Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.
Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided.
(1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS?
Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.
Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS.
Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments.
Level III, diagnostic study.
Lee CC
，Chen CW
，Yen HK
，Lin YP
，Lai CY
，Wang JL
，Groot OQ
，Janssen SJ
，Schwab JH
，Hsu FM
，Lin WH
... -
《-》
Most Fractures Treated Nonoperatively in Individuals With Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Heal With a Paucity of Flareups, Heterotopic Ossification, and Loss of Mobility.
Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) is an ultrarare genetic disorder with episodic and progressive heterotopic ossification. Tissue trauma is a major risk factor for flareups, heterotopic ossification (HO), and loss of mobility in patients with FOP. The International Clinical Council on FOP generally recommends avoiding surgery in patients with FOP unless the situation is life-threatening, because soft tissue injury can trigger an FOP flareup. Surprisingly little is known about flareups, HO formation, and loss of mobility after fractures of the normotopic (occurring in the normal place, distinct from heterotopic) skeleton when treated nonoperatively in patients with FOP.
(1) What proportion of fractures had radiographic evidence of union (defined as radiographic evidence of healing at 6 weeks) or nonunion (defined as the radiographic absence of a bridging callus at 3 years after the fracture)? (2) What proportion of patients had clinical symptoms of an FOP flareup because of the fracture (defined by increased pain or swelling at the fracture site within several days after closed immobilization)? (3) What proportion of patients with fractures had radiographic evidence of HO? (4) What proportion of patients lost movement after a fracture?
We retrospectively identified 36 patients with FOP from five continents who sustained 48 fractures of the normotopic skeleton from January 2001 to February 2021, who were treated nonoperatively, and who were followed for a minimum of 18 months after the fracture and for as long as 20 years, depending on when they sustained their fracture during the study period. Five patients (seven fractures) were excluded from the analysis to minimize cotreatment bias because these patients were enrolled in palovarotene clinical trials (NCT02190747 and NCT03312634) at the time of their fractures. Thus, we analyzed 31 patients (13 male, 18 female, median age 22 years, range 5 to 57 years) who sustained 41 fractures of the normotopic skeleton that were treated nonoperatively. Patients were analyzed at a median follow-up of 6 years (range 18 months to 20 years), and none was lost to follow-up. Clinical records for each patient were reviewed by the referring physician-author and the following data for each fracture were recorded: biological sex, ACVR1 gene pathogenic variant, age at the time of fracture, fracture mechanism, fracture location, initial treatment modality, prednisone use at the time of the fracture as indicated in the FOP Treatment Guidelines for flare prevention (2 mg/kg once daily for 4 days), patient-reported flareups (episodic inflammatory lesions of muscle and deep soft connective tissue characterized variably by swelling, escalating pain, stiffness, and immobility) after the fracture, follow-up radiographs of the fracture if available, HO formation (yes or no) as a result of the fracture determined at a minimum of 6 weeks after the fracture, and patient-reported loss of motion at least 6 months after and as long as 20 years after the fracture. Postfracture radiographs were available in 76% (31 of 41) of fractures in 25 patients and were independently reviewed by the referring physician-author and senior author for radiographic criteria of fracture healing and HO.
Radiographic healing was noted in 97% (30 of 31) of fractures at 6 weeks after the incident fracture. Painless nonunion was noted in one patient who sustained a displaced patellar fracture and HO. In seven percent (three of 41) of fractures, patients reported increased pain or swelling at or near the fracture site within several days after fracture immobilization that likely indicated a site-specific FOP flareup. The same three patients reported a residual loss of motion 1 year after the fracture compared with their prefracture status. HO developed in 10% (three of 31) of the fractures for which follow-up radiographs were available. Patient-reported loss of motion occurred in 10% (four of 41) of fractures. Two of the four patients reported noticeable loss of motion and the other two patients reported that the joint was completely immobile (ankylosis).
Most fractures treated nonoperatively in individuals with FOP healed with few flareups, little or no HO, and preservation of mobility, suggesting an uncoupling of fracture repair and HO, which are two inflammation-induced processes of endochondral ossification. These findings underscore the importance of considering nonoperative treatment for fractures in individuals with FOP. Physicians who treat fractures in patients with FOP should consult with a member of the International Clinical Council listed in the FOP Treatment Guidelines ( https://www.iccfop.org ).
Level IV, therapeutic study.
Lindborg CM
，Al Mukaddam M
，Baujat G
，Cho TJ
，De Cunto CL
，Delai PLR
，Eekhoff EMW
，Haga N
，Hsiao EC
，Morhart R
，de Ruiter R
，Scott C
，Seemann P
，Szczepanek M
，Tabarkiewicz J
，Pignolo RJ
，Kaplan FS
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
