Neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic and other decision frameworks for spinal disease Review


Authors: Newman, W. C.; Laufer, I.; Bilsky, M. H.
Review Title: Neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic and other decision frameworks for spinal disease
Abstract: The incidence of metastatic spinal disease is increasing as systemic treatment options are improving and concurrently increasing the life expectancy of patients, and the interventions are becoming increasingly complex. Treatment decisions are also complicated by the increasing armamentarium of surgical treatment options. Decision-making frameworks such as NOMS (neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic) help guide practitioners in their decision making and provide a structure that would be readily adaptable to the evolving landscape of systemic, surgical, and radiation treatments. This article describes these decision-making frameworks, discusses their relative benefits and shortcomings, and details our approach to treating these complex patients. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: cancer survival; cancer surgery; review; cancer radiotherapy; clinical assessment; algorithm; clinical evaluation; scoring system; fitness; stereotactic body radiotherapy; stereotactic radiosurgery; stereotactic body radiation therapy; decision making; functional status; spinal cord metastasis; spine disease; spinal instability neoplastic score; cancer prognosis; human; priority journal; metastatic epidural spinal cord compression; noms; neurologic disease assessment; functional status assessment; lmnop
Journal Title: Neurosurgery Clinics of North America
Volume: 31
Issue: 2
ISSN: 1042-3680
Publisher: W.B. Saunders Co-Elsevier Inc.  
Date Published: 2020-04-01
Start Page: 151
End Page: 166
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/j.nec.2019.11.005
PUBMED: 32147008
PROVIDER: scopus
DOI/URL:
Notes: Review -- Export Date: 1 April 2020 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Mark H Bilsky
    319 Bilsky
  2. Ilya Laufer
    146 Laufer
  3. William Christopher Newman
    24 Newman