Neurologic Outcomes After Radiation Therapy for Severe Spinal Cord Compression in Multiple Myeloma: A Study of 162 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Bone destruction is the most frequent disease-defining clinical feature of multiple myeloma (MM), resulting in skeletal-related events such as back pain, pathological fractures, or neurologic compromise including epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC). Up to 24% of patients with MM will be affected by ESCC. Radiation therapy has been proven to be highly effective in pain relief in patients with MM. However, a critical knowledge gap remains with regard to neurologic outcomes in patients with high-grade ESCC treated with radiation. METHODS: We retrospectively included 162 patients with MM and high-grade ESCC (grade 2 or 3) who underwent radiation therapy of the spine between January 2010 and July 2021. The primary outcome was the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) score after 12 to 24 months, or the last known ASIA score if the patient had had a repeat treatment or died. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with poor neurologic outcomes after radiation, defined as neurologic deterioration or lack of improvement. RESULTS: After radiation therapy, 34 patients (21%) had no improvement in their impaired neurologic function and 27 (17%) deteriorated neurologically. Thirty-six patients (22%) underwent either surgery or repeat irradiation after the initial radiation therapy. There were 100 patients who were neurologically intact at baseline (ASIA score of E), of whom 16 (16%) had neurologic deterioration. Four variables were independently associated with poor neurologic outcomes: baseline ASIA (odds ratio [OR] = 6.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.70 to 17.38; p < 0.001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (OR = 6.19; 95% CI = 1.49 to 29.49; p = 0.015), number of levels affected by ESCC (OR = 4.02; 95% CI = 1.19 to 14.18; p = 0.026), and receiving steroids prior to radiation (OR = 4.42; 95% CI = 1.41 to 16.10; p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that 38% of patients deteriorated or did not improve neurologically after radiation therapy for high-grade ESCC. The results highlight the need for multidisciplinary input and efforts in the treatment of high-grade ESCC in patients with MM. Future studies will help to improve patient selection for specific and standardized treatments and to clearly delineate which patients are likely to benefit from radiation therapy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prospective study for establishing minimal clinically important differences in patients with surgery for lower extremity metastases.

BACKGROUND: The clinical relevance of patient-reported outcomes score changes is often unclear. Especially in patients undergoing surgery due to lower extremity metastases - where surgery is performed in the palliative setting and the goal is to optimize functional mobility, relieve pain and improve overall quality of life. This study assessed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference, Cancer-specific Physical Function, and Global (Physical and Mental Health) in patients treated surgically for impending or completed pathologic fractures. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for osseous metastasis of the lower extremity because of an impending or completed pathologic fracture were consecutively enrolled in this tertiary center study. Patients completed the three PROMIS questionnaires preoperatively (n = 56) and at postoperative follow-up (n = 33) assessment one to three months later. Of the 23 patients that did not complete the postoperative survey, 5 patients died within 1-3 months and 18 patients were alive at 3-months but did not respond or show up at their postoperative consult. Thirty-one patients (94%) of the 33 included patients reported at least minimal improvement and two patients (6.1%) no change 1-3 months after the surgery based on an anchor-based approach. RESULTS: The PROMIS MCIDs (95% confidence interval) for Pain Interference was 7.5 (3.4-12), Physical Function 4.1 (0.6-7.6), Global Physical Health 4.2 (2.0-6.6), and Global Mental Health 0.8 (-4.5-2.9). CONCLUSION: This prospective study successfully defined a MCID for PROMIS Pain Interference of 7.5 (3.4-12), PROMIS Physical Function of 4.1 (0.6-7.6), and Global Physical Health of 4.2 (2.0-6.6) in patients with (impending) pathological fractures due to osseous metastases in the lower extremity; no MCID could be established for PROMIS Global Mental Health. Defining a narrower MCID value for each subpopulation requires a large, prospective, multicenter study. Nevertheless, the provided MCID values allow guidance to clinicians to evaluate the impact of surgical treatment on a patient's QoL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II Diagnostic study.