Skip to main content
Download PDF

Delayed postoperative radiotherapy increases the incidence of radiographic local tumor progression before radiotherapy and leads to poor prognosis in spinal metastases

Radiation Oncology volume 16, Article number: 21 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Most previous studies focused on the minimum interval between surgery and radiotherapy in spinal metastases, leaving the maximum interval under-investigated. However, in real world, limited radiotherapist and equipment cannot meet the needs of a large patient population to obtain timely radiotherapy after the index spine surgery in developing countries. This study aimed to estimate the clinical risks of delayed radiotherapy after surgery in patients with spinal metastases in developing country.

Methods

Data from 89 patients who underwent surgery and postoperative radiotherapy at a single site in a developing country were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into the progression before radiotherapy (PBR) and no progression before radiotherapy (NPBR) groups. Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to compare the local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) between groups.

Results

Within 1 month after surgery, only 20.2% of patients underwent radiotherapy. Risk of local progression before radiotherapy at 1, 3, and 6 months was 1.2%, 24.1%, and 45.1%, respectively. The LC rate at 1 year was lower in the PBR group than in the NPBR group (53.3% vs. 76.3%, P = 0.040). The OS rate at 1 year was 61.9% and 79.6% in the PBR and NPBR groups, respectively (P = 0.001). The Karnofsky performance status significantly improved only in the NPBR group (52.5 ± 17.6 vs. 66.8 ± 26.3, P < 0.001). The sphincter dysfunction significantly improved in the NPBR group (0.3 ± 0.5 vs. 0.1 ± 0.3, P = 0.007) but it tended to be deteriorated in the PBR group (0.1 ± 0.4 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5, P = 0.500).

Conclusions

In real world, about 80% of patients had delayed radiotherapy 1 month after spine surgery for metastases in our developing country. Patients had a higher risk for radiographic local progression before radiotherapy and poorer LC, OS, and quality of life as time to radiotherapy increased.

Background

The spine is the most common site of skeletal metastases and it is estimated that the incidence of spinal metastases is 30%-50% in patients with cancer [1, 2]. Spinal metastases may involve epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) with or without bone destruction, leading to intractable pain, pathologic fractures, or spinal cord or nerve root compression, all of which could significantly impact patients’ quality of life [3]. In selected patients, radiotherapy alone can be an important option, in particular with stereotactic technique [4, 5]. However, surgical treatment is required before radiotherapy when there is high-grade ESCC or spinal instability [6]. Recent advancements in treatment include sufficient epidural decompression (such as separation surgery) followed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to achieve durable local control (LC) and lower the incidence of marginal failures [7,8,9].

To avoid postoperative tumor progression, radiotherapy is carried out as soon as possible after the index spine surgery. Since the radiation might impair the postoperative healing process, an interval of at least 1 or 2 weeks between surgery and radiotherapy is recommended [10,11,12,13]. Most previous studies focused on the minimum interval between surgery and radiotherapy, leaving the maximum interval under-investigated. Delayed postoperative radiotherapy may be associated with the risk of residual tumor recurrence or reduced sensitivity to radiation [10]. However, in developing countries, limited radiotherapist and equipment cannot meet the needs of a large patient population to obtain timely radiotherapy after the index spine surgery. Patients with spine metastases treated at the present study site are typically suggested to undergo radiotherapy 3–4 weeks after the index spine surgery. However, there are several reasons, such as patient weakness due to the index surgery or poor general health, preference for alternative treatment, and overburdened radiotherapy workforce, due to which some patients do not undergo postoperative radiotherapy during the recommended timeframe.

Missing the optimal timeframe for postoperative radiation might result in a poor prognosis and even recurrence of spinal cord compression. Therefore, this study aimed to calculate the risk of radiographic local progression before radiotherapy in patients with spinal metastases according to the time interval between index surgery and radiation treatment and describe the influence of delayed radiotherapy on patient prognosis.

Methods

Study design and participants

This retrospective study was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement [14] and the institutional review board approved the study design. Data of patients who underwent surgical treatment with postoperative radiotherapy for spinal metastases in a high-volume tertiary teaching hospital in China from October 2010 to March 2020 were collected. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) confirmed spinal metastases, (2) both surgical treatment and postoperative radiotherapy were performed at the study site, (3) separation surgery, decompression surgery (laminectomy), and vertebrectomy, (4) underwent IMRT or SBRT, and (5) time interval between surgical treatment and postoperative radiotherapy less than 9 months. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) surgical treatment or radiotherapy not performed at study-site, (2) vertebroplasty, occipitocervical fusion without tumor resection, and total vertebra resection; (3) radioactive seed implantations, and (4) unavailable pre-radiotherapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. The follow-up was a minimum of 6 months after radiotherapy or until the death of a patient. MRI was performed before radiotherapy to identify any local tumor progression (Fig. 1). MRI data were reviewed by a radiologist and an orthopedic surgeon. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved by another senior surgeon. According to the MRI data, the patients were divided into two groups, namely, local progression before radiotherapy (PBR) and no progression before radiotherapy (NPBR).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Imaging of patients in progression before radiotherapy group (PBR). A 77-year-old man with T4 metastatic lung cancer experienced severe back pain and weakness for 2 months. a, b Sagittal and axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before surgery showed a lesion in T4 with high-grade epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC). c Separation surgery was performed and postoperative radiograph indicated well fixation. d Postoperative axial T2-weighted MRI showing complete decompression of the spinal cord. Compared with postoperative image (e, 5 days after surgery), axial T2-weighted MRI showed local progression before radiotherapy (f, 50 days after surgery). The two images displayed the slices at the same level in T5 superior endplate

Full size image

Data collection

Patient and tumor characteristics were collected from electronic medical records and our specialized database, including age, sex, tumor histology, location, ESCC grade [15], spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) [16], Tomita score [17], revised Tokuhashi score [18], radiotherapy method, overall survival (OS), and LC.

Patients underwent regular clinical and radiography follow-up. The primary outcomes included OS and LC. Based on the 2015 Spine Response Assessment in the Neuro-Oncology Group report, LC was defined as a lack of tumor progression within the treated volume [19]. Quality of life parameters were collected both preoperatively and during follow-up and included the numeric rating scale (NRS) score, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score, mobility (bedridden, wheelchair, double-crutches, single-crutches, or walking independently were assigned 0–4 points, respectively), and sphincter dysfunction (0 or 1 for negative or positive).

Statistical analyses

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Data were summarized as number of patients (percentage), mean ± standard deviation and median (range), accordingly. The Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank test were used to analyze and compare the LC and OS between groups. Comparisons of NRS, KPS, mobility, and sphincter dysfunction between pre-surgery and at follow-up were performed using the Wilcoxon test. Comparisons of parameters between the PBR and NPBR groups were performed using the Mann–Whitney U test. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient and tumor characteristics

A total of 89 successive patients were included in the study. The average age at surgery was 54.6 ± 11.6 years and the proportion of males was slightly higher than females. The most common primary tumor type was renal cancer (22.5%, 20/89), followed by lung (21.3%, 19/89) and breast cancer (14.6%, 13/89). The most common sites of spinal metastases were the thoracic (40.4%, 36/89) segments. The ESCC grade before surgery was 3 in more than half of the patients (58.4%, 52/89), while patients with grade 2 accounted for 32.6% (29/89). Operation types included separation surgery (57.3%, 51/89), decompression surgery (25.8%, 23/89), and vertebrectomy (16.9%, 15/89). The majority (71.9%, 64/89) of patients underwent post-surgical SBRT, while others were treated with IMRT. There was no significant difference between NPBR and PBR in the above parameters (Table 1). Both in NPBR and PBR, median prescription dose/ number of fractions of SBRT and IMRT were 35 Gy/5 fractions and 30 Gy/10 fractions, respectively. Only three patients were lost to follow-up, resulting in a 96.6% (86/89) of the follow-up rate. The average follow-up time after radiotherapy was 15.8 ± 12.8 months.

Table 1 Patient and tumor characteristics
Full size table

Radiographic local progression before radiotherapy

The median time interval (TI) between surgery and radiotherapy was 1.6 months (range: 0.5 to 8.9). Altogether, 18 (20.2%), 53 (59.6%), 14 (15.7%), and 4 (4.5%) patients underwent radiotherapy after surgery within 1, 1–3, 3–6 and 6–9 months, respectively. A total of 15.7% (14/89) patients developed radiographic local progression before radiotherapy, and the estimated risk for radiographic local progression before radiotherapy at 1, 3, and 6 months was 1.2%, 24.1%, and 45.1%, respectively (Fig. 2). Only one patient (gastric cancer, vertebrectomy, TI = 0.7 month) developed radiographic local progression within 1 month. The percentage of patients with local progression before radiotherapy was 13.7% (7/51) in the separation surgery group, 13.0% (3/23) in the decompression surgery group, and 26.7% (4/15) in the vertebrectomy group. However, there was no significant difference according to the Kaplan–Meier analysis among different operation types (P = 0.884) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Radiographic local tumor progression before radiotherapy in all patients

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Radiographic local tumor progression before radiotherapy according to operation types

Full size image

Prognosis of patients between the PBR and NPBR groups

According to Kaplan–Meier analysis, the estimated overall LC rate at 1 year after radiotherapy was 72.8%. The estimated LC rate at 1 year was 53.3% in the PBR group, which was significantly lower than that in the NPBR group (76.3%, P = 0.040). The estimated overall OS rate at 1 year after radiotherapy was 79.6%. In the PBR group, the estimated OS rate at 1 year was 61.9%, while that in the NPBR group was significantly higher at 83.1% (P = 0.001) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Local control and overall survival after radiotherapy in the two groups. Estimated rates of LC (a) and OS (b). LC, local control; NPBR, no progression before radiotherapy group; OS, overall survival; PBR, progression before radiotherapy group

Full size image

For other patient outcomes, there were significant differences in preoperative- and follow-up NRS scores for pain in both groups (NPBR group: 6.8 ± 2.2 vs. 3.2 ± 2.6, P < 0.001; PBR group: 6.5 ± 2.0 vs. 4.2 ± 3.1, P = 0.012). Between the two groups at the last follow-up, the NPBR vs. PBR group NRS scores tended to be lower but without a significant difference 3.2 ± 2.6 vs. 4.2 ± 3.1, P = 0.253). According to the KPS, significant improvement between preoperative and follow-up scores occurred only in the NPBR group (52.5 ± 17.6 vs. 66.8 ± 26.3, P < 0.001). Mobility was improved in the NPBR group (2.6 ± 1.7 vs. 3.0 ± 1.6, P = 0.086) with borderline significant difference, but it tended to be deteriorated in the PBR group (2.9 ± 1.7 vs. 2.5 ± 1.8, P = 0.531). Besides, the mobility time after radiotherapy was longer in the NPBR group with borderline significant difference (14.1 ± 12.8 vs. 8.3 ± 7.4 months, P = 0.086). The sphincter dysfunction was improved in the NPBR group (0.3 ± 0.5 vs. 0.1 ± 0.3, P = 0.007) but it tended to be deteriorated in the PBR group (0.1 ± 0.4 vs. 0.3 ± 0.5, P = 0.500) (Table 2).

Table 2 Patient-reported outcomes
Full size table

Complications

Surgery-related complications included wound infection (five patients), implant failure (three patients), transient neurologic deficit (two patients), urinary tract infection (two patients), leakage of cerebrospinal fluid (one patients), dyspnea for edema of the posterior pharyngeal wall after cervical surgery (one patient), respiratory and heart failure (one patient), pneumonia and hydrothorax (one patient), and transient delirium (one patient).

Radiotherapy-related complications included vertebral compression fracture (one patient, TI = 1.0 month, NPBR), radiation radiculopathy (one patient, TI = 2.5 months, NPBR), and bacteremia (one patient, TI = 5.7 months, PBR).

Discussion

In the present study, the prognosis was analyzed in patients who underwent radiotherapy after surgery for spinal metastases at a single-site in a developing country. Overall, about 15.7% of patients developed radiographic local progression before radiotherapy. The percentage of patients with local progression was increased as the interval between surgery and radiotherapy increased. Results also showed that post-radiotherapy LC and OS rates were poorer in patients with PBR, the KPS scores, mobility and sphincter dysfunction was improved only in NPBR patients at follow-up.

An evidence-based recommended time interval between surgery and radiotherapy for the management of spinal metastases has been previously discussed, but the conclusions associated with it have been unclear. This is partly due to the focus being on the minimum interval, leaving the maximum interval under-investigated. For example, Itshayek et al. suggested that the key factor that limited the minimum time interval was wound healing and bone fusion [11, 12]. Since the radiation impairs these processes, especially in the first week post-surgery, they recommended at least a 1-week interval between surgery and radiotherapy. Lee et al. investigated both radiation oncologists’ and spine surgeons’ opinions and concluded that the time between treatments should be a minimum of 2 weeks [13]. For minimally invasive surgery, radiotherapy can be started within 2 to 3 days after surgery [20]. The present study adds new findings to the existing literature by focusing on the maximal interval in cases of delayed radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy that is performed more than 1 month after the surgery was usually considered delayed radiotherapy in our consensus. One patient with gastric cancer had local progression within the 1-month interval between surgery and radiotherapy resulting in a risk of radiographic local progression before radiotherapy being 1.2%. However, the estimated risk of local progression increased over time, equaling 24.1% at 3 months. Based on these results, radiotherapy after surgery should occur at least within 1 month. However, more clinical evidence is needed to confirm the recommendation.

In the present study, the patient prognosis was promising when radiotherapy was conducted prior to local progression and previous studies have verified the efficacy of surgery and postoperative radiosurgery [6, 21, 22]. Herein, the estimated risk of LC at 1 year in patients without pre-radiotherapy progression was 76.3%. Further, the PBR and NPBR groups were compared to explore the effect of progression before radiotherapy on the prognosis in patients after radiotherapy. Patients with PBR had worse LC, indicating that postponement of radiotherapy led to a worse prognosis. Patients with NPBR also had a longer OS time in the present study. As OS was mainly determined by the primary tumor histology and major organ metastases [23, 24], tumors with local progression before radiotherapy could probably be more malignant in histology and thus more likely to metastasize viscerally, reducing estimated survival time.

Pain relief is considered one of the important aspects in the management of patients with bone metastases [25]. Patients from both groups in the present study had significant pain relief after the treatment. However, in terms of KPS scores and mobility, they were improved only in the patients with NPBR. Besides, the mobility time after radiotherapy was longer in the NPBR group with borderline significant difference. The difference between groups was significant according to the sphincter dysfunction where it in patients with NPBR was improved significantly after radiotherapy while in those with PBR, it had deteriorated but without significant difference. These findings are related to the quality of life in patients and emphasize the importance of timely radiotherapy.

Short TI might impair the postoperative healing process. However, in the present study, wound infection in five patients was developed before postoperative radiation. It was less related to radiation therapy. No wound complication was seen after radiotherapy. Although it seemed that the patients with radiotherapy-related complications had longer TI and TI time in all of them was ≥ 1 month, it was difficult to demonstrate a clear correlation between the complications and the TI.

There are several limitations to the current study to consider. The retrospective study design does not show causality and is, therefore, less powerful to address the issue of delayed radiotherapy. However, a prospective study is not ethically feasible. In addition, tumors with different histology grow at different rates, which may lead to different risk levels associated with delayed treatment. Larger sample size would be needed to conduct this type of the stratified analysis.

Conclusions

In conclusion, in real world, about 80% of the patients had delayed radiotherapy 1 month after the spine surgery for metastases in our developing country, even in tertiary teaching hospital. Patients had a higher risk for radiographic local progression before radiotherapy and poorer LC, OS, and quality of life as the time to radiotherapy increased.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

cEBRT:

Conventional external-beam radiotherapy

ESCC:

Epidural spinal cord compression

IMRT:

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy

KPS:

Karnofsky performance status

LC:

Local control

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NPBR:

No progression before radiotherapy

NRS:

Numeric rating scale

OS:

Overall survival

PBR:

Progression before radiotherapy

SBRT:

Stereotactic body radiotherapy

SINS:

Spinal instability neoplastic score

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

TI:

Time interval

References

  1. 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(12):e720–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Harel R, Angelov L. Spine metastases: current treatments and future directions. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(15):2696–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Coleman RE. Clinical features of metastatic bone disease and risk of skeletal morbidity. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(20 Pt 2):6243s-s6249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Giaj-Levra N, Niyazi M, Figlia V, et al. Feasibility and preliminary clinical results of linac-based Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for spinal metastases using a dedicated contouring and planning system. Radiat Oncol. 2019;14(1):184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. De Bari B, Alongi F, Mortellaro G, Mazzola R, Schiappacasse L, Guckenberger M. Spinal metastases: Is stereotactic body radiation therapy supported by evidences? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;98:147–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(3):207–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gong Y, Hu J, Jiang L, et al. What predicts the prognosis of spinal metastases in separation surgery procedures?. World Neurosurg. 2020;7:S1878-8750(20)32374-3

  8. Hu JX, Gong YN, Jiang XD, et al. Local tumor control for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression following separation surgery with adjuvant CyberKnife stereotactic radiotherapy or image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy. World Neurosurg. 2020;141:e76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gong Y, Xu L, Zhuang H, et al. Efficacy and safety of different fractions in stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: a systematic review. Cancer Med. 2019;8(14):6176–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang J, Boerma M, Fu Q, Hauer-Jensen M. Radiation responses in skin and connective tissues: effect on wound healing and surgical outcome. Hernia. 2006;10(6):502–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(3):533–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Itshayek E, Cohen JE, Yamada Y, et al. Timing of stereotactic radiosurgery and surgery and wound healing in patients with spinal tumors: a systematic review and expert opinions. Neurol Res. 2014;36(6):510–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee RS, Batke J, Weir L, Dea N, Fisher CG. Timing of surgery and radiotherapy in the management of metastatic spine disease: expert opinion. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(2):368–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Fourney DR, et al. Reliability analysis of the epidural spinal cord compression scale. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(3):324–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fisher CG, Dipaola CP, Ryken TC, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Murakami H, Demura S. Total en bloc spondylectomy for spinal tumors: improvement of the technique and its associated basic background. J Orthop Sci. 2006;11(1):3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Thibault I, Chang EL, Sheehan J, et al. Response assessment after stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis: a report from the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):e595–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zuckerman SL, Laufer I, Sahgal A, et al. When less is more: the indications for MIS techniques and separation surgery in metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(Suppl 20):S246-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(9486):643–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Moulding HD, Elder JB, Lis E, et al. Local disease control after decompressive surgery and adjuvant high-dose single-fraction radiosurgery for spine metastases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(1):87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Park JH, Lee DG, Hwang J, Lee SH, Eoh W, Kim ES. The impact of surgical treatment on survival in patients with cervical spine metastases. Neurospine. 2018;15(2):144–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lun DX, Chen NW, Feng JT, et al. Visceral metastasis: a prognostic factor of survival in patients with spinal metastases. Orthop Surg. 2020;12(2):552–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gagnon GJ, Nasr NM, Liao JJ, et al. Treatment of spinal tumors using cyberknife fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery: pain and quality-of-life assessment after treatment in 200 patients. Neurosurgery. 2009;64(2):297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (http://www.editage.cn) for English language editing.

Funding

This study was funded by Peking University Third Hospital (grant number Y71508-01) and Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Grant Number 7204327).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yining Gong and Hongqing Zhuang and Shan Chong have contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 North Garden Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China

    Yining Gong, Feng Wei, Zhongjun Liu, Hanqiang Ouyang, Xiaoguang Liu & Liang Jiang

  2. Health Science Center, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Yining Gong, Shan Chong & Qianyu Shi

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China

    Hongqing Zhuang

  4. The Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China

    Xiaoguang Liu

Authors
  1. Yining Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongqing Zhuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shan Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qianyu Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Feng Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zhongjun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hanqiang Ouyang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiaoguang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Liang Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YG conceptualize the idea, designed the work, analyzed the data, and drafted the work. HZ performed the radiotherapy and interpreted the data. SC collected the data and participated in drafting the work. QS collected the data and participated in the investigation. FW and ZL performed the operation. HO participated in performing the operation and revising the work. XL participated in conception, performing the operation, and project supervision. LJ performed the operation, interpreted the data, revised the work, and participated in project supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiaoguang Liu or Liang Jiang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The institutional review board (M2019189) approved the study design. Written informed consent was waived due to the retrospective design and the absence of any intervention.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gong, Y., Zhuang, H., Chong, S. et al. Delayed postoperative radiotherapy increases the incidence of radiographic local tumor progression before radiotherapy and leads to poor prognosis in spinal metastases. Radiat Oncol 16, 21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01740-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01740-y

Keywords

Radiation Oncology

ISSN: 1748-717X

Contact us