Abstract/Text: PURPOSE: This systematic review describes the diagnosis and management of adult patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of extradural malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC).
METHODS: MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to January 2004 using the following terms: spinal cord compression, nerve compression syndromes, spinal cord neoplasms, clinical trial, meta-analysis, and systematic review.
RESULTS: Symptoms for MSCC include sensory changes, autonomic dysfunction, and back pain; however, back pain was not predictive of MSCC. The sensitivity and specificity for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) range from 0.44 to 0.93 and 0.90 to 0.98, respectively, in the diagnosis of MSCC. The sensitivity and specificity for myelography range from 0.71 to 0.97 and 0.88 to 1.00, respectively. A randomized study detected higher ambulation rates in patients with MSCC who received high-dose dexamethasone before radiotherapy (RT) compared with patients who did not receive corticosteroids before RT (81% v 63% at 3 months, respectively; P = .046). There is no direct evidence that supports or refutes the type of surgery patients should have for the treatment of MSCC, whether surgical salvage should be attempted if patient is progressing on or shortly after RT, and whether patients with spinal instability should be treated with surgery.
CONCLUSION: Patients with symptoms of MSCC should be managed to minimize treatment delay. MRI is the preferred imaging technique. Treatment for patients with MSCC should consider pretreatment ambulatory status, comorbidities, technical surgical factors, the presence of bony compression and spinal instability, potential surgical complications, potential RT reactions, and patient preferences.

Abstract/Text: STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and modified Delphi technique.
OBJECTIVE: To use an evidence-based medicine process using the best available literature and expert opinion consensus to develop a comprehensive classification system to diagnose neoplastic spinal instability.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal instability is poorly defined in the literature and presently there is a lack of guidelines available to aid in defining the degree of spinal instability in the setting of neoplastic spinal disease. The concept of spinal instability remains important in the clinical decision-making process for patients with spine tumors.
METHODS: We have integrated the evidence provided by systematic reviews through a modified Delphi technique to generate a consensus of best evidence and expert opinion to develop a classification system to define neoplastic spinal instability.
RESULTS: A comprehensive classification system based on patient symptoms and radiographic criteria of the spine was developed to aid in predicting spine stability of neoplastic lesions. The classification system includes global spinal location of the tumor, type and presence of pain, bone lesion quality, spinal alignment, extent of vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral spinal element involvement. Qualitative scores were assigned based on relative importance of particular factors gleaned from the literature and refined by expert consensus.
CONCLUSION: The Spine Instability Neoplastic Score is a comprehensive classification system with content validity that can guide clinicians in identifying when patients with neoplastic disease of the spine may benefit from surgical consultation. It can also aid surgeons in assessing the key components of spinal instability due to neoplasia and may become a prognostic tool for surgical decision-making when put in context with other key elements such as neurologic symptoms, extent of disease, prognosis, patient health factors, oncologic subtype, and radiosensitivity of the tumor.