Systematic review and modified Delphi technique. To use an evidence-based medicine process using the best available literature and expert opinion consensus to develop a comprehensive classification system to diagnose neoplastic spinal instability. Spinal instability is poorly defined in the literature and presently there is a lack of guidelines available to aid in defining the degree of spinal instability in the setting of neoplastic spinal disease. The concept of spinal instability remains important in the clinical decision-making process for patients with spine tumors. We have integrated the evidence provided by systematic reviews through a modified Delphi technique to generate a consensus of best evidence and expert opinion to develop a classification system to define neoplastic spinal instability. A comprehensive classification system based on patient symptoms and radiographic criteria of the spine was developed to aid in predicting spine stability of neoplastic lesions. The classification system includes global spinal location of the tumor, type and presence of pain, bone lesion quality, spinal alignment, extent of vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral spinal element involvement. Qualitative scores were assigned based on relative importance of particular factors gleaned from the literature and refined by expert consensus. The Spine Instability Neoplastic Score is a comprehensive classification system with content validity that can guide clinicians in identifying when patients with neoplastic disease of the spine may benefit from surgical consultation. It can also aid surgeons in assessing the key components of spinal instability due to neoplasia and may become a prognostic tool for surgical decision-making when put in context with other key elements such as neurologic symptoms, extent of disease, prognosis, patient health factors, oncologic subtype, and radiosensitivity of the tumor.

Background. Spinal metastases frequently arise in patients with cancer. Modern oncology provides numerous treatment options that include effective systemic, radiation, and surgical options. We delineate and provide the evidence for the neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) decision framework, which is used at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center to determine the optimal therapy for patients with spine metastases. Methods. We provide a literature review of the integral publications that serve as the basis for the NOMS framework and report the results of systematic implementation of the NOMS-guided treatment. Results. The NOMS decision framework consists of the neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic considerations and incorporates the use of conventional external beam radiation, spinal stereotactic radiosurgery, and minimally invasive and open surgical interventions. Review of radiation oncology and surgical literature that examine the outcomes of treatment of spinal metastatic tumors provides support for the NOMS decision framework. Application of the NOMS paradigm integrates multimodality therapy to optimize local tumor control, pain relief, and restoration or preservation of neurologic function and minimizes morbidity in this often systemically ill patient population. Conclusion. NOMS paradigm provides a decision framework that incorporates sentinel decision points in the treatment of spinal metastases. Consideration of the tumor sensitivity to radiation in conjunction with the extent of epidural extension allows determination of the optimal radiation treatment and the need for surgical decompression. Mechanical stability of the spine and the systemic disease considerations further help determine the need and the feasibility of surgical intervention.

Objective: The evolution of imaging techniques, along with highly effective radiation options has changed the way metastatic epidural tumors are treated. While high-grade epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) frequently serves as an indication for surgical decompression, no consensus exists in the literature about the precise definition of this term. The advancement of the treatment paradigms in patients with metastatic tumors for the spine requires a clear grading scheme of ESCC. The degree of ESCC often serves as a major determinant in the decision to operate or irradiate. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of a 6-point, MR imaging–based grading system for ESCC.Methods: To determine the reliability of the grading scale, a survey was distributed to 7 spine surgeons who participate in the Spine Oncology Study Group. The MR images of 25 cervical or thoracic spinal tumors were distributed consisting of 1 sagittal image and 3 axial images at the identical level including T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and Gd-enhanced T1-weighted images. The survey was administered 3 times at 2-week intervals. The inter- and intrarater reliability was assessed.Results: The inter- and intrarater reliability ranged from good to excellent when surgeons were asked to rate the degree of spinal cord compression using T2-weighted axial images. The T2-weighted images were superior indicators of ESCC compared with T1-weighted images with and without Gd.Conclusions: The ESCC scale provides a valid and reliable instrument that may be used to describe the degree of ESCC based on T2-weighted MR images. This scale accounts for recent advances in the treatment of spinal metastases and may be used to provide an ESCC classification scheme for multicenter clinical trial and outcome studies.

Purpose: Standardized indications for treatment of tumor-related spinal instability are hampered by the lack of a valid and reliable classification system. The objective of this study was to determine the interobserver reliability, intraobserver reliability, and predictive validity of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS). Methods: Clinical and radiographic data from 30 patients with spinal tumors were classified as stable, potentially unstable, and unstable by members of the Spine Oncology Study Group. The median category for each patient case (consensus opinion) was used as the gold standard for predictive validity testing. On two occasions at least 6 weeks apart, each rater also scored each patient using SINS. Each total score was converted into a three-category data field, with 0 to 6 as stable, 7 to 12 as potentially unstable, and 13 to 18 as unstable. Results: The κ statistics for interobserver reliability were 0.790, 0.841, 0.244, 0.456, 0.462, and 0.492 for the fields of location, pain, bone quality, alignment, vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral involvement, respectively. The κ statistics for intraobserver reliability were 0.806, 0.859, 0.528, 0.614, 0.590, and 0.662 for the same respective fields. Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter- and intraobserver reliability of total SINS score were 0.846 (95% CI, 0.773 to 0.911) and 0.886 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.902), respectively. The κ statistic for predictive validity was 0.712 (95% CI, 0.676 to 0.766). Conclusion: SINS demonstrated near-perfect inter- and intraobserver reliability in determining three clinically relevant categories of stability. The sensitivity and specificity of SINS for potentially unstable or unstable lesions were 95.7% and 79.5%, respectively.

Object: Decompression surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy is an effective therapy for preservation or recovery of neurological function and achieving durable local disease control in patients suffering from metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC). The authors examine the outcomes of postoperative image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy delivered as single-fraction or hypofractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for achieving long-term local tumor control. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified 186 patients with ESCC from spinal metastases who were treated with surgical decompression, instrumentation, and postoperative radiation delivered as either single-fraction SRS (24 Gy) in 40 patients (21.5%), high-dose hypofractionated SRS (24–30 Gy in 3 fractions) in 37 patients (19.9%), or low-dose hypofractionated SRS (18–36 Gy in 5 or 6 fractions) in 109 patients (58.6%). The relationships between postoperative adjuvant SRS dosing and fractionation, patient characteristics, tumor histology–specific radiosensitivity, grade of ESCC, extent of surgical decompression, response to preoperative radiotherapy, and local tumor control were evaluated by competing risks analysis. Results: The total cumulative incidence of local progression was 16.4% 1 year after SRS. Multivariate Gray competing risks analysis revealed a significant improvement in local control with high-dose hypofractionated SRS (4.1% cumulative incidence of local progression at 1 year, HR 0.12, p = 0.04) as compared with low-dose hypofractionated SRS (22.6% local progression at 1 year, HR 1). Although univariate analysis demonstrated a trend toward greater risk of local progression for patients in whom preoperative conventional external beam radiation therapy failed (22.2% local progression at 1 year, HR 1.96, p = 0.07) compared with patients who did not receive any preoperative radiotherapy (11.2% local progression at 1 year, HR 1), this association was not confirmed with multivariate analysis. No other variable significantly correlated with progression-free survival, including radiation sensitivity of tumor histology, grade of ESCC, extent of surgical decompression, or patient sex. Conclusions: Postoperative adjuvant SRS following epidural spinal cord decompression and instrumentation is a safe and effective strategy for establishing durable local tumor control regardless of tumor histology–specific radiosensitivity. Patients who received high-dose hypofractionated SRS demonstrated 1-year local progression rates of less than 5% (95% CI 0%–12.2%), which were superior to the results of low-dose hypofractionated SRS. The local progression rate after single-fraction SRS was less than 10% (95% CI 0%–19.0%).