Advertisement
help button home button The Oncologist
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bilsky, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Boland, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bilsky, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Boland, P.
The Oncologist, Vol. 4, No. 6, 459-469, December 1999
© 1999 AlphaMed Press

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Metastatic Spinal Tumor

Mark H. Bilskya, Eric Lisb, Jeffrey Raizerc, Henry Leed, Patrick Bolanda

a Surgery Department, b Neuroradiology Department, c Neurology Department, d Radiation Oncology Department, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA

Correspondence: Correspondence: Mark H. Bilsky, M.D., Division of Neurosurgery, Box 71, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021, USA. Telephone: 212-639-8526; Fax 212-717-3231; e-mail: Bilskym{at}mskcc.org


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Presentation
 Imaging
 Treatment
 References
 
Metastases to the spine represent a challenging problem in an oncology practice. Treatment decisions require multidisciplinary review. Radiation therapy remains the primary treatment for metastatic spinal tumor, but advances in radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgery have changed the roles of each and lead to improved patient outcomes. Regardless of the treatment, diagnosis and treatment before the development of significant neurologic and functional deficits improve outcomes. Physician awareness and appropriate imaging greatly assist in the early detection of tumor.

Key Words. Spine metastases • Radiation therapy • Magnetic resonance imaging • Chemotherapy • Laminectomy • Posterolateral • Transcavitary • Transpedicular


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Presentation
 Imaging
 Treatment
 References
 
Metastases to the spine are a common problem in a large oncology center. Between 5% [1] and 10% [2] of all cancer patients develop spinal metastases during the course of their disease. Therapeutic intervention can alleviate pain, preserve or improve neurologic function, achieve mechanical stability, optimize local tumor control, and improve quality of life. Treatment options available for metastatic spine tumors include radiation therapy (RT), surgery, and chemotherapy. The appropriate treatment for an individual patient requires a multidisciplinary review including input from a medical oncologist, internist, radiologist, radiation oncologist, neurologist, and surgeon. RT is accepted as the first-line choice for most patients with metastatic spinal tumor, but surgical advances over the last 15 years have dramatically improved surgical outcomes for these patients. These advances include anterior transcavitary and posterolateral approaches to the spine and the application of anterior locking plates and posterior segmental spinal fixation. In the absence of prospectively randomized trials comparing radiation therapy with current surgical techniques, treatment decisions continue to be based predominantly on retrospective case series and institutional experience, but the indications and timing for each are becoming more clear.


   Presentation
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Presentation
Imaging
 Treatment
 References
 
Early diagnosis of metastatic spinal disease is important because functional outcome depends on neurologic condition at the time of presentation. Back pain, the most common presenting symptom in patients with metastatic tumor to the bone or epidural space, often precedes the development of other neurologic symptoms by weeks or months. Back pain may even begin years after the initial cancer diagnosis or may represent a new treatment-related tumor in the spine (e.g., post-radiation sarcoma). Two distinct types of back pain are encountered in patients with spinal tumors: tumor-related and mechanical. Tumor-related pain is predominantly nocturnal or early morning pain and generally improves with activity during the day. This pain may be caused by inflammatory mediators or tumor stretching the periosteum of the vertebral body [3]. Tumor-related pain generally responds to administration of low-dose steroids (e.g., decadron 12 mg daily). Definitive treatment of the underlying tumor with radiation or surgery often relieves this pain. Recurrence of pain following treatment may be a harbinger of locally recurrent tumor.

Mechanical pain results from a structural abnormality of the spine, such as a pathologic compression fracture resulting in instability. This pain is movement-related and may be exacerbated by sitting or standing which increases the axial load on the spine. Additionally, patients with thoracic or thoracolumbar compression fractures resulting in kyphosis may have severe pain in recumbence and often give a history of sleeping upright in a chair for several weeks. The presumed mechanism is extension of the unstable kyphosis. Mechanical pain does not typically respond to steroids, but may be relieved with narcotics or an external orthosis, pending definitive therapy. Pathologic thoracic compression fractures often present with pain for a few days, which resolves without bracing, unless the tumor additionally involves the posterior spinal elements.

Neurologic symptoms and signs often begin with radiculopathy (nerve root symptoms) and are followed by myelopathy (spinal cord compression). Radiculopathy in the cervical or lumbar spine causes pain or weakness in the upper or lower extremity, respectively. In the thoracic spine, radiculopathy occurs as a band-like pain at a segmental level. Some patients develop a mechanical radiculopathy resulting from instability and neuroforaminal compression by tumor in the lumbar spine. This pain occurs when bearing weight and is relieved by lying down. It is often accompanied by mechanical back pain.

Myelopathy begins as hyperreflexia, a Babinski reflex and clonus, but progresses to weakness, proprioceptive sensory loss, and loss of pain and temperature below the level of the spinal cord compression. Autonomic dysfunction may result from spinal cord compression or cauda equina compression. Painless urinary retention suggests a neurologic cause [4]. Isolated loss of bowel and bladder function in the absence of motor or sensory symptoms most often results from compression at the conus medullaris (tip of the spinal cord at approximately L1) or sacral tumor. In other segments of the spinal cord, loss of autonomic function is frequently a late finding.

The evaluation of spinal patients should include a pain assessment, quantitative neurologic score, and a general performance score. Pain assessment can be most readily performed with a visual analog scale which is familiar to many cancer patients. The score can be converted to reflect mild (0 to 4), moderate (5 to 6) and severe (7 to 10) pain [5]. The two most commonly used neurologic scales include the Frankel grading system [6] and the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score [7] (Table 1). Both assess motor function with a score of "E" being normal and "A" being complete paralysis. Performance status reflects ambulation, medical comoribidities and extent of disease. A patient may have normal motor strength, but be unable to ambulate from loss of proprioception, fracture in the lower extremity, poor nutritional status, poor pulmonary function and a variety of other symptoms. We have used the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status [8] as a functional assessment. It is important to include both neurologic and performance status when reviewing outcomes in cancer patients. Unfortunately, the majority of papers reviewing the treatment of spinal metastases report one or the other.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. ASIA impairment scale
 
A correct and complete diagnosis of neurologic symptoms is necessary to give appropriate treatment. The presence of spinal disease does not exclude the possibility of coexisting disease in a similar distribution. For example, extremity symptoms may result from infiltration or compression of the brachial plexus, lumbosacral plexus, peripheral nerve, or a peripheral neuropathy. Additionally, metastatic bone tumor may mimic nerve root pain. Hip involvement from tumor or avascular necrosis often presents as groin pain, suggesting an L2 radiculopathy. Leptomeningeal tumor involving the spine may result in radiculopathy or myelopathy with a similar presentation compared to epidural tumor compression. We have seen two patients over the last year that presented with acute myelopathy from leptomeningeal tumor without additional epidural disease.


   Imaging
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Presentation
 Imaging
Treatment
 References
 
Advances in imaging have improved the sensitivity of detecting spinal metastases and the specificity of differentiating from other processes that involve the spine. Magnetic resonsance imaging (MRI) has revolutionized assessment of metastatic spinal tumor, but many imaging modalities play a role in evaluating patients with metastatic spinal tumor including plain radiographs, bone scan, computerized tomography (CT) scan, myelogram, and positron emission topography (PET). The goal of imaging is to be 100% sensitive and specific in identifying tumor, give precise anatomic detail, identify distant metastases, and show recurrent tumor following the placement of instrumentation. No single imaging modality accomplishes all of these goals, but understanding the advantages and disadvantages of different imaging modalities will assist the clinician in patient screening and treatment planning.

Plain radiographs are often ordered as the first test to evaluate a patient with cancer who has new onset of back pain, but are relatively poor screening tests for metastases. Visualization of a radiolucent defect on plain radiographs requires a 50% destruction of the vertebral body. Additionally, metastatic tumor often infiltrates the bone marrow of the vertebral body without destroying the cortical bone. Compression and burst fractures are readily identified. Plain radiographs can identify sagittal (kyphosis) and coronal (scoliosis) plane deformities in a weight-bearing state, whereas spinal deformities imaged in a supine position by MRI or CT scans may be reduced and thus remain undetected. Dynamic flexion and extension films may be used to detect instability, although are rarely necessary in our experience and may put the patient at risk for progressive spinal cord injury. Following surgery, plain films are the best imaging modality for assessing spinal alignment and structural integrity of the instrumentation.

Bone scan (99mTc-MDP) is more sensitive than plain radiographs for detecting spinal metastases. The advantage of bone scan is the ability to screen the entire skeleton with a single image. Patients with spinal tumor often have other bone involvement that may be causing symptoms or require intervention. For example a patient with L2 vertebral body disease causing nerve root compression may have concomitant, symptomatic tumor in the pelvis, hip, or femur.

Bone scans rely on an osteoblastic reaction or bone deposition to detect spinal metastases [9]. Thus, patients with rapidly progressive, destructive tumors may not be detected [10]. Bone scan is relatively insensitive for multiple myeloma and tumors confined to the bone marrow [10]. It also has a low specificity for tumor. Fractures, degenerative disease, and benign disorders of the spine (Schmorl's nodes, hemangioma) all may be positive. Additionally, paraspinal tumors that enter the epidural space through the neuroforamen result in back pain, and progressive neurologic symptoms are often unseen on bone scan. In a review by Avrahami et al. [11], 21 out of 40 patients (52%) with previously diagnosed tumor and symptoms referrable to the spine had a negative CT scan and bone scan; however, the MRI detected the presence of tumor. Frank et al. [12] reviewed a series of 95 patients in which 28% had a negative bone scan with MRI scan showing tumor and a discordance rate between the two imaging modalities of 31%.

Until MRI became widely available, myelogram and CT scan were the best diagnostic modalities for assessing acute spinal cord compression. Risks associated with myelography, including acute neurologic decompensation in patients with high grade blocks, have diminished its role [13, 14]. CT scan continues to be useful for assessing the degree of bone destruction and whether bone or tumor is causing the spinal cord compression. For patients who have had spinal reconstruction with placement of metallic instrumentation, including titanium, it is often difficult to obtain accurate images of the spinal canal with MRI [15, 16]. Myelography and postmyelogram CT images continue to be used for imaging these patients. Newer composite alloys such as carbon fiber will improve imaging with MRI, even further diminishing the role of myelogram.

MRI is the most sensitive and specific modality for imaging spinal metastases. Sagittal screening images of the entire spine reveal bone, epidural, and paraspinal tumor. The extent and degree of spinal cord compression can be readily appreciated [17]. Hybrid scans of the brachial or lumbosacral plexus may reveal tumor in patients with extremity weakness that is not entirely related to spinal cord or root involvement. Leptomeningeal metastasis is often well visualized, but requires the use of contrast agents (Gd-DPTA) [18].

Imaging sequences used to evaluate spinal metastases typically are T1- and T2-weighted. Tumor on a T1-weighted image is hypointense relative to the normal marrow signal (Fig. 1AGo). The ports from prior spinal radiation can be discerned on T1-weighted images as hyperintense signal change and may assist in making acute therapeutic decisions when radiation port films are not available. Tumor is hyperintense relative to marrow on standard T2-weighted imaging and produces a myelogram effect with cerebrospinal fluid appearing hyperintense (Fig. 1BGo). Unfortunately, using the recently developed, time-saving fast spin echo T2 techniques may decrease tumor conspicuity. This decreased conspicuity can be compensated using short tau inversion recovery (STIR) techniques. STIR images show enhanced contrast between the lipid marrow (hypointense) and tumor (hyperintense) [19-21] (Fig. 1CGo). STIR images may be the most sensitive screening modality for tumor, but give less anatomic detail than standard T1 or fast spin echo T2 images [22].





View larger version (174K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. 65-year-old male with metastatic rectal carcinoma presented with a two-day history of lower extremity weakness. He had prior spinal radiation to overlapping ports at T8. A) Midline sagittal fast spin echo T-2 weighted image showing compression fracture at T6 and spinal cord impingement at T8. Tumor is not well visualized. B) STIR image reveals multiple levels of spinal tumor seen as hyperintense including the vertebral bodies of C5, C6, T6 and T8. Also noted are several areas of posterior element involvement in the cervical and thoracic spine. C) Axial T1-weighted image shows circumferential high grade epidural tumor with spinal cord compression (small arrow) and lateral extension of the tumor into the epidural space (large arrrow).

 
While MRI is an excellent screening tool for metastatic tumor to bone, differentiating tumor from osteomyelits, osteoporotic compression fractures, and previously treated tumor may be difficult. The T1 and T2 signal characteristics are similar in all of these conditions. Osteomyelits is more likely to cause changes in the end plate and disc space whereas tumor rarely, if ever, involves the disc space. Based on these imaging characteristics, An et al. [23] differentiated with 97% accuracy osteomyelitis from tumor. Unfortunately, patients with tumor may secondarily become infected rendering the imaging patterns unreliable [24]. We have encountered six patients over the past four years with documented tumor in the lumbar or thoracic spine that were treated with RT for radiosensitive tumors. The patients had progressive pain post-RT and subsequent imaging showed vertebral body destruction, but no specific MRI evidence of infection. All patients underwent surgical procedures for instability and presumed progression of tumor and were subsequently shown to have infection.

Osteoporotic compression fractures are extremely common in a cancer population and have been differentiated from pathologic fractures with 94% accuracy based on T1-weighted imaging characteristics [25]. Osteoporotic fractures are more commonly thoracic, lack signal change or have band-like abnormality, and do not involve the pedicle or have contour abnormality. Pathologic fractures showed homogeneously decreased signal, convex vertebral contour, and involved the pedicles and lumbar location.

Response to RT or chemotherapy is difficult to assess in bone tumors because of the lack of signal change on MRI. Oncologists often rely on imaging changes to determine the efficacy of treatment. On T1-weighted images both treated and viable tumor appear hypointense relative to normal marrow signal. In a study of breast cancer patients, only 3% of patients had a reduction in the volume or number of vertebral bodies involved following treatment [26]. In a palliative situation, clinical response to therapy (resolution of tumor-related pain) may suffice despite the absence of radiographic change. Therapeutic decisions for some metastatic tumors (e.g., Ewing's sarcoma, neuroblastoma, seminoma) rely on differentiating viable from necrotic tumor. MRI cannot reliably differentiate.

We and other authors [27] have begun to explore the use of 2-[F-18] flouro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG-PET) for differentiating osteoporotic from pathologic compression fractures, and the viability of previously treated tumor. Osteroporotic compression fractures greater than three days from the onset of symptoms are hypometabolic with a standardized uptake value (SUV) of less than 3. In general tumors have an SUV greater than 5. Additionally, FDG-PET may help direct the biopsy site to the area of most metabolic tumor with the highest likelihood of having viable, diagnostic tumor.


   Treatment
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Presentation
 Imaging
 Treatment
References
 
The three treatment modalities presently available for spinal metastases are chemotherapy, RT, and surgery. Chemotherapy can be divided into antitumor drugs and drugs that prevent or ameliorate the effects of tumor. Antitumor chemotherapy currently plays a relatively limited role in the treatment of spinal metastases. Dexamethasone reduces vasogenic edema of acute spinal cord compression to stabilize or improve neurologic status in some patients and relieve tumor-related pain. The optimal dose used to treat patients with acute spinal cord compression is controversial [28-32]. Doses range from moderate (16 mg/day in divided doses) to high (96 mg/day in divided doses) with a 10 to 100 mg load. It is unclear whether higher dose steroids improve neurologic outcomes compared to moderate dose, but significantly more complications result from the higher doses [33]. In a case control series from a single institution, total side effects seen in the moderate and high-dose steroids were 8% and 29%, respectively. Complications from steroids include hyperglycemia, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, intestinal perforation, and avascular necrosis of the hip. Steroids are not required to prevent acute RT complications as they do for brain RT, and thus do not need to be given in patients undergoing RT for malignant spinal cord compression who are fully ambulatory. In a case series of 20 patients, all maintained ambulation without toxicity [34].

In a patient with an undiagnosed spinal mass, one must resist the temptation to deliver steroids prior to biopsy because of the oncolytic effect for certain tumors, such as lymphoma and thymoma [35]. We recently transferred a 14-year-old male to our institution with excruciating low back pain from a lumbar vertebral body and paraspinal mass who received a single dose of steroids for pain control prior to biopsy. Open biopsy showed necrosis only and treatment was delayed. One month later the patient developed a pathologic fracture dislocation of the dens requiring internal fixation with a subsequent diagnosis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Biphosphonates are drugs that inhibit osteoclastic acitivity, suppress bone resorption, and are effective in the treatment of malignancy-associated hypercalcemia. Pamidronate is the most commonly used biphosphonate for cancer patients. In combination with systemic antitumor therapy, pamidronate has been shown to reduce or delay skeletal events, such as pathologic fractures. In a double-blind, multicenter, parallel group trial, 372 women with stage IV breast cancer were randomized to receive either 90 mg of pamidronate or placebo intravenously every three to four weeks [36]. Over a two-year follow-up, the proportion of patients who developed pathologic fractures or required RT or surgery was significantly less in the pamidronate-treated group. The median time to first skeletal event in the pamidronate-treated group and the placebo group was 13.9 months and 7 months, respectively. Benefit has also been seen in patients with multiple myeloma and osteolytic metastases [37]. The most significant side effects are febrile reactions, often in combination with myalgias and lymphopenia. Other side effects include transient neutropenia, thrombophlebitis, hypocalcemia, and rarely, ocular complications (uveitis) [38]. The high initial cost analysis of the drug may be justified by the substantial quality-adjusted survival benefit.

Antitumor chemotherapy has an important role in the treatment of chemosensitive tumors, such as neuroblastoma, Ewing's sarcoma (PNET) [39], osteogenic sarcoma, germ cell tumors, and lymphoma. At our institution chemotherapy may be used as primary treatment for patients with these tumors even with epidural compression. Surgery and RT may be used as adjuncts for residual radiographic tumor.

RT
In the 1960s and 1970s, when numerous comparative studies showed no difference in outcome between patients undergoing external photon beam RT and laminectomy without posterior segmental fixation, often in combination with RT, RT replaced laminectomy as first-line therapy [13, 40-56]. In these older series, approximately 75% of patients were nonambulatory at the time of presentation [57]. Patients undergoing RT alone showed a 79% rate of maintaining ambulation and a 42% rate of return to ambulation in paraparetic patients. Both ambulatory and nonambulatory patients had an approximate 21% risk of neurologic decompensation during RT. Patients undergoing laminectomy alone or with postoperative RT had a 48% to 67% rate of maintaining ambulation and a 33% rate of recovering ambulatory status in paraparetic patients. A range of 17% to 52% showed neurologic decompensation following surgery with or without the addition of postradiation RT. The post-treatment morbidity was significantly less from RT than from surgery.

One of the sentinel studies shifting the emphasis from surgery to RT was a retrospective review of 235 patients by Gilbert et al. [44] in which analysis was based on the radiation sensitivity of the tumor and preoperative functional status. The overall rate of postoperative ambulation in the laminectomy and RT versus RT alone was 46% and 49%, respectively. Patients with radiosensitive tumors (breast, myeloma lymphoma) had better functional neurologic outcome compared to less radiosensitive tumors (lung, colon, renal cell), regardless of the treatment. Those patients ambulatory at the outset of treatment also had better outcomes compared to those paraparetic (nonambulatory) or paraplegic.

A more recent radiation study again confirms the utility of this modality for the treatment for spinal metastases [58]. Maranzano et al. conducted a prospective trial in which 275 patients were treated with RT for metastatic spinal cord compression over a six-year period with a median follow-up of 49 months. Patients who were endstage or who had strong surgical indications were excluded from analysis. Exclusions included the 25 patients who died during their course of RT because of their medical condition, tumor at a site other than their spine, or sequelae from prior systemic therapy. No patient died from treatment. An additional 20 patients (7%) underwent surgery as initial treatment for an unknown diagnosis, vertebral body collapse with bone impingement in the spinal canal, prior RT, or spinal instability. All patients were treated to a total dose of 3,000 cGy using two different fractionation schedules. Patients were divided into radiosensitive (e.g., breast, prostate, lymphoproliferative) and radioinsensitive tumors (e.g., lung, renal, colon). The overall rate of maintaining or improving to ambulatory status and of improving sphincter control was 76% and 44%, respectively. Regardless of radiosensitivity of the tumor, patients who were functionally normal or with minor ambulation difficulties had a 94% rate of maintaining post-RT ambulation. In nonambulatory patients, the rate of return to ambulation post-RT was 60% and was heavily dependent on radiosensitivity of the tumor. The improved rates of maintaining ambulation compared to older studies may be reflective of excluding deaths and maintaining stringent surgical criteria for initial therapy.

The standard RT treatment for palliation of spinal metastases is daily 300 cGy fractions to a total dose of 3,000 cGy. Either a single posterior field or opposed fields are used to encompass the involved segment plus one to two levels above and below this involved region. Spinal cord or cauda equina tolerance to RT is the limiting factor in significantly raising the dose to greater levels to achieve higher rates of local control. Higher doses of RT place the patient at an increased risk for pathologic radiation myelopathy and functional spinal cord transection. Schiff et al. [59] reviewed the Mayo Clinic experience in patients with malignant spinal cord compression who either underwent reirradiation for locally recurrent tumor within the port or were treated for separate sites of disease but with overlapping ports. In 54 patients the median initial treatment dose was 3,000 cGy and the median total dose of radiation in the reirradiated segment was 5,425 cGy. All patients were ambulatory following the first course of RT, and 69% of patients remained ambulatory following the second course of RT at a median follow-up of 4.2 months. Pre-RT ambulation was a predictor of good outcome. Five patients became nonambulatory at 6.5 to 35 months. In this group four of the patients had documented spinal cord compression at the time of functional decompensation. The limited life expectancy of these patients may make it possible to reirradiate the spine with limited risk.

Advances in radiation delivery, patient immobilization, and dosing schemes may continue to improve outcomes either alone or in combination with surgery. These advances include intraoperative radiation therapy (IORT), three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT), and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). All three technologies provide a higher tumoral dose of radiation with reduced damage to surrounding tissues and potentially smaller fields compared to conventional external beam techniques. IORT involves the delivery of a custom-designed electron beam or high-dose rate brachytherapy photon beam that precisely demarcates the tumor volume. Lead shields [60] and gold foil [61] have been used to shield the spinal cord. In a retrospective review by Seichi et al. [60], 37 patients underwent IORT with electron beams following surgical resection to a total dose of 2,000 cGy, a dose estimated by the authors to be biologically equivalent to 4,500 cGy of conventional fractionated external beam RT. Twenty-two patients also received fractionated external beam RT to a median dose of 3,400 cGy. One patient who was not shielded developed symptomatic radiation myelopathy. Local control was achieved in all patients at a median follow-up of 11 months.

3D-CRT is a method of irradiating a tumor volume with an array of x-ray beams that are individually shaped to conform to a 3D rendering of the target. Treatment planning considers dose inhomogeneities caused by the differing electron densities of various tissues and calculates the resulting dose distribution using sophisticated algorithms. The technology has been successfully employed in prostate cancer in which the dose-limiting factors are the adjacent bowel, rectum, and bladder.

IMRT represents an advanced form of 3D-CRT in which multileaf collimators are used to dynamically change the field shape during treatment, thus permitting the delivery of an inhomogeneous dose that conforms more tightly to the target region. Because of the precise dosimetry of both 3D-CRT and IMRT, accurate delivery of these complex plans requires reproducible patient setup and positioning. We are currently investigating the use of body frames and infrared camera systems to improve the accuracy of treatment delivery. In addition, internal organ motion is being evaluated by CT whose gantry is connected to the linac treatment couch. Such approaches may permit the delivery of a higher dose of radiation to a target tissue while maintaining the dose delivered to the spinal cord within an acceptable tolerance level. This may improve the clinical outcome of inoperable patients and those requiring a boost after surgical resection.

Surgery
The role of surgery in the treatment of spinal metastases is still being defined. Results using laminectomy as initial therapy either alone or with adjuvant radiation yielded relatively poor outcomes. Laminectomy does not provide exposure to resect lateral and anterior epidural or vertebral body tumor. Additionally, resection of the posterior elements without instrumentation often leads to progressive kyphosis and increased neurologic deficits.

Improved surgical outcomes have been seen using techniques that provide exposure for more radical tumor resection than laminectomy. Reconstruction following these aggressive approaches is now possible using rigid posterior segmental fixation and anterior instrumentation. These approaches include anterior, transcavitary [2, 3, 62-75] and posterolateral, transpedicular [63, 68, 70, 71, 76-81]. The decision to use a particular surgical approach is dependent on the location of the bone, epidural, and paraspinal tumor, type of reconstruction required, patient comorbidities, extent of disease, and surgeon's familiarity.

Anterior transcavitary approaches may be used to address tumors in any spinal segment. The particular approach depends on the level of spine involved. For example, the high thoracic spine (T1 to T3) can be addressed through a median sternotomy or trap door approach [82], midthoracic spine (T4 to T10) through a standard thoracotomy, and the low thoracic spine (T11 to T12) via a thoracoabdominal approach. In terms of tumor resection, anterior transcavitary approaches address anterior paraspinal tumor, vertebral body tumor, and anterior or unilateral epidural tumor on the side of the approach. Reconstruction is most often achieved using methylmethacrylate and Steimann pins, autologous bone graft, or cages with the addition of an anterior locking plate, such as a Z-plate (Danek; Memphis, TN). An anterior approach may be followed by a laminectomy or posterolateral approach for maximal tumor resection and circumferential fusion [80].

The posterolateral approach is used mainly to resect tumor in the thoracic and lumbar spine (Figs. 2A, B)Go. The posterior midline incision and lamina resection are identical to a laminectomy. Additional bone including the pedicle and facet joint are then removed to provide a relatively wide exposure to the vertebral body. Epidural and vertebral body tumor can then be piecemeal resected. Reconstruction is most often achieved with long posterior segmental fixation and may be augmented with an anterior strut, generally with methylmethacrylate and Steinmann pins. The posterolateral approach may be indicated in patients with three-column involvement, multilevel vertebral body or epidural tumor, vertebral body tumor with bilateral or circumferential epidural spinal cord compression, or major spinal deformity. Additionally, some cancer patients who require vertebrectomy or circumferential decompression and fusion may be poor candidates for an anterior approach due to poor pulmonary function, concurrent medical illness, previous surgery, previous RT, and/or unresectable, anterior paraspinal tumor or scar.




View larger version (136K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. A, B) Postoperative plain radiographs showing reconstruction of a posterolateral approach with anterior methylmethacrylate and Steinmann pins and posterior segmental fixation using pedicle screws and sublaminar hooks.

 
Results using these techniques have improved surgical outcomes compared to laminectomy alone or in combination with RT. Resection of the tumor and spinal fixation have resulted in dramatic improvements for both tumor-related pain and mechanical back pain. Multiple series reporting pain outcomes have shown a 76% to 100% improvement [2, 3, 62, 68-71, 73-80]. Neurologic outcomes are similar using both anterior and posterolateral approaches. Functional and neurologic improvements have been seen in 50% to 76% of patients. Additionally, patients who were operated on without a deficit (in our system ASIA E, ECOG 0) maintained function in greater than 95% of cases. Patients with minor or no neurologic deficits (ASIA D or E) represent up to 81% of patients in some recent series [3]. This percentage of ambulatory patients is substantially greater than the previously reported radiation literature. This may represent a selection bias on candidates for operation or the improved ability to screen patients with MRI.

As with RT, factors that impact on outcome include preoperative neurologic and functional status and favorable tumor histology. Klekamp and Samii [68] reviewed 101 patients who underwent operation for metastatic spinal tumor prior to receiving adjuvant therapy (RT or chemotherapy) for their spinal tumor. The operations included posterolateral (79%), anterior transcavitary (12%), and anterior and posterior approach (9%). Ninety-six percent of patients who were ambulatory preoperatively maintained the ability for at least three months, while only 22% of patients nonambulatory regained ambulation for the same duration. This maintenance or recovery of function is similar to the RT data presented by Maranzano [58]. Additionally, 89% of patients maintained continence for three months, but only 31% regained autonomic function. Patients with favorable tumor histology (e.g., breast, kidney, thyroid, prostate) had significantly better neurologic outcome and survival than those with unfavorable histologies (lung, gastrointestinal tract, and unknown primary). As has been seen in other studies [73], local recurrence rates are significant. In this study 58% recurred after six months, 69% at one year, and 96% after four years. Factors predictive of low recurrence rates included preoperative ambulatory status, favorable tumor histology, cervical level, low number of affected vertebral bodies, complete resection, and elective surgery.

Review of multiple series shows complication rates from surgery ranging from 10% to 52% [2, 3, 62-78]. Complications include medical issues such as deep venous thrombosis, myocardial infarct, and pneumonia. Surgical complications include failed fixation requiring revision and postoperative hematoma. Wound dehiscence and infection are complications seen predominantly with posterolateral approaches in up to 15% of cases. We have found that trapezius or latissimus dorsi rotation flaps provide excellent soft tissue coverage and markedly reduces the morbidity from this complication. Mortality rates are as high as 13%. Frequently these are related to the medical or oncologic condition of the patients.

As with RT, advances in surgical technique may help improve the quality of life for patients with metastatic spinal tumor. Preoperative embolization for vascular tumors (e.g., renal cell, papillary thyroid carcinoma, leiomyosarcoma) dramatically reduces operative blood loss [83, 84]. In our series of 25 patients operated via a posterolateral approach with circumferential instrumentation, there was no significant difference in blood loss between embolized tumors (i.e., renal, thyroid, angiosarcoma) and those not requiring embolization, 1,900 ml and 1,620 ml, respectively.

"En bloc" spondylectomy was recently described by Tomita [85]. This technique is based on sound oncologic principles. The intent of this surgery is en bloc resection of the tumor with negative histologic margins. This surgery is feasible as a one- [85] or two-stage procedure [86-88] but is technically quite demanding. Results with this approach are encouraging, both in terms of functional outcome and local control; however, we reserve this approach for patients in whom the spine surgery is being performed as a curative, rather than palliative procedure. Based on anatomic considerations, the majority of patients with metastatic tumor are not candidates for this type of surgery because of the extensive epidural disease, multilevel vertebral body involvement, and large paraspinal masses.

Thoracoscopic vertebral body resection for tumor has been reported in a small series [89, 90]. This relatively noninvasive approach has proven useful for removing anterior thoracic discs and anterior releases for scoliosis corrections. The potential use for most tumors requiring resection is probably limited. We currently reserve this technique for biopsies in patients who have failed CT-guided biopsies.

At our institution RT is first-line for most patients who present with metastatic spinal tumor. Surgery is reserved for a variety of indications (Table 2). Patients with radio-resistant tumors (e.g., sarcoma, renal cell carcinoma), spinal instability, and/or a pathologic fracture with bone in the spinal canal are considered for surgery prior to RT. Additionally, patients with circumferential epidural tumor that is moderately to highly radio-resistant are more likely to worsen during RT when compared to other patterns of epidural tumor and are considered for surgery as initial treatment. A frequently reported indication for surgery is lack of a diagnosis, but this can frequently be accomplished with CT-guided needle biopsy or thoracoscopic biopsy.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2.Surgical indications
 
Following prior RT that has reached spinal cord tolerance, patients are considered for surgery based on progression of neurologic symptoms, radiographic progression of tumor, and spinal instability. Patients with residual radiographic tumor following radiation or chemotherapy may be considered for curative surgery (e.g., osteogenic sarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, germ cell tumor). Patients undergoing surgical resection are medically assessed for their ability to tolerate the proposed surgical procedure by an internist and have limited extent of disease. Contraindications to surgery include a limited life expectancy, significant medical comorbidities and extensive disease. Additionally paraplegic patients rarely undergo surgery because of the significantly low rate of recovery, particularly after 24 h.

The diagnosis and treatment of spinal metastases require multidisciplinary review. Regardless of the treatment, diagnosis before the development of significant neurologic and functional deficits improves outcomes. Back pain is generally the earliest sign of metastatic tumor and most often is nocturnal or early morning pain. Proper use of imaging will greatly assist in screening for tumor and may help distinguish tumor from other spinal pathology. RT remains the mainstay of therapy for metastatic spinal tumor. The role of RT, surgery, and chemotherapy is still being defined. Continued advances in imaging, chemotherapy, RT, and surgery combined with increased physician awareness may continue to help improve the quality of life for these patients.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Presentation
 Imaging
 Treatment
 References
 

  1. Barron KD, Hirano A, Araki S. Experiences with metastatic neoplasms involving the spinal cord. Neurology 1959;9:91-106.
  2. Walsh GL, Gokaslan ZL, McCutcheon IE et al. Anterior approaches to the thoracic spine in patients with cancer: indications and results. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;64:1611-1618.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Gokaslan ZL, York JE et al. Transthoracic vertebrectomy for metastatic spinal tumors. J Neurosurg 1998;89:599-609.[Medline]
  4. Graham GP, Dent CM, Burgess N et al. Urinary retention in prostatic carcinoma: obstructive or neurogenic? Br J Hosp Med 1993;49:733-734.[Medline]
  5. Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y et al. When is cancer pain mild, moderate, or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain 1995;61:277-284.[Medline]
  6. Frankel HL, Hancock DO, Hyslop G et al. The value of postdural reduction in the initial management of closed injuries in the spine with paraplegia and tetraplegia. I. Comprehensive management and research. Paraplegia 1969;7:179-192.[Medline]
  7. International standards for neurological and functional classifications of spinal cord injury. American Spinal Injury Association. Chicago, IL, 1982, (Revised 1996).
  8. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Scale. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Revised March 25, 1998. http://ecog.dfci.harvard.edu
  9. Algra RR, Heimans JJ, Valk J et al. Do metastases in vertebrae begin in the body or pedicles? Imaging study in 45 patients. Am J Radiol 1992;158:1275-1279.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Gosfield E, Alavi A, Kneeland B. Comparison of radionuclide bone scans and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting spinal metastases. J Nucl Med 1993;34:2191-2198.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Avrahami E, Tadmor R, Kaplinsky N. The role of T2-weighted gradient echo in MRI demonstration of spinal multiple myeloma. Spine 1993;18:1812-1815.[Medline]
  12. Frank JA, Ling A, Patronas NJ et al. Detection of malignant bone tumors: MR imaging vs scintigraphy. Am J Radiol 1990;155:1043-1048.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Wild WO, Porter RW. Metastatic epidural tumor of the spine. Arch Surg 1962;87:825-830.
  14. Mullan J, Evans JP. Neoplastic disease of the spinal extradural space: a review of 50 cases. Arch Surg 1957;74:900-909.
  15. Ortiz O, Pait TG, McAllister P et al. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging with titanium implants of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 1996;38:741-745.[Medline]
  16. Gundry CR, Fritts HM. Magnetic resonance imaging of the musculoskeletal system: the spine. Clin Orthop 1998;346:262-278.
  17. Schiff D, O'Neill BP, Wang CH et al. Neuroimaging and treatment implications of patients with multiple epidural spinal metastases. Cancer 1998;83:1593-1601.[Medline]
  18. Moulopoulos LA, Kumar AJ, Leeds N. A second look at unenhanced spinal magnetic resonance imaging of malignant leptomeningeal disease. Clin Imaging 1997;21:252-259.[Medline]
  19. Traill Z, Richards MA, Moore NR. Magnetic resonance imaging of metastatic bone disease. Clin Orthop 1995;312:76-88.
  20. Jones KM, Schwartz RB, Mantello MT et al. Fast spin-echo MR in the detection of vertebral metastases: comparison of three sequences. Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15:401-407.[Abstract]
  21. Mehta RC, Marks MP, Hinks RS et al. MR evaluation of vertebral metastases: T1-weighted, short-inversion-time inversion recovery, fast spin-echo, and inversion-recovery fast spin-echo sequences. Am J Neuroradiol 1995;16:281-288.[Abstract]
  22. Dwyer AJ, Frank JA, Sank VJ et al. Short T1 inversion-recovery pulse sequence: analysis and initial experience in cancer imaging. Radiology 1988;168:827-836.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. An H, Vaccaro A, Dolinskas C et al. Differentiation between spinal tumors and infections with magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 1991;16(suppl 1):S334-S338.[Medline]
  24. Thajeb P, Kou-Mou H, Chin-Ming J et al. MRI appearance of spinal lesions: metastatic tumors or infections? Chin Med J 1995;108:839-843.[Medline]
  25. Moulopoulos LA, Yoshimitsu K, Johnston DA et al. MR prediction of benign and malignant vertebral compression fractures. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;6:667-674.[Medline]
  26. Brown L, Middleton G, Macvicar AD et al. Vertebral metastases: changes on treatment and correlation with response to therapy. Clin Radiol 1998;53:493-501.[Medline]
  27. Dehdashti F, Siegal BA, Griffeth LK et al. Benign versus malignant intraosseous lesions: discrimination by means of PET with 2-[F-18] Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose. Radiology 1996;200:243-247.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Byrne TN. Spinal cord compression from epidural metastases. N Engl J Med 1992;327:614-619.[Medline]
  29. Greenberg HS, Kim JH, Posner JB. Epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic tumor: results with a new treatment protocol. Ann Neurol 1980;8:362-366.
  30. Kim RY, Spencer SA, Meredith RF et al. Extradural spinal cord compression: analysis of factors determining functional prognosis. Prospective study. Radiology 1990;176:279-282.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Loblaw AD, Laperriere NJ. Emergency treatment of malignant extradural spinal cord compression: an evidence-based guideline. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1613-1624.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Sorensen S, Helweg-Larsen S, Mouridsen H et al. Effect of high-dose dexamethasone in carcinomatous metastatic spinal cord compression treated with radiotherapy: a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer 1994;1:22-27.
  33. Heimdal K, Hirschberg H, Slettebo H et al. High incidence of serious side effects of high-dose dexamethasone treatment in patients with epidural spinal cord compression. J Neurosurg 1992;12:141-144.
  34. Maranzano E, Latini P, Beneventi S et al. Radiotherapy without steroids in selected metastatic spinal cord compression patients. Am J Clin Oncol 1996;19:179-183.[Medline]
  35. Posner JB, Howieson J, Cvitkovic E. "Disappearing" spinal cord compression: oncolytic effect of glucocorticoids (and other chemotherapeutic agents) on epidural metastases. Ann Neurol 1977;2:409-413.[Medline]
  36. Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Lipton A et al. Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocal 19 aredia breast cancer study group. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2038-2044.[Abstract]
  37. Berenson JR, Lichtenstein A, Porter L et al. Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal events in patients with advanced multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 1996;334:488-493.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Coukell AJ, Markham A. Pamidronate. A review of its use in the management of osteolytic bone metastases, tumour-induced hypercalcaemia and Paget's disease of the bone. Drugs Aging 1998;12:149-168.[Medline]
  39. Grubb MR, Currier BL, Pritchard DJ et al. Primary Ewing's sarcoma of the spine. Spine 1994;19:309-313.[Medline]
  40. Cobb CA, Leavens ME, Eckles N. Indications for nonoperative treatment of spinal cord compression due to breast cancer. J Neurosurg 1977;47:653-658.[Medline]
  41. Constans JP, DeDivitiis E, Donzelli R et al. Spinal metastases with neurological manifestations: review of 600 cases. J Neurosurg 1983;59:111-118.[Medline]
  42. Dunn Jr RC, Kelly WA, Wohns RNW et al. Spinal epidural neoplasia. A 15-year review of the results of surgical therapy. J Neurosurg 1980;52:47-51.[Medline]
  43. Friedman M, Kim TH, Panahon AM. Spinal cord compression in malignant lymphoma: treatment and results. Cancer 1976;37:1485-1491.[Medline]
  44. Gilbert RW, Kim JH, Posner JB. Epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic tumor: diagnosis and treatment. Ann Neurol 1978;3:40-51.[Medline]
  45. Hall A, Mackay N. The results of laminectomy for compression of the cord or cauda equina by extradural malignant tumour. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1973;55:497-505.
  46. Khan F, Glicksman A, Chu F et al. Treatment by radiotherapy of spinal cord compression due to extradural metastases. Radiology 1967;89:495-500.[Medline]
  47. Kleinman WB, Kiernan HA, Michelsen WJ. Metastatic cancer of the spinal column. Clin Orthop 1978;136:166-172.
  48. Livingston KE, Perrin RG. The neurosurgical management of spinal metastases causing cord and cauda equina compression. J Neurosurg 1978;49:839-843.[Medline]
  49. Marshall LF, Langfitt TW. Combined therapy for metastatic extradural tumors of the spine. Cancer 1977;40:2067-2070.[Medline]
  50. Nicholls PJ, Jarecky TW. The value of posterior decompression by laminectomy for malignant tumors of the spine. Clin Orthop 1985;201:210-212.
  51. Brice J, McKissock W. Surgical treatment of malignant extradural spinal tumours. Br Med J 1965;1:1341-1344.
  52. Smith R. An evaluation of surgical treatment for spinal cord compression due to metastatic carcinoma. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1965;28:152-158.
  53. Vieth R, Odom G. Extradural spinal metastases and their neurosurgical treatment. J Neurosurg 1965;23:501-508.[Medline]
  54. White W, Patterson R, Bergland R. The role of surgery in the treatment of spinal cord compression by metastatic neoplasm. Cancer 1971;27:558-561.[Medline]
  55. Wright R. Malignant tumours of the spinal extradural space: results of surgical treatment. Ann Surg 1963;157:227-231.
  56. Young RF, Post EM, King GA. Treatment of spinal epidural metastases. J Neurosurg 1980;53:741-748.[Medline]
  57. Findlay GFG. Adverse effects of the management of malignant spinal cord compression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1984;47:761-768.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Maranzano E, Latini P. Effectiveness of radiation therapy without surgery in metastatic spinal cord compression: final results from a prospective trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;32:959-967.[Medline]
  59. Schiff D, Shaw EG, Cascino TL. Outcome after spinal reirradiation for malignant epidural spinal cord compression. Ann Neurol 1995;37:583-589.[Medline]
  60. Seichi A, Kondoh T, Hozumi T et al. Intraoperative radiation therapy for metastatic spinal tumors. Spine 1999;24:470-473.[Medline]
  61. Hamilton AJ, Lulu B, Stea B et al. The use of gold foil wrapping for radiation protection of the spinal cord for recurrent tumor therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;32:507-511.[Medline]
  62. Cooper P, Errico T, Martin R et al. A systematic approach to spinal reconstruction after anterior decompression for neoplastic disease of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 1993;32:1-8.[Medline]
  63. DeWald RL, Bridwell KH, Chadwick P et al. Reconstructive spinal surgery as palliation for metastatic malignancies of the spine. Spine 1985;10:21-26.[Medline]
  64. Hosono N, Yonenobu K, Fuji T et al. Vertebral body replacement with ceramic prosthesis for metastatic spinal tumors. Spine 1995;20:2454-2462.[Medline]
  65. Harrington K. The use of methylmethacrylate for vertebral body replacement and anterior stabilization of pathological fracture-dislocations of the spine due to metastatic malignant disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981;63:36-46.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  66. Harrington K. Anterior cord decompression and spinal stabilization for patients with metastatic lesions of the spine. J Neurosurg 1984;61:107-117.[Medline]
  67. Harrington K. Anterior decompression and stabilization of the spine as a treatment for vertebral body collapse and spinal cord compression for metastatic malignancy. Clin Orthop 1988;233:177-197.
  68. Klekamp J, Samii H. Surgical results for spinal metastases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1998;140:957-967.[Medline]
  69. Kostuik JP. Anterior spinal cord decompression for lesions of the thoracic and lumbar spine, techniques, new methods of internal fixation results. Spine 1983;8:512-531.[Medline]
  70. Perrin RG, McBroom RJ. Anterior versus posterior decompression for symptomatic spinal metastasis. Can J Neurol Sci 1987;14:75-80.[Medline]
  71. Perrin RG, McBroom RJ. Spinal fixation after anterior decompression for symptomatic spinal metastasis. Neurosurgery 1998;22:324-327.
  72. Siegal T, Siegal T. Surgical decompression of anterior and posterior malignant epidural tumors compressing the spinal cord: a prospective study. Neurosurgery 1985;17:424-432.[Medline]
  73. Sundaresan N, Digiacinto GV, Hughes JE et al. Treatment of neoplastic spinal cord compression: results of a prospective study. Neurosurgery 1991;29:645-650.[Medline]
  74. Sundaresan N, Choi IS, Hughes JE et al. Treatment of spinal metastases from kidney cancer by presurgical embolization and resection. J Neurosurg 1990;73:548-554.[Medline]
  75. Sundaresan N, DiGiacinto G, Krol G et al. Spondylectomy for malignant tumors of the spine. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1485-1491.[Abstract]
  76. Akeyson E, McCutcheon IE. Single-stage posterior vertebrectomy and replacement combined with posterior instrumentation for spinal metastasis. J Neurosurg 1996;85:211-220.[Medline]
  77. Bauer HCF, Wedin R. Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases: prognostication of 241 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1995;66:143-146.[Medline]
  78. Bridwell K, Jenny A, Saul T et al. Posterior segmental spinal instrumentation (PSSI) with posterolateral decompression and debulking for metastatic thoracic and lumbar spine disease: limitations and technique. Spine 1998;13:1383-1394.
  79. Cahill DW, Kumar R. Palliative subtotal vertebrectomy with anterior and posterior reconstruction via a single posterior approach. J Neurosurg 1999;90:42-47.
  80. Sundaresan N, Steinberger AA, Moore F et al. Indications and results of combined anterior-posterior approaches for spine tumor surgery. J Neurosurg 1996;85:438-446.[Medline]
  81. Magerl F, Coscia M. Total posterior vertebrectomy of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 1988;232:62-69.
  82. Nazzaro JM, Arbit E, Burt M. "Trap door" exposure of the cervicothoracic junction. Technical notes. J Neurosurg 1994;80:338-341.[Medline]
  83. Olerud C, Jonsson H, Lofberg AM et al. Embolization of spinal metastases reduces perioperative blood loss: 21 patients operated on for renal cell carcinoma. Acta Orthop Scand 1993;64:9-12.[Medline]
  84. Sundaresan N, Galicich JH, Bains MS et al. Vertebral body resection in the treatment of cancer involving the spine. Cancer 1984;53:1393-1396.[Medline]
  85. Tomita K, Kawahara N et al. Total en bloc spondylectomy for solitary spinal metastasis. Int Orthop 1994;18:291-298.[Medline]
  86. Boriani S, Biagini R, De Iure F et al. Resection surgery in the treatment of vertebral tumors. Chir Organi Mov 1998;83:53-64.[Medline]
  87. Fidler MW. Radical resection of vertebral body tumours. A surgical technique used in ten cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994;76:765-772.
  88. Heary R, Vaccaro A, Benevenia J et al. "En bloc" vertebrectomy in the mobile lumbar spine. Surg Neurol 1998;50:548-556.[Medline]
  89. Dickman CA, Rosenthal D, Karahalios DG et al. Thoracic vertebrectomy and reconstruction using a microsurgical thoracoscopic approach. Neurosurgery 1996;38:279-293.[Medline]
  90. Rosenthal D, Marquardt G, Lorenz R et al. Anterior decompression and stabilization using a microsurgical endoscopic technique for metastatic tumors of the thoracic spine. J Neurosurg 1996;84:565-572.[Medline]
accepted for publication October 31, 1999.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ptjournalHome page
M. R Troyer
Differential Diagnosis of Endometriosis in a Young Adult Woman With Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Physical Therapy, June 1, 2007; 87(6): 801 - 810.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. D. O'Connor, J. Yao, and R. M. Summers
Lytic Metastases in Thoracolumbar Spine: Computer-aided Detection at CT--Preliminary Study
Radiology, March 1, 2007; 242(3): 811 - 816.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Neuro OncologyHome page
P. Klimo Jr., C. J. Thompson, J. R.W. Kestle, and M. H. Schmidt
A meta-analysis of surgery versus conventional radiotherapy for thetreatment of metastatic spinal epidural disease
Neuro Oncology, January 1, 2005; 7(1): 64 - 76.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The OncologistHome page
P. Klimo Jr. and M. H. Schmidt
Surgical Management of Spinal Metastases
Oncologist, April 1, 2004; 9(2): 188 - 196.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNMHome page
U. Metser, H. Lerman, A. Blank, G. Lievshitz, F. Bokstein, and E. Even-Sapir
Malignant Involvement of the Spine: Assessment by 18F-FDG PET/CT
J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2004; 45(2): 279 - 284.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow eLetters: Submit a response to this article
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bilsky, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Boland, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bilsky, M. H.
Right arrow Articles by Boland, P.

HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE ONCOLOGIST STEM CELLS CME ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS