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.

Adipose tissue density on CT as a prognostic factor in patients with cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Predicting oncologic outcomes is essential for optimizing the treatment for patients with cancer. This review examines the feasibility of using Computed Tomography (CT) images of fat density as a prognostic factor in patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane up to March 2020. All studies that mentioned using subcutaneous or visceral adipose tissue (SAT and VAT, respectively) CT characteristics as a prognostic factor for patients with cancer were included. The primary endpoints were any disease-related outcomes in patients with cancer. RESULTS: After screening 1043 studies, ten studies reporting a total of 23 - ten for SAT and thirteen for VAT - comparisons on survival, tumor recurrence and postsurgical infection were included. All ten studies included different types of malignancy: six localized, two metastatic disease, and two both. Five different anatomic landmarks were used to uniformly measure fat density on CT: lumbar (L)4 (n = 4), L3 (n = 2), L4-L5 intervertebral space (n = 2), L5-S1 intervertebral space (n = 1), and the abdomen (n = 1). Overall, six of ten SAT comparisons (60%) and six of thirteen VAT comparisons (46%) reported a significant (p < .05) association of increased SAT or VAT density with an adverse outcome. All remaining nonsignificant comparisons, except one, deviated in the same direction of being predictive for adverse outcomes but failed to reach significance. The median hazard ratio (HR) for the nine SAT and thirteen VAT associations where HRs were given were 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.97) and 1.90 (95% CI 1.12-2.74), respectively. The binomial sign test and Fisher's method both reported a significant association between both SAT and VAT and adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: This review may support the feasibility of using SAT or VAT on CT as a prognostic tool for patients with cancer in predicting adverse outcomes such as survival and tumor recurrence. Future research should standardize radiologic protocol in prospective homogeneous series of patients on each cancer diagnosis group in order to establish accurate parameters to help physicians use CT scan defined characteristics in clinical practice.