Prognostic Factors for Survival in Surgical Series of Symptomatic Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression: A Prospective North American Multi-Centre Study in 142 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Symptomatic Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression (MESCC) afflicts up to 10% of all cancer patients and is associated with shortened survival and worsened quality of life. This study aims to identify the key survival prognostic factors in MESCC patients who were surgically treated for a single symptomatic lesion. Material and Methods 142 MESCC patients were enrolled in a prospective North American multi-center study and followed postoperatively for 12 months. Using univariate analyses, Kaplan-Meier methods, and log-rank tests the prognostic value of various clinical predictors were assessed. Non-collinear predictors with p < 0.05 in univariate analyses were included in the final Cox proportional hazards model. Results The overall median survival was 7.7 months (range: 3 days – 35.6 months); breast cancer had the longest median survival (12.1 months). Ten patients (7%), whose primary cancer were lung (3), kidney (3), sarcoma (2), prostate (1), and breast (1), died within 30-days postoperatively and 88 had died at 12 months (62%). Univariate analyses yielded eight significant predictors for survival: the growth of primary tumor (Tomita Grade 1 vs Grade 2 and 3), BMI, gender, preoperative SF-36 physical component, EQ-5D, and ODI scores as well as the presence of either visceral or extraspinal bony metastasis. The multiple regression analysis revealed that the Tomita grade (Grade 1 vs Grade 2 and 3; HR: 2.81, p = 0.007), the absence of visceral metastasis (HR: 2.01; p = 0.0044), and higher score on SF-36 physical component (HR: 0.95, p < 0.0001) were independent predictors for longer survival regardless of the selection method used (backward, forward, or stepwise). Conclusion Slow growing tumor (Tomita Grade 1), absence of visceral metastasis, and lower degree of preoperative physical disability, as reflected by a higher score on the SF-36 physical component questionnaire, are good prognostic factors for survival in selected patients who underwent surgical treatment for a focal symptomatic MESCC lesion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".