Spine surgery for metastatic spine cancer in the era of advanced radiation therapy

Sehan Park; Dong-Ho Lee; Chang Ju Hwang; Jae Hwan Cho

doi:10.31616/asj.2025.0042

Asian Spine J > Online first

Park, Lee, Hwang, and Cho: Spine surgery for metastatic spine cancer in the era of advanced radiation therapy

Review Article

Asian Spine Journal 2025;asj.2025.0042.

Online first: September 19, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2025.0042

Spine surgery for metastatic spine cancer in the era of advanced radiation therapy

Sehan Park

, Dong-Ho Lee

, Chang Ju Hwang

, Jae Hwan Cho

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Jae Hwan Cho, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea,
Tel: +82-2-3010-3549, Fax: +82-2-3010-8555, E-mail: doctork78@hanmail.net

Received January 16, 2025 Revised May 25, 2025 Accepted June 4, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Metastatic spine cancer (MSC), a common complication of advanced malignancies, poses significant challenges due to pain, neurological deficits, and mechanical instability. While radiation therapy is a cornerstone of treatment, the role of spine surgery is evolving, fueled by advances in surgical techniques and radiation modalities such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). This review examines the evolving role of spine surgery in MSC management, focusing on separation surgery, surgical innovations, and future directions. The treatment paradigm for MSC shifted with the advent of SBRT, which delivers high-dose precision radiation, improving local control even in radioresistant tumors. This advancement enabled the adoption of separation surgery, a technique aimed at creating a safe margin between the tumor and neural structures without extensive tumor resection, followed by SBRT to achieve tumor regression. Separation surgery reduces morbidity, shortens operative times, and achieves comparable local control rates to traditional corpectomy procedures. Innovations like minimally invasive surgery, stereotactic navigation, and cement-augmented instrumentation have improved surgical safety and outcomes. Emerging technologies, such as machine learning for predictive modeling and augmented reality for surgical navigation, hold potential for improving decision-making and procedural accuracy. Spine surgery remains integral to MSC treatment, especially for high-grade metastatic epidural spinal cord compression and mechanical instability. Integrating advanced technologies and multidisciplinary collaboration is key to optimizing patient outcomes. Comprehensive, patient-centered strategies addressing both oncological and mechanical aspects can improve survival and quality of life for patients with MSC.

Keywords: Metastatic spine cancer; Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression; Radiation therapy; Separation surgery; Stereotactic body radiation therapy

Introduction

Metastatic spine cancer (MSC), a common complication of advanced malignancies [1–3], often causes significant morbidity characterized by intractable pain, neurological deficits, and mechanical instability [4–6]. Effective treatment requires a multimodal approach, taking into account factors such as life-expectancy, performance status, response to systemic therapy, and operation tolerability [7–10]. Advances in diagnostic tools and oncological treatments have significantly improved survival rates for patients with metastatic disease, impacting MSC management [11–13]. As patients live longer, treatment decisions become increasingly complex, requiring careful planning to prevent functional decline that could severely impact the remaining quality of life [14,15].

While radiation therapy has long been a cornerstone of treatment for MSC, the emergence of advanced modalities such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has reshaped therapeutic strategies by improving tumor control and reducing toxicity [6,16,17]. Nevertheless, spine surgeons continue to play a vital role. Surgery offers immediate mechanical stability, pain relief, and neural decompression, which radiation alone may not achieve in certain cases [1,18]. Furthermore, advancements in radiation therapy have evolved the concept of surgical treatment for MSC. Before the introduction of SBRT, extensive tumor debulking and anterior column support were often necessary to reduce the risk of local failure. Modern surgical strategies focus on creating a safe margin between neural structures and the tumor, facilitating effective postoperative radiation therapy while ensuring mechanical stability [19–21]. This conceptual shift has resulted in decreased surgical morbidity and postoperative complications [21]. Furthermore, the introduction of minimally invasive techniques, navigation-aided surgery, and early recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols has enabled faster recovery and greater safety [9,13,22,23].

Given the dynamic landscape of MSC and the evolving roles within multidisciplinary teams, spine surgery retains its paramount importance in treatment. This review highlights recent developments in radiation therapy, surgical techniques, and systemic considerations for MSC treatment in the context of rapidly evolving radiation therapy.

Evolution and Pitfalls of Radiation Therapy

Stereotactic body radiation therapy

Before the advent of SBRT, conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) was considered a standard of care for MSC when surgical management was not initially indicated [24]. Although EBRT achieves high response rates for pain control (60%–80%), its efficacy is limited, with complete response rates of 0%–20% and partial response rates of approximately 60% [17]. Furthermore, approximately 20% of patients treated with low-dose EBRT require reirradiation due to pain progression within months of the first treatment course [17].

SBRT is increasingly becoming the standard treatment for spinal metastases, supported by recent trials demonstrating its superiority over EBRT [17]. The primary advantage of SBRT lies in its ability to deliver precise treatment with very high doses per fraction [25]. By accurately targeting the area of interest, SRBT enables dose-escalation while sparing surrounding organs at risk [25].

A retrospective analysis of data from the randomized Canadian Cancer Trials Group Symptom Control 24 phase 2/3 trial demonstrated improved local control rates with SBRT compared to conventional EBRT [24]. The local failure rate was significantly lower with SBRT than EBRT at both 6 months (2.8% vs. 11.2%, p<0.001) and 12 months (6.1% vs. 28.4%, p<0.001) [24]. Chang et al. [26] reported a 1-year tumor progression-free incidence of 84%, defining progression-free as no magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-documented tumor progression. Similarly, Amdur et al. [27] reported a high local control rate of 95% at 11 months post-SBRT, with local control defined as no evidence of tumor progression on MRI at the treated site. Although SBRT yields excellent local control rates overall, variations exist based on the radiosensitivity of the tumor histotype [28]. Bernard et al. [28] found that while overall local control rates were high (82.6% at 1 year and 75.8% at 2 years), radioresistant tumors like non-small cell lung cancer or colorectal cancer had significantly higher failure rates (30.4% vs. 8.0% at 1 year, p=0.008) and poorer overall survival compared to radiosensitive tumors.

In addition to better local control rates, SBRT also offers better pain control compared to EBRT. Sahgal et al. [29] found that at 3-month post-treatment, 35% of SBRT patients experienced complete pain resolution versus 14% of EBRT patients (p=0.002). In a randomized phase 2 trial by Sprave et al. [30], SBRT led to faster pain reduction within 3 months (p=0.01) and significantly lower pain scores at 6 months post-treatment compared to EBRT (p=0.002).

SBRT has also shown efficacy in reducing epidural cord compression. Lee et al. [31] used SBRT to treat 33 patients with severe epidural compression, achieving a significant epidural tumor response in 74% of patients. Ryu et al. [32] demonstrated neurological functional recovery after SBRT in patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC).

Recent studies have shown that SBRT is an effective retreatment option after failed initial radiation therapy [17]. The 1-year local control rate of SBRT after EBRT failure ranges from 66% to 90% [33]. Additionally, reirradiation with SBRT after initial SBRT achieved a local control rate of 81% [34]. Pain improvement was reported in 65%–81% of patients undergoing reirradiation with SBRT [35,36]. Finally, a systematic review reported a 12% risk of vertebral compression fracture (VCF) and a 1.2% risk of radiation myelopathy after reirradiation with SBRT [17]. Given its clinical efficacy and low risk of severe complications after retreatment with SBRT, the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society practice guideline recommends administering SBRT following EBRT or SBRT alone following multidisciplinary assessment [17]. The guideline also recommends consulting a spine surgeon before SBRT for patients with clinical features consistent with MESCC, mechanical instability, or baseline VCF [17].

Limitations of SBRT

The spinal cord is the most critical organ at risk during radiation therapy for MSC. Exceeding the dose tolerance can lead to radiation myelopathy, a rare but catastrophic complication of spine SBRT [37]. The reported risk of radiation myelopathy is approximately 0.4% for initial SBRT and 1.2% for reirradiation SBRT [17,38]. Conventional ERBT dosing (45–50 Gy in 1.8–2 Gy fractions) carries a very low risk of radiation myelopathy (0.03%–0.2%) [39]. However, these spinal cord dose constraints may not directly apply to SBRT due to differences in fractionation and dose distributions [37]. Sahgal et al. [29] recommended limiting the thecal sac maximum dosage to 12.4 Gy in one fraction, 17 Gy in two fractions, or 20.3 Gy in three fractions to keep the risk of radiation myelopathy below 5%. Notably, the majority of radiation myelopathy cases reported to date have occurred with single-fraction SBRT, suggesting that fractionation may be an important consideration to mitigate the risk [37].

While radiation myelopathy is the most feared complication of SBRT, VCFs at the treated level or adjacent levels are the most common complications [40]. Mantel et al. [41] reported a 34.4% incidence of VCFs post-SBRT, though only 5% were symptomatic, defined as an increase of >2 points on the visual analog scale for pain. Risk factors for post-SBRT VCFs include osteolytic metastases, extent of osteolysis, and preexisting VCFs [41]. Furthermore, the rate of compression fractures following SBRT is reportedly higher than that with other types of radiation therapy, reaching up to 30%. However, fewer than 5% of these cases require intervention or surgical stabilization [41].

Surgical Treatment

Shifting landscape of surgical treatment

The early surgical approach for MSC involved laminectomy alone, without instrumentation, leaving anterior or lateral lesions unaddressed [42]. However, the surgical outcomes were poor, with only 30% of patients experiencing symptom improvement. Complications, including instability, deformity, postoperative pain, and neurological decline, were also common [42].

Unsatisfactory results and frequent complications from laminectomy shifted treatment preference toward EBRT [43,44]. Although EBRT reduced treatment-related morbidity compared to laminectomy, clinical outcomes remained poor, characterized by low local control rates and frequent clinical decline [43,44].

A 2005 landmark study by Patchell et al. [45] compared EBRT alone to surgery, including decompression, tumor debulking, and instrumentation. The surgery group had a higher rate of patients able to walk (84%) compared to the EBRT-only group (57%) [45]. This data shifted the paradigm back toward surgical interventions, leading to more aggressive intralesional gross total resections and even en bloc tumor resections via anterior cavitary approaches [45–47]. However, these procedures were associated with a high morbidity [47,48]. Furthermore, due to low local control rates with EBRT, this procedure led to a high local recurrence rate with poor long-term outcomes [46].

Separation surgery

The introduction of SBRT, which enables the delivery of high ablative doses of radiation to MSC, has significantly altered the concept of managing MSC [7,49,50]. Due to high local control rates, even for radioresistant tumors, many patients with MSC were initially treated with SBRT instead of surgery [1,4,51]. Studies have shown that ambulatory patients and those without neurological deficits benefit more from SBRT than surgery due to low treatment-related morbidity and similar local control rates [51]. For patients with low-grade MESCC (Bilsky grade 0 or 1), SBRT can be used as a definitive therapy instead of an additional surgery [1,21,40]. However, surgical treatment still plays a critical role for patients with high-grade MESCC (Bilsky grade 2 or 3) (Table 1) [21,52,53]. Radiation therapy needs time for the tumor to regress, which may not provide prompt spinal cord decompression. In contrast, surgical treatment enables direct decompression of neural elements, preventing deterioration of neurological function [51].

Nevertheless, SBRT helped change the surgical strategy even when initial surgical intervention is indicated [6,54]. The goals of surgery shifted from aggressive surgical resections to creating a safe space between the metastatic tumor and adjacent neural structures [20,21]. Separation surgery refers to a posterior decompressive procedure that restores the cerebrospinal fluid space around the spinal cord by resecting epidural tumor tissue without attempting gross total tumor removal [21,55,56]. The goal is to create a safe margin between the tumor and the thecal sac, enabling the delivery of high-dose SBRT with reduced risk of radiation-induced myelopathy [21]. Surgery is followed by high-dose SBRT to provide further tumor regression and local control [2,9]. While separation surgery may increase the efficacy of radiation therapy by allowing treatment with higher dosage without increased risk of complications, current literature does not support that separation surgery affects the radiosensitivity of MSC [54,57].

Surgical procedures for separation surgery include (1) instrumentation of levels above and below the level that needs separation surgery to address iatrogenic instability; (2) decompression of thecal sac by removing the lamina; (3) removal of facet joints and pedicles of levels that need tumor resection to enable safe access to ventral epidural space and vertebral body; and (4) resection of tumor tissues located lateral and anterior to dura to achieve separation of thecal sac from MSC lesions [55]. Separation surgery typically involves a single posterior approach, eliminating the need for additional transcavitary procedures [18]. Furthermore, it has a minimal risk of bleeding-related complications since aggressive anterior debulking is not performed with separation surgery [6]. When paired with postoperative SBRT, separation surgery achieves a reported 1-year local control rate of 84% [56,58]. Significant improvements in local control were seen when patients with high-grade preoperative epidural disease were surgically downgraded to Bilsky grade 0–1 [7,59]. Amelink et al. [6] demonstrated the safety and efficacy of separation surgery by directly comparing it to the corpectomy group. The study found that separation surgery resulted in lower blood loss and shorter operating times compared to corpectomy combined with anterior reconstruction. Local control, survival, and reoperation rates were similar between the two groups [6].

Optimizing patient selection

Optimizing surgical indications is crucial for patients with MSC who are prone to complications. Patients presenting with neurological compromise and severe mechanical pain that prevents mobilization are considered candidates for surgery at initial presentation (Fig. 1) [2]. However, for ambulatory patients without neurologic deficits, radiation therapy is often chosen as the initial therapy, given the morbidity associated with surgery [4]. A systematic review found no additional benefit in ambulatory status or local control rates with surgery for patients who remain ambulatory despite MESCC [4]. Although SBRT offers high local control rates, there remains a risk of clinical deterioration due to disease progression [60].

Radiosensitivity is a critical factor in clinical decision-making [19,28,60]. Radiosensitive tumors, such as hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma, lymphoma), prostate cancer, and breast cancer, often respond well to SBRT alone, even in cases of moderate to high-grade epidural compression [28]. In contrast, radioresistant tumors, such as renal cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, and non-small cell lung cancer, exhibit significantly lower local control rates with SBRT alone [28,60]. Bernard et al. [28] found that the 1-year local failure rate after SBRT was significantly higher in patients with radioresistant histologies (30.4%) compared to radiosensitive ones (8.0%) (p=0.008). For radioresistant tumors, adding surgical decompression via separation surgery may allow for higher radiation doses with reduced toxicity risk, potentially improving local control, even in previously irradiated or refractory tumors [57,59]. Additionally, certain tumor types, such as renal cell carcinoma, are often hypervascular and prone to hemorrhage, complicating radiation planning and favoring pre-radiation surgical intervention [61–63]. Moreover, the extent of epidural spinal cord compression and neurological deficit is closely linked to tumor biology [19,60]. In particular, neurologic deficits caused by high-grade compression in the context of a radioresistant tumor often require prompt surgical intervention to prevent irreversible functional decline [21,59,64]. Therefore, the tumor histology should be considered alongside mechanical instability, neurologic status, and prior treatments when deciding between surgery and radiation therapy alone [60,65,66].

Decision-making frameworks like neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, systemic and LMNOP (location, mechanical, neurologic, oncologic, response to previous treatment) can guide clinical decisions [64,65,67]. Mechanical instability, considered a relative indication for surgery, can be objectively assessed using the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) system (Table 2, Fig. 2) [68,69]. While high-grade MESCC (Bilsky grades 2 and 3) carries a high risk of neurologic compromise, further investigation is required to determine whether prognosis differs between grades 2 and 3 [52]. Furthermore, although the introduction of SBRT has reduced the importance of histology and radiosensitivity of primary tumor in MSC treatment, radiosensitivity remains a consideration for surgical decisions [19]. Highly radiosensitive tumors, such as hematologic malignancies, may still benefit from radiation despite initial high-grade cord compression [19]. Di Perna et al. [54] proposed a novel neurology-stability-epidural compression assessment (NSE) scoring system to address the need for surgical treatment. The system considers neurologic status (score 0–5), performance status, stability as assessed by SINS (score 0–5), and epidural compression assessed by Bilsky grade (score 0–3) [54]. Surgery is recommended for patients with an NSE score exceeding 5 (Fig. 3) [54]. The study suggests that the NSE system can reliably predict the need for surgery and identify patients who would benefit most from surgical treatment [54]. Given that the factors included in the NSE system are critical for assessing the need for initial surgical treatment, its adoption in clinical practice appears both practical and reasonable (Table 3) [70].

Enhancing safety of separation surgery

Separation surgery reduces the risk of bleeding-related complications by avoiding aggressive tumor debulking, but hypervascular tumors still pose a risk [66]. Preoperative embolization can effectively decrease intraoperative bleeding during separation surgery [61,66]. The use of preoperative embolization for MSC is increasingly being adopted, especially among patients with renal cancer [62]. Additionally, preoperative intravenous tranexamic acid has been shown to reduce intraoperative bleeding [5], but its potential to increase thromboembolic risk is a concern, especially in high-risk MSC patients [5]. However, Pennington et al. [5] found that limiting tranexamic acid dose to <20 mg/kg does not increase the risk of thromboembolism. Zhang et al. [63] developed a predictive model for postoperative thromboembolism in patients with MSC, which can help identify patients suitable for tranexamic acid use. Cell-saver salvaged blood can reduce transfusion requirements during MSC surgery [71]. Although concerns about reinfusing malignant cells exist, recent literature suggests that salvaged blood transfusion does not increase the risk of clinically detectable metastasis [71]. Evidence supports the clinical safety of salvaged blood in oncologic surgeries, with post-filtration samples showing only fragmented cytoplasmic debris [71]. However, potential complications of intraoperative cell-saver, such as electrolyte disturbances, air or fluid embolism, and dilutional coagulopathy, which can lead to multiorgan failure, should be carefully considered [71].

Minimally invasive separation surgery is gaining popularity due to its similar clinical efficacy and lower complication rates compared to open surgery [8,23]. This approach involves inserting pedicle screws through small incisions [9,72], and achieving decompression or separation via a small midline posterior incision or tubular retractor system [9,72]. Benefits include reduced wound complications, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and transfusion rates [23]. Echt et al. [8] suggested that faster wound healing with this approach can help shorten the interval between surgery and SBRT. However, limitations of the minimally invasive approach include potential incomplete thecal sac decompression due to limited visibility and its unsuitability for long-level surgeries [8].

Stereotactic navigation is increasingly used in minimally invasive separation surgery, providing valuable intraoperative guidance [9]. It enhances anatomical understanding through limited incisions and exposure, minimizes radiation exposure [2,9,20,73], and allows verification of complete ventral decompression via intraoperative CT scanning [9,74]. Navigation also enables accurate placement of instruments [12]. While pedicle screw insertion is generally straightforward for experienced surgeons, anatomical distortions caused by osteolysis and compression fractures may complicate spinal instrumentation [9].

Instrumentation failure can occur after separation surgery due to poor bone quality caused by tumor-related osteolysis and osteoporosis [75,76]. Fenestrated screws with poly-methylmethacrylate cement augmentation improve fixation in poor quality bone by allowing cement to interdigitate with the screw and vertebral body, enhancing pullout strength and reinforcing vertebral body architecture [21,75,76]. Newman et al. [75] reported low failure rates for cement-augmented constructs: 2.8% for long-segment fixations and 2.2% for short-segment fixations.

Wound complications are a common postoperative issue in MSC surgeries, with varying incidence rates [2,4,77]. Perioperative radiation therapy is a risk factor for wound complications, but the optimal interval between radiation therapy and surgery is debated [55]. However, a 2–3 week interval between surgery and postoperative radiation is generally recommended [78]. Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to reduce the risk of wound complications compared to open surgery [75]. Poor nutritional status, diabetes mellitus, smoking, adjuvant radiation therapy/chemotherapy are known risk factors for surgical site infection [79]. Given the significantly higher rate of surgical site infection in patients undergoing MSC surgery, compared to other spine surgeries, identifying and managing modifiable factors preoperatively is crucial to reduce the risks [79]. Combined treatment with plastic surgery can reduce the risk of wound complications. Franck et al. [80] reported that routine use of local muscle flap closure significantly decreased the wound complication rate after MSC surgery. Hersh et al. [81] also found that the use of local paraspinous advancement flap after spine surgery for MSC significantly decreased wound complications.

Improving the efficacy of separation surgery

While separation surgery followed by postoperative SBRT is effective for MSC, not all patients undergo these procedures routinely [16,82]. Real-world studies show that only 21%–48% of patients receive postoperative radiation therapy [16,60,83]. Delayed radiation therapy increases the risk of local progression and decreased overall survival [84]. Achieving timely postoperative radiation therapy can be challenging due to patients’ poor general health status [20]. Despite SBRT’s superior local control, radiation oncologists often opt for EBRT due to challenges with SBRT [16], including the complexity of radiation planning due to spine instrumentation, increased risk of radiation myelopathy from preoperative radiation [25], and verifying adequate tumor-thecal sac separation [16]. Postoperative MRI and intraoperative sonography can help assess the quality of separation, but further verification may be required [16]. Close communication between the surgeon and radiation oncologist, starting preoperatively, is crucial to optimize postoperative radiation therapy and modality [60].

ERAS protocol for patients with MSC can lead to improved short-term patient recovery [22,85–87]. ERAS programs involve an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach to improve perioperative outcomes [86]. Given the frailty and comorbidities common in MSC patients, ERAS protocols would be particularly beneficial in facilitating postoperative recovery and optimizing outcomes [86]. A study by Chakravarthy et al. [22] found that implementing an ERAS protocol resulted in decreased intraoperative bleeding, less perioperative opioid use, earlier ambulation, shorter urinary catheter use, and shorter hospital stays. Their ERAS protocol included multimodal preemptive pain medication, intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine injection, goal-directed fluid therapy, early initiation of diet, and early ambulation [22].

Comparative efficacy of radiation therapy alone versus surgery combined with radiation

While SBRT has revolutionized local control of MSC, growing evidence shows its efficacy varies significantly with tumor histology, degree of cord compression, and neurologic symptoms. In particular, SBRT achieves excellent local control in patients with low-grade epidural spinal cord compression (Bilsky grade 0–1) and radiosensitive tumors, potentially serving as a standalone treatment [88]. However, for patients with radioresistant histologies or high-grade compression (Bilsky grade 2–3), combining surgery with SBRT yields superior outcomes [88].

Chang et al. [35] reported that SBRT alone achieved a 1-year tumor control rate of 84% in a cohort with varied tumor types, primarily effective in patients with preserved neurological function and minimal epidural involvement. In contrast, Bernard et al. [28] found that SBRT’s efficacy is significantly reduced in radioresistant tumors such as renal cell carcinoma and colorectal cancer, with 1-year failure rates of 30.4% compared to 8.0% in radiosensitive tumors (p=0.008). These findings underscore the need for careful histologic stratification when selecting SBRT monotherapy.

For patients with high-grade MESCC, separation surgery followed by SBRT provides effective local control and neurologic preservation. Laufer et al. [56] reported 1-year local control rates of approximately 84% with separation surgery combined with high-dose SBRT, even in patients with prior radiation or radioresistant disease. Alghamdi et al. [59] found that surgically downgrading Bilsky grade 2 or 3 compression to grade 0 or 1 before SBRT significantly improved local control and reduced retreatment rates.

The landmark trial by Patchell et al. [45] randomized MESCC patients with neurologic deficits to radiation therapy alone or surgery followed by radiation. Surgical patients showed better ambulation preservation (84% vs. 57%), delayed loss of walking ability, and improved functional outcomes [45]. Despite preceding the SBRT era, the study highlighted the importance of mechanical decompression in symptomatic patients [45].

A consolidated comparison of outcomes by treatment modality is summarized in Table 4. Collectively, these data suggest that SBRT alone may be sufficient for select patients with radiosensitive tumors and minimal compression. However, surgery combined with SBRT should be considered in patients with radioresistant tumors, significant neurologic deficits, or high-grade cord compression.

Systemic Considerations

Early detection of MSC due to advances in imaging modalities and first-line cancer therapies has improved survival and quality of life for cancer patients [89]. The development of targeted therapies and novel treatment protocols relies on identifying novel mutations and understanding cancer biology, driving personalized treatment approaches [89]. Examples include non-small cell lung cancer with ALK rearrangements, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/Neu alterations in breast cancer, and BRAF V600E mutations in melanoma patients [89]. Improved systemic therapies have enhanced prognosis, expanding surgical indications for MSC [70]. The conventional criterion for surgical candidacy has been an expected postoperative survival of >3 months. However, recent studies suggest that even patients surviving <3 months postoperatively experience clinically meaningful improvements in the quality of life [90]. After adjusting for baseline functional status, 6-week postoperative outcomes were similar regardless of survival beyond 3 months [90]. Traditional scoring systems like the Tokuhashi and Tomita systems have limited predictive accuracy, prompting the development of newer systems, such as the New England Spinal Metastasis Score (NESMS) and Skeletal Oncology Research Group (Table 5) [91–94]. External validation studies suggest that these newer scoring systems better predict patient survival [92–94]. The NESMS shows a significant correlation between lower scores and poorer 1-year survival rates, with scores of 3, 2, 1, and 0 corresponding to death rates of 44.8%, 69.6%, 88.3%, and 89.5%, respectively [91].

Systemic chemotherapy can impair bone marrow function, performance status, and wound healing, complicating postoperative recovery [89]. Alkylating agents impair wound healing by inhibiting fibroblast proliferation, neovascularization, and connective tissue proliferation for up to 14 days [95,96]. While immunotherapy likely causes many toxicities that elevate surgical risk, most immunotherapy agents do not affect wound healing [97]. However, new antiangiogenic (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor) therapies do impair wound healing, and discontinuation should be considered [98]. Monoclonal antibodies have half-lives of days to weeks and should be discontinued earlier, whereas the small-molecule oral inhibitors can be continued until 1–2 days before surgery [98].

Future perspectives

The future of spine surgery for MSC is poised for significant innovation and multidisciplinary integration [11,12]. With precision medicine advancing rapidly, the role of spine surgeons is expected to expand beyond mechanical stabilization and neural decompression. Emerging innovations in surgery for MSC include the integration of machine learning (ML) and augmented reality (AR) applications [11–13].

ML in healthcare supports physicians by developing prediction models, identifying trends, and reducing workload [11]. In spine oncology, ML is being explored for extracting imaging data for diagnosis and predicting survival based on individual characteristics [99]. Studies have shown that ML models can predict postoperative mortality rates [11,100] and identify prognostic factors such as age, frailty, muscle radiodensity, primary tumor type, and Frankel grade [100]. Predictive models have also been proposed to assess the risk of pathologic compression fractures and postoperative clinical outcomes [101]. Additionally, models can automatically identify metastatic disease from spine imaging [102,103].

AR can enhance procedural accuracy when combined with navigation systems [12,13]. Studies have shown that AR-based navigation can improve pedicle screw placement accuracy compared to free hand technique [12,13]. AR navigation system provides real-time imaging of planned insertion paths, instrument tracking, and an overlay of three-dimensional bony anatomy and surface topography [12,13]. Although limited studies exist on MSC operations, AR’s potential benefits in the distorted and complex anatomy often encountered in these patients suggest it could significantly enhance surgical precision and safety. Future studies are warranted to clarify the effectiveness and safety of AR in the management of MSC.

Conclusions

Spine surgery remains an indispensable component of MSC management, particularly for cases requiring immediate neural decompression and mechanical stabilization. As radiation therapies evolve, spine surgeons must adapt, emphasizing a balanced, patient-centered approach that leverages technological advancements and multidisciplinary care. By addressing both the oncological and mechanical aspects of the disease through comprehensive management strategies, the quality of life and survival of patients with MSC can be significantly enhanced (Fig. 4).

Key Points

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) offers superior local control, especially for radioresistant tumors.
SBRT has led to a paradigm shift in spine surgery, with separation surgery providing a safety margin for SBRT and reducing morbidity compared to extensive cavitary resections.
Minimally invasive approach, enhanced recovery after surgery protocols, and strategies to reduce bleeding and wound complications can improve patient outcomes.
Decision-making frameworks and prognostic tools can guide individualized treatment plans for surgery or radiation.
Innovations including artificial intelligence and augmented reality aim to improve surgical outcomes.

Notes

Conflict of Interest

Jae Hwan Cho serves as deputy editor of the Asian Spine Journal, but has no role in the decision to publish this article. Sehan Park serves as an editorial board member of the Asian Spine Journal but has no role in the decision to publish this article. Except for that, no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: SP, DHO, CJH, JHC. Project administration: JHC. Writing–original draft: SP. Writing–review and editing: JHC. Final approval of the manuscript: all authors

Fig. 1

Illustrative case 1. A 69-year-old male previously treated for a neuroectodermal tumor presented with bilateral lower leg weakness for 5 days. His initial lower leg motor grade was 2 throughout. (A) Sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a metastatic tumor at the T10 level. (B) MRI showed grade 3 epidural cord compression. (C) Separation surgery with posterior fusion from T8–L2 level was performed. After surgery he gradually recovered strength of lower extremity and was able to ambulate within a week. (D) Postoperative stereotactic radiation therapy was administered. (E) Postoperative MRI taken 2 years after surgery demonstrates that the spinal cord is free from compression by metastatic mass. The patient was able to ambulate using a cane.

Fig. 2

A 50-year-old female with a history of hepatocellular carcinoma presented with neck pain. (A) Initial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)revealed a metastatic lesion at the C2 level. Shortly after MRI evaluation, the patient complained of severe neck pain which prevented her from sitting or standing. (B) A pathologic fracture of C2 was noted on lateral cervical spine radiograph. Her Spine Instability Neoplastic Score was 14 (location: 3, pain: 3, bone lesion: 2, alignment:4, collapse, 2, and posterolateral involvement: 0), indicating spinal instability. (C) Due to intolerable pain, reduction was performed via traction using a Gardner-Wells device. (D) Occiput–C4 fusion was performed for stabilization.

Fig. 3

Illustrative case 3. A 73-year-old male with a history of renal cell carcinoma presented with severe back pain with subjective gait disturbance. (A) Preoperative sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a pathologic fracture at the T10 level. (B) Axial MRI revealed grade 3 epidural cord compression. His Neurology-Stability-Epidural score was 8 (neurology: 0, stability: 3, epidural: 5), indicating surgical intervention. (C) Separation surgery with posterior fixation of T8–L2 levels was performed. (D) Postoperative MRI taken 1 month after surgery demonstrates complete separation of tumor from the spinal cord. (E) Postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy was administered. (F) A follow-up MRI 4 years after surgery showed no compression at the treated level. The patient remained ambulatory with minimal back pain.

Fig. 4

Algorithmic approach for the management of metastatic spine cancer. SBRT, stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Table 1

Bilsky grade for the assessment of epidural spinal cord compression

Grade	Description
Low grade
0	Bone only disease
1a	Epidural impingement without deformation of thecal sac
1b	Deformation of the thecal sac without spinal cord abutment
1c	Deformation of the thecal sac with spinal cord abutment, but without cord compression
High grade
2	Spinal cord compression with cerebrospinal fluid visible around the cord
3	Spinal cord compression with no cerebrospinal fluid visible around the cord

Table 2

Spinal instability neoplastic score

Elements	Score
Elements	4	3	2	1	0
Location		Junctional	Mobile spine (C3–6C, L2–L4)	Semi-rigid (T3–T10)	Rigid (S2–S5)
Pain relief with recumbency and pain with movement/loading of the spine		Yes		No (occasional pain but not mechanical)	Pain-free lesion
Bone lesion			Osteolytic	Mixed (mixed, blastic)	Blastic
Spinal alignment	Subluxation, translation		De novo deformity (kyphosis, scoliosis)		Normal alignment
Vertebral body collapse		>50%	<50%	No collapse with >50% body involved	None of above
Posterolateral involvement		Bilateral		Unilateral	None of above

Score 0–6, stable; score 7–12, impending instability; score 13–18, instability, surgical treatment is recommended.

Table 3

Neurology-Stability-Epidural score

Factor	Score	Description
Neurology	0	No deficits or complete cord >72 hr
	1	Non motor radicular
	3	Motor radicular or mechanic radicular
	4	Complete cord <72 hr
	5	Incomplete cord or cauda equina syndrome
SINS score	0	SINS 0–6 (stable)
	3	SINS 7–12 (potentially unstable)
	5	SINS 13–18 (unstable)
ESCC scale (Bilsky grade)	0	Bilsky 0–1b
	1	Bilsky 1c
	3	Bilsky 2
	3	Bilsky 3

Score 0–2, no surgery; score 3–4, grey zone; score 5+, recommend surgical treatment. Patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists score <4, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score <3 are considered suitable for operation.

SINS, spine instability neoplastic score; ESCC, epidural spinal cord compression.

Table 4

Outcomes of SBRT alone and combined surgery with SBRT for spinal metastasis

Study	Treatment modality	Local control	Indications	Key findings
Chang et al. [26] (2007)	SBRT alone	84% at 1 year	Bilsky grade 0–1, stable patients	High local control in well-selected patients without neurologic deficits
Bernard et al. [28] (2017)	SBRT alone	69.6% (radioresistant) vs. 92% (radiosensitive) at 1 year	Varies by histology	Radioresistant tumors had significantly worse outcomes
Sahgal et al. [29] (2021)	SBRT vs. EBRT	35% pain resolution (SBRT) vs. 14% (EBRT) at 3 months	Painful spine metastases	SBRT showed faster and better pain relief
Laufer et al. [57] (2013)	Separation surgery + SBRT	Approximately 84% at 1 year	Bilsky 2–3, with cord compression	Durable local control even in radioresistant histologies
Alghamdi et al. [59] (2019)	Separation surgery + SBRT	Improved local control with downgrading to Bilsky 0–1	Bilsky 2–3	Surgery that reduces MESCC grade improves SBRT efficacy
Patchell et al. [45] (2005)	Debulking + RT vs. RT alone	84% vs. 57% ambulatory preservation	MESCC with neurological deficit	Surgery group showed superior functional outcome
Di Perna et al. [20] (2020)	Separation surgery + SBRT	High local control and safety	Patients unfit for en bloc resection	Separation surgery provides a less morbid, effective option

SBRT, stereotactic body radiation therapy; EBRT, external beam radiation therapy; MESCC, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression; RT, radiation therapy.

Table 5

New England Spinal Metastasis Score

NESMS characteristics	Points assigned
Modified Bauer Score
No visceral metastases (1 point)	-
Primary tumor is not lung cancer (1 point)	-
Primary tumor is breast, kidney, lymphoma, or myeloma (1 point)	-
Single skeletal metastasis (1 point)	-
Modified Bauer score ≤2	0
Modified Bauer score ≥3	2
Ambulatory function
Dependent ambulator/nonambulatory	0
Independent ambulator	1
Serum albumin
<3.5 g/dL	0
≥3.5 g/dL	1

References

1. Husain ZA, Sahgal A, Chang EL, et al. Modern approaches to the management of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. CNS Oncol 2017;6:231–41.

2. Hong SH, Chang BS, Kim H, Kang DH, Chang SY. An updated review on the treatment strategy for spinal metastasis from the spine surgeon’s perspective. Asian Spine J 2022;16:799–811.

3. Murotani K, Fujibayashi S, Otsuki B, et al. Prognostic factors after surgical treatment for spinal metastases. Asian Spine J 2024;18:390–7.

4. Van den Brande R, Thijs D, Bilsky M, et al. Treatment of ambulatory patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2024;40:175–84.

5. Pennington Z, Ehresman J, Schilling A, et al. Influence of tranexamic acid use on venous thromboembolism risk in patients undergoing surgery for spine tumors. J Neurosurg Spine 2021;35:663–73.

6. Amelink JJ, Pierik RJ, Groot OQ, et al. Comparative analysis of surgical outcomes in separation surgery versus anterior reconstruction for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2025;50:612–9.

7. Guckenberger M, Dahele M, Ong WL, Sahgal A. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: benefits and limitations. Semin Radiat Oncol 2023;33:159–71.

8. Echt M, Stock A, De la Garza Ramos R, et al. Separation surgery for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: comparison of a minimally invasive versus open approach. Neurosurg Focus 2021;50:E10.

9. Nasser R, Nakhla J, Echt M, et al. Minimally invasive separation surgery with intraoperative stereotactic guidance: a feasibility study. World Neurosurg 2018;109:68–76.

10. Truong VT, Al-Shakfa F, Roberge D, et al. Assessing the performance of prognostic scores in patients with spinal metastases from lung cancer undergoing non-surgical treatment. Asian Spine J 2023;17:739–49.

11. Wilson SB, Ward J, Munjal V, et al. Machine learning in spine oncology: a narrative review. Global Spine J 2025;15:210–27.

12. Peh S, Chatterjea A, Pfarr J, et al. Accuracy of augmented reality surgical navigation for minimally invasive pedicle screw insertion in the thoracic and lumbar spine with a new tracking device. Spine J 2020;20:629–37.

13. Elmi-Terander A, Burstrom G, Nachabe R, et al. Augmented reality navigation with intraoperative 3D imaging vs fluoroscopy-assisted free-hand surgery for spine fixation surgery: a matched-control study comparing accuracy. Sci Rep 2020;10:707.

14. Younsi A, Riemann L, Ishak B, et al. Feasibility of salvage decompressive surgery for pending paralysis due to metastatic spinal cord compression. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2021;202:106509.

15. Truong VT, Al-Shakfa F, Phan P, et al. Does the region of the spine involved with metastatic tumor affect outcomes of surgical treatments? World Neurosurg 2021;156:e139–51.

16. Dugan JE, Long CC, Chanbour H, et al. Obstacles to receiving postoperative radiation therapy following separation surgery for metastatic spine disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2024;41:416–27.

17. Myrehaug S, Sahgal A, Hayashi M, et al. Reirradiation spine stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;27:428–35.

18. Pennington Z, Pairojboriboon S, Chen X, et al. Utility of expanded anterior column resection versus decompression-alone for local control in the management of carcinomatous vertebral column metastases undergoing adjuvant stereotactic radiotherapy. Spine J 2022;22:835–46.

19. Vaishya S, Gaonkar V, Bedi MS, et al. Clinical evaluation, diagnosis, and decision-making for metastatic spine tumors: WFNS spine committee recommendations. Neurosurg Rev 2024;47:902.

20. Di Perna G, Cofano F, Mantovani C, et al. Separation surgery for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a qualitative review. J Bone Oncol 2020;25:100320.

21. Zhang X, Giantini Larsen A, Kharas N, Bilsky MH, Newman WC. Separation surgery for metastatic spine tumors: how less became more. Neurooncol Adv 2024;6:iii94–100.

22. Chakravarthy VB, Laufer I, Amin AG, et al. Patient outcomes following implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for patients with metastatic spine tumors. Cancer 2022;128:4109–18.

23. Pranata R, Lim MA, Vania R, Bagus Mahadewa TG. Minimal invasive surgery instrumented fusion versus conventional open surgical instrumented fusion for the treatment of spinal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg 2021;148:e264–74.

24. Zeng KL, Myrehaug S, Soliman H, et al. Mature local control and reirradiation rates comparing spine stereotactic body radiation therapy with conventional palliative external beam radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2022;114:293–300.

25. Gottumukkala S, Srivastava U, Brocklehurst S, et al. Fundamentals of radiation oncology for treatment of vertebral metastases. Radiographics 2021;41:2136–56.

26. Chang EL, Shiu AS, Mendel E, et al. Phase I/II study of stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis and its pattern of failure. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7:151–60.

27. Amdur RJ, Bennett J, Olivier K, et al. A prospective, phase II study demonstrating the potential value and limitation of radiosurgery for spine metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 2009;32:515–20.

28. Bernard V, Bishop AJ, Allen PK, et al. Heterogeneity in treatment response of spine metastases to spine stereotactic radiosurgery within “radiosensitive” subtypes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017;99:1207–15.

29. Sahgal A, Myrehaug SD, Siva S, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastases: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:1023–33.

30. Sprave T, Verma V, Forster R, et al. Local response and pathologic fractures following stereotactic body radiotherapy versus three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for spinal metastases: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2018;18:859.

31. Lee I, Omodon M, Rock J, Shultz L, Ryu S. Stereotactic radiosurgery for high-grade metastatic epidural cord compression. J Radiosurg SBRT 2014;3:51–8.

32. Ryu S, Rock J, Jain R, et al. Radiosurgical decompression of metastatic epidural compression. Cancer 2010;116:2250–7.

33. Chow E, Harris K, Fan G, Tsao M, Sze WM. Palliative radiotherapy trials for bone metastases: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1423–36.

34. Bernstein MB, Chang EL, Amini B, et al. Spine stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with metastatic thyroid cancer: secondary analysis of phase I/II trials. Thyroid 2016;26:1269–75.

35. Chang UK, Cho WI, Kim MS, et al. Local tumor control after retreatment of spinal metastasis using stereotactic body radiotherapy; comparison with initial treatment group. Acta Oncol 2012;51:589–95.

36. Choi CY, Adler JR, Gibbs IC, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for treatment of spinal metastases recurring in close proximity to previously irradiated spinal cord. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2010;78:499–506.

37. Ong WL, Wong S, Soliman H, et al. Radiation myelopathy following stereotactic body radiation therapy for spine metastases. J Neurooncol 2022;159:23–31.

38. Hall WA, Stapleford LJ, Hadjipanayis CG, et al. Stereotactic body radiosurgery for spinal metastatic disease: an evidence-based review. Int J Surg Oncol 2011;2011:979214.

39. Schultheiss TE. The radiation dose-response of the human spinal cord. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:1455–9.

40. McVeigh LG, Linzey JR, Strong MJ, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for treatment of spinal metastasis: a systematic review of the literature. Neurooncol Adv 2024;6:iii28–47.

41. Mantel F, Sweeney RA, Klement RJ, et al. Risk factors for vertebral compression fracture after spine stereotactic body radiation therapy: long-term results of a prospective phase 2 study. Radiother Oncol 2019;141:62–6.

42. Tan TC, Black PM. Sir Victor Horsley (1857–1916): pioneer of neurological surgery. Neurosurgery 2002;50:607–12.

43. Gilbert RW, Kim JH, Posner JB. Epidural spinal cord compression from metastatic tumor: diagnosis and treatment. Ann Neurol 1978;3:40–51.

44. Gerszten PC, Mendel E, Yamada Y. Radiotherapy and radiosurgery for metastatic spine disease: what are the options, indications, and outcomes? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:S78–92.

45. Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, et al. Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 2005;366:643–8.

46. Nazzaro JM, Arbit E, Burt M. “Trap door” exposure of the cervicothoracic junction: technical note”. J Neurosurg 1994;80:338–41.

47. Gokaslan ZL, York JE, Walsh GL, et al. Transthoracic vertebrectomy for metastatic spinal tumors. J Neurosurg 1998;89:599–609.

48. Walsh GL, Gokaslan ZL, McCutcheon IE, et al. Anterior approaches to the thoracic spine in patients with cancer: indications and results. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;64:1611–8.

49. Ekpunobi IO, McClelland S. Early experience with two-fraction spine stereotactic body radiation therapy in treating spinal metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 2024;47:289–90.

50. Blakaj DM, Palmer JD, Dibs K, et al. Postoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis and predictors of local control. Neurosurgery 2021;88:1021–7.

51. Wong HCY, Lee SF, Chan AW, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy for spinal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Radiother Oncol 2023;189:109914.

52. Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Fourney DR, et al. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:324–8.

53. Laufer I, Zuckerman SL, Bird JE, et al. Predicting neurologic recovery after surgery in patients with deficits secondary to MESCC: systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41(Suppl 20): S224–30.

54. Di Perna G, Baldassarre B, Armocida D, et al. Application of the NSE score (Neurology-Stability-Epidural compression assessment) to establish the need for surgery in spinal metastases of elderly patients: a multicenter investigation. Eur Spine J 2024;33:4302–15.

55. Zhang HR, Li JK, Yang XG, Qiao RQ, Hu YC. Conventional radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of metastatic spine disease. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2020;19:1533033820945798.

56. Laufer I, Iorgulescu JB, Chapman T, et al. Local disease control for spinal metastases following “separation surgery” and adjuvant hypofractionated or high-dose single-fraction stereotactic radiosurgery: outcome analysis in 186 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:207–14.

57. Pojskic M, Naderi S, Vaishya S, et al. Complication avoidance, rehabilitation, pain therapy and palliative care for patients with metastatic spine tumors: WFNS spine committee recommendations. Neurosurg Rev 2024;47:830.

58. Yamada Y, Bilsky MH, Lovelock DM, et al. High-dose, single-fraction image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy for metastatic spinal lesions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;71:484–90.

59. Alghamdi M, Sahgal A, Soliman H, et al. Postoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases and the impact of epidural disease grade. Neurosurgery 2019;85:E1111–8.

60. Spratt DE, Beeler WH, de Moraes FY, et al. An integrated multidisciplinary algorithm for the management of spinal metastases: an International Spine Oncology Consortium report. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:e720–30.

61. Hong CG, Cho JH, Suh DC, et al. Preoperative embolization in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression: mandatory or optional? World J Surg Oncol 2017;15:45.

62. Wahood W, Alexander AY, Yolcu YU, et al. Trends in utilization of preoperative embolization for spinal metastases: a study of the national inpatient sample 2005–2017. Neurointervention 2021;16:52–8.

63. Zhang HR, Xu MY, Yang XG, et al. Nomogram for predicting the postoperative venous thromboembolism in spinal metastasis tumor: a multicenter retrospective study. Front Oncol 2021;11:629823.

64. Newman WC, Larsen AG, Bilsky MH. The NOMS approach to metastatic tumors: integrating new technologies to improve outcomes. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 2023;67:S487–99.

65. Laufer I, Rubin DG, Lis E, et al. The NOMS framework: approach to the treatment of spinal metastatic tumors. Oncologist 2013;18:744–51.

66. Clausen C, Dahl B, Frevert SC, et al. Preoperative embolization in surgical treatment of spinal metastases: single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial of efficacy in decreasing intraoperative blood loss. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015;26:402–12.

67. Ivanishvili Z, Fourney DR. Incorporating the spine instability neoplastic score into a treatment strategy for spinal metastasis: LMNOP. Global Spine J 2014;4:129–36.

68. Nakajima H, Watanabe S, Honjoh K, et al. Surgical strategy for metastatic spinal tumors based on Spine Instability Neoplastic Score and patient-reported outcomes: JASA multicenter prospective study. J Neurosurg Spine 2025;42:203–14.

69. Wänman J, Jernberg J, Gustafsson P, et al. Predictive value of the spinal instability neoplastic score for survival and ambulatory function after surgery for metastatic spinal cord compression in 110 patients with prostate cancer. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2021;46:550–8.

70. Sciubba DM, Pennington Z, Colman MW, et al. Spinal metastases 2021: a review of the current state of the art and future directions. Spine J 2021;21:1414–29.

71. Kumar N, Ravikumar N, Tan JY, et al. Current status of the use of salvaged blood in metastatic spine tumour surgery. Neurospine 2018;15:206–15.

72. De la Garza Ramos R, Echt M, Gelfand Y, Yanamadala V, Yassari R. Minimally invasive tubular separation surgery for metastatic spinal cord compression: 2-dimensional operative video. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) 2021;20:E356.

73. Conti A, Acker G, Kluge A, et al. Decision making in patients with metastatic spine. the role of minimally invasive treatment modalities. Front Oncol 2019;9:915.

74. Barzilai O, Robin AM, O’Toole JE, Laufer I. Minimally invasive surgery strategies: changing the treatment of spine tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2020;31:201–9.

75. Newman WC, Amin AG, Villavieja J, et al. Short-segment cement-augmented fixation in open separation surgery of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: initial experience. Neurosurg Focus 2021;50:E11.

76. Moussazadeh N, Rubin DG, McLaughlin L, et al. Short-segment percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with cement augmentation for tumor-induced spinal instability. Spine J 2015;15:1609–17.

77. Bakar D, Tanenbaum JE, Phan K, et al. Decompression surgery for spinal metastases: a systematic review. Neurosurg Focus 2016;41:E2.

78. Itshayek E, Yamada J, Bilsky M, et al. Timing of surgery and radiotherapy in the management of metastatic spine disease: a systematic review. Int J Oncol 2010;36:533–44.

79. Ryvlin J, Kim SW, De la Garza Ramos R, et al. External validation of an online wound infection and wound reoperation risk calculator after metastatic spinal tumor surgery. World Neurosurg 2024;185:e351–6.

80. Franck P, Bernstein JL, Cohen LE, et al. Local muscle flaps minimize post-operative wound morbidity in patients with neoplastic disease of the spine. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2018;171:100–5.

81. Hersh AM, Pennington Z, Schilling AT, et al. Plastic surgery wound closure following resection of spinal metastases. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2021;207:106800.

82. Saminathan ST, Ahmed WA, Nawi NM, et al. Correlation between the maximum standard uptake value and mean Hounsfield unit on single-photon emission computed tomography-computed tomography to discriminate benign and metastatic lesions among patients with breast cancer. Asian Spine J 2024;18:398–406.

83. Wewel JT, O’Toole JE. Epidemiology of spinal cord and column tumors. Neurooncol Pract 2020;7:i5–9.

84. Kang DH, Chang BS, Kim H, Hong SH, Chang SY. Separation surgery followed by stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a systematic review and meta-analysis for local progression rate. J Bone Oncol 2022;36:100450.

85. Debono B, Corniola MV, Pietton R, et al. Benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery for fusion in degenerative spine surgery: impact on outcome, length of stay, and patient satisfaction. Neurosurg Focus 2019;46:E6.

86. Choi JU, Kee TH, Lee DH, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in one- or two-level posterior lumbar fusion: improving postoperative outcomes. J Clin Med 2024;13.

87. Adeyemo EA, Aoun SG, Barrie U, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery reduces postoperative opioid use and 90-day readmission rates after open thoracolumbar fusion for adult degenerative deformity. Neurosurgery 2021;88:295–300.

88. Bendfeldt GA, Chanbour H, Chen JW, et al. Does low-grade versus high-grade Bilsky score influence local recurrence and overall survival in metastatic spine tumor surgery? Neurosurgery 2023;93:1319–30.

89. Fomchenko EI, Bayley JC, Alvarez-Breckenridge C, Rhines LD, Tatsui CE. Spinal metastases and the evolving role of molecular targeted therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. Neurospine 2022;19:978–93.

90. Dea N, Versteeg AL, Sahgal A, et al. Metastatic spine disease: should patients with short life expectancy be denied surgical care?: an international retrospective cohort study. Neurosurgery 2020;87:303–11.

91. Shi DD, Chen YH, Lam TC, et al. Assessing the utility of a prognostication model to predict 1-year mortality in patients undergoing radiation therapy for spinal metastases. Spine J 2018;18:935–40.

92. Karhade AV, Thio QC, Ogink PT, et al. Predicting 90-day and 1-year mortality in spinal metastatic disease: development and internal validation. Neurosurgery 2019;85:E671–81.

93. Paulino Pereira NR, Mclaughlin L, Janssen SJ, et al. The SORG nomogram accurately predicts 3- and 12-months survival for operable spine metastatic disease: external validation. J Surg Oncol 2017;115:1019–27.

94. Ghori AK, Leonard DA, Schoenfeld AJ, et al. Modeling 1-year survival after surgery on the metastatic spine. Spine J 2015;15:2345–50.

95. Lambrou I, Mantzoros I, Ioannidis O, et al. The effect of chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, bleomycin and cisplatin in the healing of colonic anastomoses in rats. Ann Ital Chir 2020;91:552–62.

96. Engelmann U, Grimm K, Gronniger J, Burger R, Jacobi GH. Influence of cis-platinum on healing of enterostomies in the rat. Eur Urol 1983;9:45–9.

97. Kennedy LB, Salama AK. A review of cancer immunotherapy toxicity. CA Cancer J Clin 2020;70:86–104.

98. August DA, Serrano D, Poplin E. “Spontaneous,” delayed colon and rectal anastomotic complications associated with bevacizumab therapy”. J Surg Oncol 2008;97:180–5.

99. Gupta S, Tran T, Luo W, et al. Machine-learning prediction of cancer survival: a retrospective study using electronic administrative records and a cancer registry. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004007.

100. Massaad E, Bridge CP, Kiapour A, et al. Evaluating frailty, mortality, and complications associated with metastatic spine tumor surgery using machine learning-derived body composition analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2022;37:263–73.

101. Gui C, Chen X, Sheikh K, et al. Radiomic modeling to predict risk of vertebral compression fracture after stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases. J Neurosurg Spine 2022;36:294–302.

102. Chen K, Cao J, Zhang X, et al. Differentiation between spinal multiple myeloma and metastases originated from lung using multi-view attention-guided network. Front Oncol 2022;12:981769.

103. Zhou X, Wang H, Feng C, et al. Emerging applications of deep learning in bone tumors: current advances and challenges. Front Oncol 2022;12:908873.