4.5 Article

Clinical outcomes and survivals after total en bloc spondylectomy for metastatic leiomyosarcoma in the spine

期刊

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 3237-3244

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-020-06461-0

关键词

Clinical outcome; Leiomyosarcoma; Spinal metastasis; Survival; Total en bloc spondylectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) is generally resistant to radiation and chemotherapy. Our study aimed to examine the outcomes of total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal metastatic LMS and to analyze potential factors associated with survival. Methods This study included 10 consecutive patients who underwent TES for spinal metastatic LMS at our institute between 2005 and 2016 and were followed up at a minimum of 3 years after surgery. At the time of TES, all the 10 patients had solitary bone metastases in the spine. Seven patients had a lowered performance status (PS) with an eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) grade of 2 or 3 due to back pain or neurological symptoms. The cancer-specific survival (CSS) time from TES to death or last follow-up was the main endpoint. Potential factors associated with survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test. Results Five patients underwent a single vertebral resection, and the other five patients underwent two or three consecutive vertebral resections. Three patients developed perioperative complications including pulmonary thromboembolism and pneumothorax. Nine patients improved or fairly maintained their PS with an ECOG grade of 1. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year CSS rates after TES were 90%, 70%, and 47%, respectively. Only postoperative disability (ECOG PS grade 3) was significantly associated with short-term survival after TES. Conclusions The clinical outcomes of 10 patients who underwent TES for spinal metastatic LMS were favorable without severe complications. Postoperative disability was significantly associated with short-term survival after TES.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据