Mireles-Cano JN, Escoto-Venegas E, García-González OG, Miranda-González A, González-Ramírez J, Hernández-Sepúlveda E, Martínez-Pérez R

Language: English
References: 17
Page: 293-297
PDF size: 283.27 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Multiple myeloma represents 1% of all cancers and 10% of hematological cancers. Up to 80-90% of cases will have skeletal involvement and the spine is the most frequently involved site. Any intervention must be aimed to improve the patient’s functional prognosis and will impact their quality of life. Objective: To describe the clinical presentation of vertebral destruction syndrome due to multiple myeloma and to present the management algorithm used for the study and decision-making in treatment. Material and methods: Study design: Retrospective cross-sectional. A search was made in the hospital’s clinical file in search of patients with a histological diagnosis of multiple myeloma attended by the Spinal Surgery Service. Clinical characteristics of the initial presentation were obtained such as: presence of pain, ASIA scale and it was categorized according to the Durie-Salmon classification at diagnosis; the levels involved and type of surgery were described. Results: The study included ten patients with an average age of 61.4 years, 70% were male subjects. All patients were approach according to the modified protocol for vertebral destruction syndrome and fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous biopsy. Most had pain at diagnosis, after neurologic examination only 30% were classified as ASIA A. Most of the patients were staged III according to Durie Salomon. The most frequently vertebral segment involved was thoracic. In only one patient more than two vertebrae were involved. After diagnosis of multiple myeloma, nine patients were managed according to a NOMS framework. In the majority they were treated with fusion by posterior approach, six of them were augmented with vertebroplasty. Only one patient of the total, was treated with vertebroplasty alone. Conclusions: The use of systematized management algorithms will allow better decisions to be made in conjunction with a multidisciplinary group for the care of multiple myeloma with vertebral involvement.

REFERENCES

1. Röllig C, Knop S, Bornhäuser M. Multiple myeloma. Lancet. 2015; 385(9983): 2197-208.

2. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15(12): e538-48.

3. Lasocki A, Gaillard F, Harrison SJ. Multiple myeloma of the spine. Neuroradiol J. 2017; 30(3): 259-68.

4. Alpizar-Aguirre A, Elías-Escobedo A, Rosales-Olivares LM, Miramontes-Martínez V, Reyes-Sánchez A. Vertebral destruction syndrome. Diagnostic evaluation systems. Cir Cir. 2008; 76(3): 205-11.

5. Durie BG, Salmon SE. A clinical staging system for multiple myeloma. Correlation of measured myeloma cell mass with presenting clinical features, response to treatment, and survival. Cancer. 1975; 36(3): 842-54.

6. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, Cox BW, Stubblefield MD, Yamada Y, et al. The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist. 2013; 18(6): 744-51.

7. Kyle RA, Gertz MA, Witzig TE, Lust JA, Lacy MQ, Dispenzieri A, et al. Review of 1027 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003; 78(1): 21-33.

8. Molloy S, Lai M, Pratt G, Ramasamy K, Wilson D, Quraishi N, et al. Optimizing the management of patients with spinal myeloma disease. Br J Haematol. 2015; 171(3): 332-43.

9. Mak KS, Lee LK, Mak RH, Wang S, Pile-Spellman J, Abrahm JL, et al. Incidence and treatment patterns in hospitalizations for malignant spinal cord compression in the United States, 1998-2006. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 80(3): 824-31.

10. Benson WJ, Scarffe JH, Todd ID, Palmer M, Crowther D. Spinal-cord compression in myeloma. Br Med J. 1979; 1(6177): 1541-4.

11. Fisher CG, DiPaola CP, Ryken TC, Bilsky MH, Shaffrey CI, Berven SH, 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 (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(22): E1221-9.

12. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T. Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(3): 298-306.

13. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J. A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(19): 2186-91.

14. Patel MS, Ghasem A, Greif DN, Huntley SR, Conway SA, Al Maaieh M. Evaluating treatment strategies for spinal lesions in multiple myeloma: a review of the literature. Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 12(5): 571-81.

15. Kyriakou C, Molloy S, Vrionis F, Alberico R, Bastian L, Zonder JA, et al. The role of cement augmentation with percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma: a consensus statement from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Blood Cancer J. 2019; 9(3): 27.

16. Miller JA, Balagamwala EH, Chao ST, Emch T, Suh JH, Djemil T, et al. Spine stereotactic radiosurgery for the treatment of multiple myeloma. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017; 26(3): 282-90.

17. Marco RA, Brindise J, Dong D. MOSS: A patient-centered approach. In: Marco RA (Ed.). Metastatic spine disease. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 1-20.