Rapid improvements in pain and quality of life are sustained after surgery for spinal metastases in a large prospective cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Metastatic spinal cancer is a common condition that may lead to spinal instability, pain and paralysis. In the 1980s, surgery was discouraged because results showed worse neurological outcomes and pain compared with radiotherapy alone. However, with the advent of modern imaging and spinal stabilisation techniques, the role of surgery has regained centre stage, though few studies have assessed quality of life and functional outcomes after surgery. Objective We investigated whether surgery provides sustained improvement in quality of life and pain relief for patients with symptomatic spinal metastases by analysing the largest reported surgical series of patients with epidural spinal metastases. Methods A prospective cohort study of 922 consecutive patients with spinal metastases who underwent surgery, from the Global Spine Tumour Study Group database. Pre- and post-operative EQ-5D quality of life, visual analogue pain score, Karnofsky physical functioning score, complication rates and survival were recorded. Results Quality of life (EQ-5D), VAS pain score and Karnofsky physical functioning score improved rapidly after surgery and these improvements were sustained in those patients who survived up to 2 years after surgery. In specialised spine centres, the technical intra-operative complication rate of surgery was low, however almost a quarter of patients experienced post-operative systemic adverse events. Conclusion Surgical treatment for spinal metastases produces rapid pain relief, maintains ambulation and improves good quality of life. However, as a group, patients with cancer are vulnerable to post-operative systemic complications, hence the importance of appropriate patient selection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".