Reliability of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) among radiation oncologists: an assessment of instability secondary to spinal metastases

Charles G Fisher, Rowan Schouten, Anne L Versteeg, Stefano Boriani, Peter Pal Varga, Laurence D Rhines, Norio Kawahara, Daryl Fourney, Lorna Weir, Jeremy J Reynolds, Arjun Sahgal, Michael G Fehlings, Ziya L Gokaslan, Charles G Fisher, Rowan Schouten, Anne L Versteeg, Stefano Boriani, Peter Pal Varga, Laurence D Rhines, Norio Kawahara, Daryl Fourney, Lorna Weir, Jeremy J Reynolds, Arjun Sahgal, Michael G Fehlings, Ziya L Gokaslan

Abstract

Background: The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) categorizes tumor related spinal instability. It has the potential to streamline the referral of patients with established or potential spinal instability to a spine surgeon. This study aims to define the inter- and intra-observer reliability and validity of SINS among radiation oncologists.

Methods: Thirty-three radiation oncologists, across ten international sites, rated 30 neoplastic spinal disease cases. For each case, the total SINS (0-18 points), three clinical categories (stable: 0-6 points, potentially unstable: 7-12 points, and unstable: 13-18 points), and a binary scale ('stable': 0-6 points and 'current or possible instability'; surgical consultation recommended: 7-18 points) were recorded. Evaluation was repeated 6-8 weeks later. Inter-observer agreement and intra-observer reproducibility were calculated by means of the kappa statistic and translated into levels of agreement (slight, fair, moderate, substantial, and excellent). Validity was determined by comparing the ratings against a spinal surgeon's consensus standard.

Results: Radiation oncologists demonstrated substantial (κ=0.76) inter-observer and excellent (κ=0.80) intra-observer reliability when using the SINS binary scale ('stable' versus 'current or possible instability'). Validity of the binary scale was also excellent (κ=0.85) compared with the gold standard. None of the unstable cases was rated as stable by the radiation oncologists ensuring all were appropriately recommended for surgical consultation.

Conclusions: Among radiation oncologists SINS is a highly reliable, reproducible, and valid assessment tool to address a key question in tumor related spinal disease: Is the spine 'stable' or is there 'current or possible instability' that warrants surgical assessment?

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A 67-year-old man with known metastatic small cell lung cancer presents with interscapular back pain that is exacerbated by movement and relieved with rest. Computed Tomography (CT) (A: left parasagittal, B: midline parasagittal, C: right parasagittal, D: coronal, and E: axial) and Magnectic Resonance (MR) images (F: sagittal, T2-weighted) outline the key details of this T5 lesion. Total SINS score = Semirigid (T5) spine, 1 point; ‘Mechanical’ pain (yes), 3 points; Lytic lesion, 2 points; De novo kyphotic deformity without subluxation/translation, 2 points; >50% vertebral body collapse, 3 points; and bilateral posterolateral spinal element involvement, 3 points. Total SINS score = 1 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 3 + 3 = 14 (unstable, surgical consultation is recommended).

References

    1. Falicov A, Fisher CG, Sparkes J, Boyd MC, Wing PC, Dvorak MF. Impact of surgical intervention on quality of life in patients with spinal metastases. Spine. 2006;31(24):2849–2856. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000245838.37817.40.
    1. Hayat MJ, Howlader N, Reichman ME, Edwards BK. Cancer statistics, trends, and multiple primary cancer analyses from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Oncologist. 2007;12(1):20–37. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-1-20.
    1. Harel R, Angelov L. Spine metastases: Current treatments and future directions. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(15):2696–2707. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.025.
    1. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH, Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, Harrop JS, Fehlings MG, Boriani S, Chou D, Schmidt MH, Polly DW, Biagini R, Burch S, Dekutoski MB, Ganju A, Gerszten PC, Gokaslan ZL, Groff MW, Liebsch NJ, Mendel E, Okuno SH, Patel S, Rhines LD, Rose PS, Sciubba DM, Sundaresan N, Tomita K, Varga PP, Vialle LR. et al.A novel classification system for spinal instability in neoplastic disease: an evidence-based approach and expert consensus from the Spine Oncology Study Group. Spine. 2010;5:E1221–E1229.
    1. Eastley N, Newey M, Ashford RU. Skeletal metastases – The role of the orthopaedic and spinal surgeon. Surg Oncol. 2012;21(3):216–222. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2012.04.001.
    1. Galasko CS, Norris HE, Crank S. Spinal instability secondary to metastatic cancer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(4):570–594.
    1. Weber MH, Burch S, Buckley J, Schmidt MH, Fehlings MG, Vrionis FD, Fisher CG. Instability and impending instability of the thoracolumbar spine in patients with spinal metastases: a systematic review. Int J Oncol. 2011;38(1):5–12.
    1. Fourney DR, Frangou EM, Ryken TC, Dipaola CP, Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, Bilsky MH, Harrop JS, Fehlings MG, Boriani S, Chou D, Schmidt MH, Polly DW, Biagini R, Burch S, Dekutoski MB, Ganju A, Gerszten PC, Gokaslan ZL, Groff MW, Liebsch NJ, Mendel E, Okuno SH, Patel S, Rhines LD, Rose PS, Sciubba DM, Sundaresan N, Tomita K, Varga PP. et al.Spinal instability neoplastic score: an analysis of reliability and validity from the spine oncology study group. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(22):3072–3077. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.3897.
    1. Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378–381.
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Bauer HC, Wedin R. Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases. Prognostication in 241 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66:143–146. doi: 10.3109/17453679508995508.
    1. Sioutos PJ, Arbit E, Meshulam CF, Galicich JH. Spinal metastases from solid tumors. Analysis of factors affecting survival. Cancer. 1995;76:1453–1459. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19951015)76:8<1453::AID-CNCR2820760824>;2-T.
    1. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine. 2005;30:2186–2191. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000180401.06919.a5.
    1. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Toriyama S, Toriyama S, Kawano H, Ohsaka S. Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine. 1990;15:1110–1113. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199011010-00005.
    1. van der Linden YM, Dijkstra SP, Vonk EJ, Marijnen CA, Leer JW. Dutch Bone Metastasis Study Group. Prediction of survival in patients with metastases in the spinal column: results based on a randomized trial of radiotherapy. Cancer. 2005;103:320–328. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20756.
    1. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine. 2001;26:298–306. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200102010-00016.
    1. Scheffé H. The Analysis of Variance. New York: Wiley; 1959.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera