to undergo mitosis will be unable
to replicate and will die due to chromosome damage [7]. Radiation can also induce apoptosis
within tumor cells, though this is more prominent
in lymphoid and hemopoietic cells and is not
seen in some solid tumors [8]. Cells are most
radiosensitive in the M and G
cycle and least sensitive in the later part of the S
phase, possibly due to the greater ability of DNA
to repair double-strand breaks by homologous
recombination when an undamaged sister chromatid is present [9, 10].
The radiosensitivity of a cancer cell is further
inuenced by the following four factors. The rst
is the number of clonogenic cells, that is, a cell
that has retained reproductive integrity and is
able to proliferate indenitely to produce a colony, within the tumor [11]. A greater number of
phases of the cell
2
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
R. A. W. Marco (ed.), Metastatic Spine Disease, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76252-4_2
21

22
W. Haque and B. S. Teh
clonogens increased the likelihood that it will be
able to withstand treatment with radiation.
Secondly, the number of cells that are proliferating and the tumor growth kinetics within the
tumor can have an impact on response to EBRT.
Rapidly dividing cells are typically more radiosensitive because they are less likely to be able to
repair DNA damage, are more likely to be in a
radiosensitive portion of the cell cycle when
receiving radiation, and are more likely to reassort into a radiosensitive portion of the cell cycle
with fractionation of treatment [11, 12].
Additionally, increasing levels of hypoxia
adversely impact the effect of EBRT.Since most
of the radiation damage delivered by photons is
mediated by oxygenated free radicals, the
absence of oxygen limits the potency of radiation
therapy, and tumors with poor circulation display
increased radioresistance [13, 14]. Fourth, different tumor cells have a varying degree of ability to
repair DNA damage, and this intrinsic ability to
repair the DNA has a signicant impact on radiosensitivity. In one study, investigators transfected
the double-strand break repair gene DNA-PKcs
into a cloned tumor cell line from severe combined immunodecient mice and then transplanted this tumor in the same strain of mice and
were able to show an increase in tumor cell radioresistance by the introduction of DNA-PKcs,
leading the authors to conclude that the intrinsic
radiosensitivity of tumor cells is a major factor in
determining radiosensitivity [15].
Multiple methods have been proposed as ways
to measure radiosensitivity. One such method has
been to record the fraction of tumor cells that survives after being exposed to 2 Gray (Gy), though
clinically this did not demonstrate a relevant predictive parameter for patients with head and neck
squamous cell cancer [16]. Investigators have
attempted to measure the potential doubling time
from tumor cells obtained invitro from patients
with head and neck cancer, though this also failed
to have a correlation with oncologic outcome
[17]. Measurement of pretreatment tumor oxygenation can predict radiosensitivity. In patients
receiving denitive radiation therapy for cervical
cancer and head and neck cancer, pretreatment
tumor hypoxia was predictive of worse overall
survival, disease-free survival, and local control
[18, 19]. Functional positron emission
tomography- computerized tomography (PET/
CT) imaging conducted twice during the early
course of EBRT after the initiation of treatment
can also quantify the responsiveness of the tumor
to therapy, potentially allowing for adjustment of
treatment based on the radiosensitivity displayed
by the tumor [20]. Proteomic methods have
revealed the presence of specic protein biomarkers that can predict for radiosensitivity prior
to the initiation of treatment in breast, colon, rectal, and prostate cancers [21–24]. Bioinformatical
analysis has demonstrated that the overexpression of certain plasma miRNAs was associated
with a greater response to EBRT in patients with
non-small cell lung cancer [25].
Unfortunately, none of the abovementioned
methods have to date gained widespread clinical
application. The primary method of determining
radiation sensitivity in clinical practice has been
based on tumor histology, despite the known heterogeneity of radiation response within the
tumors [4, 26]. The tumors that have been demonstrated to have relative radiosensitive histologies include lymphoma, seminoma, and
myeloma; tumors with relative radioresistant histologies include melanoma, renal cell carcinoma,
some sarcomas, and gastrointestinal cancers; and
tumors with an intermediate degree of radiosensitivity include prostate cancer and breast cancer
[4, 27]. It is necessary to keep in mind that this is
a broad overview, and while this classication
does have treatment applications, there are certain subgroups of patients within these disease
sites that can have different responses to radiation. For example, it has been demonstrated that
there are tumor markers within patients with
breast cancer that can predict for treatment
response, and patients with triple-negative disease may have decreased radiosensitivity than
those with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, progesterone receptor (PR)-positive disease [28, 29].
The radiosensitivity of the cancer can be used
to guide management of patients with spinal
metastatic disease. Conventional radiation therapy (CRT) alone can improve neurologic function in select patients with radiosensitive tumors,
and in one study 67% of patients with radiosensitive tumor histologies regained ambulation

2 Relative Radiosensitivity of Metastatic Spine Disease
23
following CRT alone [30]. A retrospective
review from Japan demonstrated a difference in
response for patients with spinal metastases
treated with CRT alone based on the radiosensitivity of the tumor, with 87% of patients with
radiosensitive tumors responding to radiation,
compared to a response rate of just 49% for
patients with radioresistant histologies [31].
Other studies have conrmed that the histology
of the tumor is associated with response to radiation treatment for metastatic spinal cord compression [32, 33]. The optimal radiation dose
and fractionation for treatment of radiosensitive
tumors with CRT are controversial. While there
is data showing equivalent palliation with singlefraction (SF) or multi-fraction (MF) treatments,
a
MF treatments are associated with better longerterm local control and decreased re-treatment,
suggesting that MF treatment may be preferable
for patients with spinal metastases [33–35]. The
most typical MF fractionation scheme is 30Gy
in 10 fractions. Due to the superior outcomes
associated with CRT or radiosensitive tumors,
some authors advocate for CRT alone in patients
with spinal metastatic disease with or without
cord compression in this patient population,
though the American Society for Radiation
Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines recommend surgical intervention for most patients with a good
performance status and life expectancy
>3months, regardless of histology with postoperative CRT [4, 36] (Fig.2.1).
b
Fig. 2.1 Images displaying a patient with cord compression at L1 due to multiple myeloma and complete resolution of
the compression 11weeks after completion of conventionally fractionated radiation (from [4])

24
W. Haque and B. S. Teh
Radioresistant tumors do not respond well to
CRT, with studies reporting only a 20–33%
response rate with CRT alone in this patient population, with a time to progression of 1–3months
in patients who respond [30, 31]. This is partially
because of the inability to achieve a tumoricidal
dose with conventional techniques, as in CRT the
dose delivered to the tumor within the spine is the
same dose received by the spinal cord.
Consequently, the radiation dose is limited by the
radiation tolerance dose of the spinal cord. One
solution to overcome radioresistance is to deliver
higher, ablative doses to the tumor while sparing
the dose delivered to the spinal cord using a technique called stereotactic body radiation therapy
(SBRT). Advances in radiation therapy technology including the use of image fusion, development of more rigid immobilization devices,
computerized treatment planning, image-guided
radiation treatment (IGRT), and intensitymodulated radiation therapy (IMRT) have
allowed the delivery of this conformal treatment
[37] (Fig.2.2).
Intracranial, single-fraction SBRT has been
demonstrated to overcome radioresistance for
intracranial metastatic disease and demonstrated equivalent local control for both radioresistant and radiosensitive tumor histologies
[38–40]. The success of treatment of radioresistant intracranial disease with SBRT leads to
Fig. 2.2 Image demonstrating the ability to sculpt dose
around the spinal cord with SBRT. Red color indicates the
tumor (from [55])
experimentation of radioresistant extracranial
disease with SBRT, with similarly successful
outcomes. In the largest series of patients
treated with single- fraction spine SBRT, 500
patients with metastases in the spine were
treated to a mean dose of 20Gy and achieved a
90% local control rate, with 84% of patients
displaying neurologic improvement [41]. There
was no difference in outcome based on tumor
histology. In a review of 103 patients with
radioresistant oligometastatic disease treated
with spine SBRT to a dose of 18–24Gy, Yamada
etal. demonstrated a local control rate of 92%
[42]. In a later review of this cohort, a higher
dose was associated with superior local control,
with a 97% local control rate at 3years reported
for patients receiving a dose of 24Gy [43]. Due
to the excellent outcomes achieved with SBRT
for spinal metastatic disease, patients with
radioresistant tumors without cord compression
are recommended to receive treatment with
SBRT alone [4].
Patients with radioresistant tumors with cord
compression, however, are considered for upfront
decompressive surgery followed by postoperative SBRT [44]. In a retrospective review from
Memorial Sloan-Kettering, 186 patients with epidural spinal cord compression were treated with
surgical decompression followed by postoperative single-fraction SBRT to 24 Gy, high-dose
hypofractionated SBRT to 24–30Gy in 3 fractions, or low-dose hypofractionated SBRT to
18–36 Gy in 5–6 fractions. Local progression
was 4.1% for the high-dose SBRT arm, while it
was 22.6% for the low-dose SBRT arm, with
equivalent outcomes seen for patients with radiosensitive and radioresistant histologies [45]. A
second retrospective review reporting on outcomes for patients with spinal metastases treated
postoperatively with SBRT from the University
of Toronto showed a 1-year local control rate of
84%, with equivalent outcomes for patients
regardless of histology, though superior local
control was observed for patients treated with
high-dose SBRT (18–26Gy in 1 or 2 fractions)
when compared to patients treated with low-dose
SBRT (18–40 Gy in 3–5 fractions) [46]
(Table2.1).
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
