Potential harms of interventions for spinal metastatic disease
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:
The primary objective of this review is to compare the potential harms of treatment for spinal metastatic disease for the following treatments:
1. Surgical intervention.
2. Surgical intervention with radiation therapy.
3. Radiation therapy alone.
Our secondary objectives are:
1. comparing the harms of different surgical methods;
2. comparing the harms between different radiation protocols.
Background
Spinal metastatic disease is a common complication of several types of cancer. It is estimated that two thirds of cancer patients develop skeletal metastasis and the spine is the most common site (Maccauro 2011). The metastasis might cause pain and neurological symptoms, but can be asymptomatic during the remainder of the patient's life and thus never detected (Maccauro 2011).
Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) is a common neurological complication of spinal metastasis. The frequency among cancer patients is probably under‐reported and difficult to calculate, but autopsy studies and register studies among specified populations suggest an incidence of MESCC in cancer patients of about 5% (Barron 1959; Spencer 2014). As cord compression often causes progressive neurological deficits, a rapid diagnosis and an individualized treatment decision is crucial to avoid treatment delay. Treatment of the metastasis rarely cures the patient from the cancer and the possible harms of the treatment may affect quality of life during the often short expected survival time.
Description of the condition
Almost any type of systemic cancer can cause spinal metastasis and MESCC. Prostate, breast and lung tumours are the most frequent origins of MESCC (Constans 1983). The tumours spread hematogenously and grow in the vertebrae. This can lead to gradual or acute damage to the spinal cord, either due to mechanical compression, secondary vascular damage, or pathological fracture. Pain and loss of motor function are the two most common symptoms (Helweg‐Larsen 1994). The median survival time of patients with MESCC is estimated to be 3 to 6 months (Helweg‐Larsen 2000).
Description of the intervention
There are multiple surgical and non‐surgical methods to treat spinal metastasis. As soon as neurological symptoms are present, the first line of treatment is corticosteroid therapy (Ribas 2012). This can be combined with radiation therapy or different surgical techniques, or both. For the purpose of this review, the interventions studied will be surgery with or without radiation therapy.
When it comes to surgical interventions, several techniques are described in the literature. In early studies, laminectomy alone was the standard surgical procedure. Bone and tumour mass at the level of compression and one level above and below were removed (Young 1980). Today, decompression followed by mechanical stabilization with implants is the method used in recent studies and clinical practice. By adding the instrumentation, the stability of the spine will increase and thus reduce pain and risk for neurological deterioration. In short, the aim of the surgery is to address symptoms that are refractory to non‐operative care (Kaloostian 2014).
While the surgical techniques have evolved in recent years, radiotherapy (RT) is still the most commonly used modality for definitive treatment of MESCC. Radiotherapy can shrink the tumour and reduce the pressure on the spinal cord, reducing pain and neurological symptoms. Patients not treated with primary surgery usually receive RT (Loblaw 2012).
How the intervention might work
For patients with spinal metastatic disease without cord compression, the aim is to reduce pain and maintain spinal stability. If MESCC occurs, the aim is to reduce the compression of the spinal cord. The possible positive effects of this include preservation and restoration of neurological function, spinal stability, reduced pain and local tumour control (Laufer 2012).
Why it is important to do this review
The treatment of spinal metastasis is still a matter of debate and new surgical methods are gaining popularity. As the patients have short life expectancy, it is of paramount importance to avoid complications and hospitalisation affecting the remainder of their lives. One Cochrane review focused on the results of MESCC treatment, where harms were investigated as a secondary outcome, but only six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria (George 2008). In a recent update, the authors found one more RCT to include in the review (George 2015). Still, only two of the RCTs include surgical treatment and one of them is from 1980, when the preferred surgical technique (decompression only) was not the same as today.
While the review by George and colleagues sheds light on the adverse effects of different radiation protocols, there is no comparison between the adverse effects caused by different surgical methods. As opposed to the review by George and colleagues, the focus of our review will be entirely on harms. Furthermore, we aim to find more data as we will include not only RCTs.
Studies evaluating adverse effects of spine surgery are often retrospective and adverse effects are not always included as primary outcomes. It is suggested that the morbidity rate after spinal surgery of any kind is under‐reported (Dea 2014). This highlights the importance of synthesizing the evidence on harms to find the optimal treatment for these patients. While many of these patients will need surgical intervention to stop progression of their symptoms, we believe that clinicians and patients need more information on the potential harms in order to make informed decisions and select the best treatment.
In addition to the patient's suffering, complications after treatment for spinal metastasis will also have financial implications. The exact cost for an adverse effect depends on many factors, including the healthcare system, and it is hard to estimate. A study at an academic hospital in the USA among patients who underwent spinal surgery (including but not limited to MESCC) suggests that the direct cost of a wound infection is over USD 4000 while instrumentation malpositioning bears a direct cost of nearly USD 7000. The majority of the patients included in the study suffered some kind of adverse event, indicating that surgical intervention is associated with high risks (Whitmore 2012).
Objectives
The primary objective of this review is to compare the potential harms of treatment for spinal metastatic disease for the following treatments:
1. Surgical intervention.
2. Surgical intervention with radiation therapy.
3. Radiation therapy alone.
Our secondary objectives are:
1. comparing the harms of different surgical methods;
2. comparing the harms between different radiation protocols.
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Types of studies
We will include RCTs, observational studies and case series. We will exclude editorials, letters, addresses, conference abstracts and narrative reviews. We expect to find studies where data on adverse effects (AEs) are not available, even after contact with the authors. Those studies will not be included in the analysis but we will list the excluded studies in the 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table.
Types of participants
Patients aged 18 years or older treated for extradural spine metastasis of a primary tumour not originating from the spine. As primary tumours of the spine represent a different entity when it comes to epidemiology, treatment and prognosis, they are not covered in this study.
Types of interventions
Surgical interventions, radiotherapy or combinations of both (Fehlings 2014). The surgical interventions studied will be cement augmentation (Berenson 2011), posterior decompression, posterior decompression and fusion, intralesional anterior corpectomy and en‐bloc spondylectomy (Tomita 1994). Interventions of radiotherapy will be conventional radiation treatment with any fractionation or dose. As this review focuses on potential harms of specific interventions, no control groups (placebo, no treatment) will be used.
Types of outcome measures
The review will focus on adverse effects (AE) of an intervention. An AE is defined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (chapter 14) as "an adverse event for which the causal relation between the intervention and the event is at least a reasonable possibility" (Higgins 2011).
Adverse effects of surgery
A validated system for describing and grading adverse events connected to spine surgery, Spine Adverse Events Severity System Version 2 (SAVES V‐2), lists 38 possible adverse events. Each adverse event can be graded according to severity, which produces a high possible amount of comparable outcomes. The system is developed for general spine surgery including a variety of conditions and not only for metastatic spine surgery (Rampersaud 2010).
For the purpose of this review, the authors have defined and grouped adverse effects of particular interest for the population included in this review.
Intra‐operative adverse effects
These include blood loss of more than two liters, iatrogenic dural tear, nerve root injury, hardware malpositioning requiring revision and cardiac events. Other possible AEs not listed here but occurring during surgery (before the wound is closed) will belong to this group.
Post‐operative adverse effects
These include delirium, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, construct failure (with or without loss of correction), and neurological deterioration of one motor grade or more in ASIA motor scale. Other possible AEs occurring after surgery (except for infections) will be in this group.
Infection
These include deep and superficial surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, pneumonia and systemic infection.
Adverse effects of radiotherapy
The adverse effects of radiotherapy (RT) can be measured by different methods. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 4.03 is the measuring method recommended by the US Cancer Institute and is commonly used (National Cancer Institute 2009). The scale includes other AEs than those directly related to RT. The Acute Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria (ARMSC) launched in 1995 includes only AEs connected to radiation, but was replaced by the CTCAE in 2000 (Cox 1995; National Cancer Institute 2009).
In this review, we will focus on early AEs linked to RT. 'Early' in this case means that the AE occurs within three months after the last treatment.
Primary outcomes
We will pursue the incidence of AEs after surgery of any kind as listed above and the cumulated number of AEs suffered for each patient, as reported within two weeks after surgery. Regarding AEs after radiation therapy, primary outcomes will be the incidence of AEs with a severity grade from 3 to 5 (severe to death) within three months after treatment as defined in CTCAE 4.03.
Secondary outcomes
For AEs after surgery, the incidence af AEs in each of the categories (rather than the cumulative incidence) will be pursued. Secondary outcomes for patients treated with RT will be the incidence of AEs with severity grade from 1 to 2 (mild to moderate) as defined in CTCAE 4.03.
Search methods for identification of studies
Electronic searches
A senior librarian at the Biomedical Library, Uppsala University will conduct the searches. We intend to use EndNote and Rayyan as data management software and we have access to Covidence.
We will search the following databases from inception to current.
-
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library; latest issue);
-
MEDLINE (Ovid);
-
Embase (Elsevier);
-
Science Citation Index (Web of Science);
-
Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS);
-
World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP).
The draft search strategy for MEDLINE can be found in Appendix 1.
Searching other resources
The team content experts will identify other sources not covered by the electronic searches, for instance conference proceedings. The reference lists from recent review articles on the subject and all retrieved articles will be checked for other studies not captured by our search.
Data collection and analysis
Selection of studies
Two independent authors (YR and HM) will review all titles and abstracts found in the search. They will first screen articles based on title and abstract. We will then download those selected and two independent authors will review the full text. Before starting the selection, we will perform multiple pilot tests of the selection criteria to ensure that all reviewers have the same standard for selecting articles.
The authors will be required to reach consensus on whether to include or exclude every single article. If they disagree, they will first be asked to reach consensus through discussion. If consensus can't be reached, they will consult a third author (CC) for judgement. Members of the team may not review articles they have authored, co‐authored or consulted on. A third author will make a random check on a number of included, as well as excluded, articles to ensure the quality level of selection.
Studies will be considered for inclusion regardless of the original language. If the language is outside the linguistic competence of the team and its close collaborators, authors will seek assistance from Cochrane.
Data extraction and management
Two authors (YR and HM) will extract data independently, using standardized extraction forms. Data extracted will include study type, study population, intervention type and reported adverse effects. If requested data are not available in a study eligible for inclusion, we will try to contact the authors via e‐mail and request the data. If authors disagree on the extracted data, they will reach consensus through discussion. They will consult a third author if consensus cannot be reached after discussion.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
We will use two different tools for assessing the risk of bias in the studies included. Assessment of bias for RCTs will be made using the tools described in Table 1 and Table 2 (Furlan 2015). For non‐RCTs, we will use the ROBINS‐I tool, developed by the Cochrane Methods Bias Group and Cochrane Non‐randomized Studies for Interventions Group (Cochrane Bias Methods Group 2016; Sterne 2016). Rather than calculating a score of each assessment, the authors will make an overall assessment of the bias with the tools and the considerations will be explained in the 'Risk of bias table in the final review. Titles of journals, names of authors or institutions will not be masked at any stage. If two authors (YR and HM) disagree on the level of bias, they will consult a third author (CC).
| Bias domain | Source of bias | Possible answers |
| Selection | (1) Was the method of randomization adequate? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Selection | (2) Was the treatment allocation concealed? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Performance | (3) Was the patient blinded to the intervention? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Performance | (4) Was the care provider blinded to the intervention? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Detection | (5) Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Attrition | (6) Was the drop‐out rate described and acceptable? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Attrition | (7) Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were allocated? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Reporting | (8) Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Selection | (9) Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Performance | (10) Were cointerventions avoided or similar? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Performance | (11) Was the compliance acceptable in all groups? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Detection | (12) Was the timing of the outcome assessment similar in all groups? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Other | (13) Are other sources of potential bias unlikely? | Yes/no/unsure |
from Furlan 2015
| 1 | A random (unpredictable) assignment sequence. Examples of adequate methods are coin toss (for studies with 2 |
| 2 | Assignment generated by an independent person not responsible for determining the eligibility of the patients. |
| 3 | Index and control groups are indistinguishable for the patients or if the success of blinding was tested among |
| 4 | Index and control groups are indistinguishable for the care providers or if the success of blinding was tested |
| 5 | Adequacy of blinding should be assessed for each primary outcome separately. This item should be scored ‐ for patient‐reported outcomes in which the patient is the outcome assessor (e.g., pain, disability): the blinding |
| 6 | The number of participants who were included in the study but did not complete the observation period or |
| 7 | All randomized patients are reported/analyzed in the group they were allocated to by randomization for the |
| 8 | All the results from all prespecified outcomes have been adequately reported in the published report of the |
| 9 | Groups have to be similar at baseline regarding demographic factors, duration and severity of complaints, |
| 10 | If there were no cointerventions or they were similar between the index and control groups. |
| 11 | The reviewer determines if the compliance with the interventions is acceptable, based on the reported |
| 12 | Timing of outcome assessment should be identical for all intervention groups and for all primary outcome |
| 13 | Other types of biases. For example: |
from Furlan 2015
If one of the review authors is credited as author or co‐author of a study, this author will not be involved in the bias assessment for their work.
Measures of treatment effect
The review will cover harms and will report incidence, difference, relative risk, and odds ratio of adverse events of the given intervention.
Unit of analysis issues
Unit of analysis issues may arise, as the study populations can be exposed to several interventions and each patient can suffer from several AEs. As stated in the outcome section of this protocol, we will analyse the data both with the patient as unit of analysis (number of patients who suffer an AE for each intervention) and the AE as the unit of analysis (cumulated number of AEs for a specific intervention). We do not expect to find any cluster‐randomised trials.
Dealing with missing data
If relevant data are missing, we will attempt to contact the author of the study to obtain further information. In the case of no response from the author, we will not do any data imputation. We will only do data transformation from percentages to absolute numbers if these are necessary to enter in meta‐analyses. If necessary, we will use figures to extrapolate numbers such as means and standard deviations.
Assessment of heterogeneity
As the included patients suffer from different types of primary tumours, heterogeneity is expected to some extent. The surgical procedures are, to our knowledge, similar worldwide. Age and general medical condition will most probably affect the rate of AEs, as will the follow‐up time. For surgical AEs, we anticipate finding the relevant AEs within a two‐week follow‐up, while the follow‐up time for early AEs after radiation is up to three months.
Assessment of reporting biases
Studies included will be assessed for possible outcome reporting bias by at least two authors (YR and HM) Where readily available, the protocol for each study will be compared with the reported outcomes in the publication. To detect possible reporting bias within a study, the outcomes reported from each study will be listed in a matrix as recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. If an outcome reported by the majority of studies is missing in a study, we will conduct a more thorough search for possible selective outcome reporting bias in that particular study. We will use ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Scopus (Elsevier) to look for links to study protocols. If the original protocol is not available, we will assess if the outcomes listed in the trial registration are reported in the publication.
Most likely, we will not be able to do a meta‐analysis due to an expected low number of high‐quality studies. For assessing publication bias, we will do an eyeball test and plot the studies in a funnel plot. If we find at least five studies to include in a meta‐analysis, the Egger test will be used to assess publication bias (Egger 2001).
Data synthesis
To assess whether the included studies are homogenous enough to pool, we will use the tools suggested by Verbeek 2012 which emphasize similarities rather than differences between studies. Using this method, factors including control group, participants and follow‐up time will be assessed for heterogeneity by two authors (YR and HM) independently and a third author (CC) will be consulted if no agreement is reached.
For dichotomous outcomes, the relative risk (RR) will be analysed. Uncertainty will be expressed with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). If we find homogenous data in the included RCTs, the data may be pooled and meta‐analysed using the Review Manager 5 (Review Manager 2014) software. A Chi² test less than 0.05 will indicate a significant statistical heterogeneity.
Given the low known number of RCTs on the subject, we expect to include non‐RCTs. Data from these studies may be pooled, unless at least two authors find the study populations to be too clinically heterogeneous or a high risk of bias is estimated using the tools described in Table 1 and Table 2.
Assessment of the quality of evidence will be made using the GRADE approach, as recommended in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) and adapted in the updated CBN method guidelines (Furlan 2015). The quality of evidence for each outcome will be graded from high to low according to the GRADE system (Appendix 2).
We will use GRADEpro GDT 2015 to import data from RevMan 5 to create 'Summary of findings' tables. The tables will provide outcome‐specific information regarding the quality of evidence from the included studies. If we include RCTs and find data eligible for pooling as described above, the evidence will be downgraded from 'high quality' by one level if we find serious study limitations including, but not limited by, risk of bias. For very serious limitations the downgrade will be two steps. For non‐RCTs, the level of evidence will start at low and the criteria for downgrading will be the same.
The following outcomes will be in the 'Summary of findings' tables as drafted in Table 3; Table 4; and Table 5
| Adverse effects after surgical intervention only | |||
| Patient or population: Patients aged 18 years or older treated for extradural spine metastasis not originating from the spine Settings: Hospital Intervention: Surgery without radiation therapy Comparison: None | |||
| Outcomes | Outcome type | Outcome measure | Comments |
| Incidence of AE after surgery | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Cumulated number of AEs after surgery | continuous | number | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of intra‐operative AEs | continuous | % | before closure of the wound |
| Incidence of postoperative AEs (excluding infections) | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of infections | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||
| Adverse effects after surgery and radiation | |||
| Patient or population: Patients aged 18 years or older treated for extradural spine metastasis not originating from the spine Settings: Hospital Intervention: Surgery in combination with radiotherapy Comparison: None | |||
| Outcomes | Outcome type | Outcome measure | Comments |
| Incidence of AE after surgery and radiation | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Cumulated number of AEs after surgery | continuous | number | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of AEs with severity grade 3 to 5 | continuous | % | three months after radiation therapy |
| Incidence of intra‐operative AEs | continuous | % | before wound closure |
| Incidence of postoperative AEs (excluding infections) | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of infections | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of AEs with severity grade 1 to 2 | continuous | % | three months after radiation therapy |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||
| Adverse effects after radiation | |||
| Patient or population: Patients aged 18 years or older treated for extradural spine metastasis not originating from the spine Settings: Hospital Intervention: Radiotherapy without surgery Comparison: None | |||
| Outcomes | Outcome type | Outcome measure | Comments |
| Incidence of AEs with severity grade 3 to 5 | continuous | % | three months after radiation therapy |
| Incidence of AEs with severity grade 1 to 2 | continuous | % | three months after radiation therapy |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||
-
Incidence of AE after surgery at two weeks post‐operatively.
-
Cumulated number of AEs after surgery at two weeks postoperatively.
-
Incidence of AEs with severity grade 3 to 5 within three months after radiation therapy.
-
Incidence of AEs divided into intra‐operative AEs, post‐operative AEs, and infections at two weeks postoperatively.
-
Incidence of AEs with severity grade 1 to 2 within three months after radiation therapy.
Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
Based on our previous knowledge on the subject, we do not expect to find enough high‐quality data to justify any a priori definition of a potential subgroup analysis. However, if there are sufficient data after the data extraction, we plan to do a subgroup analysis of the two types expected to be the most common (breast, prostate) and the AEs after intervention in those particular populations.
Sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis will be performed in order to vary the assumptions used in a possible meta‐analysis, and also through single elimination of the studies in order to assess for significance. We plan to exclude studies without well‐defined populations and interventions. Interventions by radiotherapy should be defined regarding dose, fractioning and length of treatment. Regarding surgical interventions, we expect approach, type of decompression and type of instrumentation to be described.
| Bias domain | Source of bias | Possible answers |
| Selection | (1) Was the method of randomization adequate? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Selection | (2) Was the treatment allocation concealed? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Performance | (3) Was the patient blinded to the intervention? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Performance | (4) Was the care provider blinded to the intervention? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Detection | (5) Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Attrition | (6) Was the drop‐out rate described and acceptable? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Attrition | (7) Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were allocated? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Reporting | (8) Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Selection | (9) Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Performance | (10) Were cointerventions avoided or similar? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Performance | (11) Was the compliance acceptable in all groups? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Detection | (12) Was the timing of the outcome assessment similar in all groups? | Yes/no/unsure |
| Other | (13) Are other sources of potential bias unlikely? | Yes/no/unsure |
| from Furlan 2015 | ||
| 1 | A random (unpredictable) assignment sequence. Examples of adequate methods are coin toss (for studies with 2 |
| 2 | Assignment generated by an independent person not responsible for determining the eligibility of the patients. |
| 3 | Index and control groups are indistinguishable for the patients or if the success of blinding was tested among |
| 4 | Index and control groups are indistinguishable for the care providers or if the success of blinding was tested |
| 5 | Adequacy of blinding should be assessed for each primary outcome separately. This item should be scored ‐ for patient‐reported outcomes in which the patient is the outcome assessor (e.g., pain, disability): the blinding |
| 6 | The number of participants who were included in the study but did not complete the observation period or |
| 7 | All randomized patients are reported/analyzed in the group they were allocated to by randomization for the |
| 8 | All the results from all prespecified outcomes have been adequately reported in the published report of the |
| 9 | Groups have to be similar at baseline regarding demographic factors, duration and severity of complaints, |
| 10 | If there were no cointerventions or they were similar between the index and control groups. |
| 11 | The reviewer determines if the compliance with the interventions is acceptable, based on the reported |
| 12 | Timing of outcome assessment should be identical for all intervention groups and for all primary outcome |
| 13 | Other types of biases. For example: |
| from Furlan 2015 | |
| Adverse effects after surgical intervention only | |||
| Patient or population: Patients aged 18 years or older treated for extradural spine metastasis not originating from the spine Settings: Hospital Intervention: Surgery without radiation therapy Comparison: None | |||
| Outcomes | Outcome type | Outcome measure | Comments |
| Incidence of AE after surgery | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Cumulated number of AEs after surgery | continuous | number | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of intra‐operative AEs | continuous | % | before closure of the wound |
| Incidence of postoperative AEs (excluding infections) | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of infections | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||
| Adverse effects after surgery and radiation | |||
| Patient or population: Patients aged 18 years or older treated for extradural spine metastasis not originating from the spine Settings: Hospital Intervention: Surgery in combination with radiotherapy Comparison: None | |||
| Outcomes | Outcome type | Outcome measure | Comments |
| Incidence of AE after surgery and radiation | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Cumulated number of AEs after surgery | continuous | number | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of AEs with severity grade 3 to 5 | continuous | % | three months after radiation therapy |
| Incidence of intra‐operative AEs | continuous | % | before wound closure |
| Incidence of postoperative AEs (excluding infections) | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of infections | continuous | % | two weeks post‐operatively |
| Incidence of AEs with severity grade 1 to 2 | continuous | % | three months after radiation therapy |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||
| Adverse effects after radiation | |||
| Patient or population: Patients aged 18 years or older treated for extradural spine metastasis not originating from the spine Settings: Hospital Intervention: Radiotherapy without surgery Comparison: None | |||
| Outcomes | Outcome type | Outcome measure | Comments |
| Incidence of AEs with severity grade 3 to 5 | continuous | % | three months after radiation therapy |
| Incidence of AEs with severity grade 1 to 2 | continuous | % | three months after radiation therapy |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence | |||
