Preliminary establishment of a spinal stability scoring system for multiple myeloma

A precision-based exercise program for patients with multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVES

Aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate an interdisciplinary consultation followed by a precision-based exercise program (PEP) for myeloma patients with stable and unstable bone lesions.

METHODS

Data of myeloma patients (n = 100) who received a PEP according to an orthopedic evaluation were analyzed. Bone stability was assessed by established scoring systems (Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score [SINS], Mirels' score). All patients with stable and unstable osteolyses received a PEP and n = 91 were contacted for a follow-up interview.

RESULTS

In 60% of patients at least one osteolysis of the spine was considered potentially unstable or unstable. Following consultation, the number of patients performing resistance training could be significantly increased (≥2 sessions/week, 55%). Musculoskeletal pain was reported frequently. At the follow-up interview, 75% of patients who performed PEP stated that painful symptoms could be effectively alleviated by exercise. Moreover, only patients who exercised regularly discontinued pain medication. No injuries were reported in association with PEP.

CONCLUSION

We were able to demonstrate that individualized resistance training is implementable and safe for myeloma patients. By means of a PEP, patients' self-efficacy in managing musculoskeletal pain was enhanced and pain medication could be reduced.

Multiple Myeloma Spinal Lesion Care: Management of a Primary Bone Malignancy Rather Than a Spinal Metastasis

OBJECTIVE

Multiple myeloma (MM) is too often wrongly categorized as a spinal metastasis (SpM), although it is distinguishable from SpM in many aspects, such as its earlier natural history at the time of diagnosis, its increased overall survival (OS), and its response to therapeutic modalities. The characterization of these 2 different spine lesions remains a main challenge.

METHODS

This study compares 2 consecutive prospective oncologic populations of patients with spine lesions: 361 patients treated for MM spine lesions and 660 patients treated for SpM between January 2014 and 2017.

RESULTS

The mean time between the tumor/MM diagnosis and spine lesions was respectively 0.3 (standard deviation [SD] 4.1) and 35.1 months (SD 21.2) for the MM and SpM groups. The median OS for the MM group was 59.6 months (SD 6.0) versus 13.5 months (SD 1.3) for the SpM group (P < 0.0001). Regardless of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, patients with MM always have a significantly better median OS than do patients with SpM: ECOG 0, 75.3 versus 38.7 months; ECOG 1, 74.3 versus 24.7 months; ECOG 2, 34.6 versus 8.1 months; ECOG 3, 13.5 versus 3.2 months and ECOG 4, 7.3 versus 1.3 months (P < 0.0001). The patients with MM had more diffuse spinal involvement (mean, 7.8 lesions; SD 4.7) than did patients with SpM (mean, 3.9; SD 3.5) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MM must be considered as a primary bone tumor, not as SpM. The strategic position of the spine in the natural course of cancer (i.e., nurturing cradle of birth for MM vs. systemic metastases spreading for SpM) explains the differences in OS and outcome.