Clinical presentation, management and outcomes of sacral metastases: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sacral metastases are rare and literature regarding their management is sparse. This multicenter, prospective, observational study aimed to determine health related-quality of life (HRQOL) and pain in patients treated for sacral metastases with surgery and/or radiation therapy (RT). The secondary objectives were to describe the adverse event (AE) profile and change in neurologic function in this population. METHODS: Twenty-three patients presenting with symptomatic sacral metastases were identified from the Epidemiology, Process and Outcomes of Spine Oncology (EPOSO) dataset, a prospective multicenter study on spinal metastases. Patients requiring surgery and/or RT between August 2013 and February 2017 were prospectively enrolled. HRQOL, assessed by the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQv2.0), the Short Form-36 version 2 (SF-36v2), and the EuroQol-5Dimension (EQ-5D) was documented at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months post-treatment. Pain numeric rating scale (NRS), AEs, lower extremities motor score (ASIA), and bowel and bladder function were also recorded. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent surgery ± RT and 15 patients underwent RT alone. Mean age was 59.3 (SD 11.7) years and 13 patients were female. At 6 months, 3 (37.5%) surgical patients and 2 (13.3%) RT patients were deceased. There was a trend showing that surgical patients had worse baseline HRQOL and pain. Pain NRS, EQ-5D, SOSGOQv2.0, and the mental component of the SF-36v2 showed improvement, irrespective of treatment (P>0.05). Ten AEs occurred in the surgical cohort, dominated by wound complications (n=3). Bowel and bladder function improved at 6 weeks in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment and RT are both valid treatment options for symptomatic sacral metastases. Improvement in HRQOL can be expected with an acceptable AE rate.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".