Systematic Review of Surgical Treatment Outcomes of Prostate Metastases to the Spine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Treatment of symptomatic spinal metastases through surgical decompression and reconstruction is known to improve quality of life in patients with cancer. However, most studies have been performed on patients with mixed tumor histopathology. We systematically review the literature for prognostic factors specific to the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine to determine the indications and outcomes of the surgical treatment. Material and Methods A systemic review of the literature was conducted to answer the following questions: Q1. Describe the survival and functional outcomes of surgery or vertebral augmentation for prostate metastases to the spine; Q2. Determine whether overall tumor burden, Gleason score, preoperative functional markers, and favorable hormonal naivety for operative intervention; Q3. Establish whether clinical outcomes vary with the evolution of operative techniques. Expert consensus was obtained using a modified Delphi process. Results A total of 16 studies met the preset inclusion criteria. These studies were all retrospective series with a level of evidence of IV. Included studies consistently showed a large effect of hormone naivety on overall survival. In addition, studies consistently demonstrated an improvement in motor function and the ability to maintain/regain ambulation following surgery resulting in moderate strength of recommendation. All other parameters were of insufficient or low strength. Conclusion There is scant literature on the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine, which represents an opportunity for future research. On the basis of the existing evidence, it appears that the surgical treatment of prostate metastases to the spine has consistently favorable results. While no consistent preoperative indicators favor nonoperative treatment, hormone naivety and high Karnofsky Performance Scores have positive effects on survival and clinical outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".