Abstract
Background Prognosis in bone cancer patients with metastatic disease is believed to vary based on site/pattern of spread. In 2003, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) incorporated this observation into the TNM Staging System by subclassifying metastatic disease into M1a or M1b. We conducted a retrospective survival analysis of patients with primary bone cancer to characterize prognosis and assess outcomes in M1a versus M1b disease.
Methods The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database was searched for cases of primary bone cancer presenting with metastasis from 2010 to 2015. Cases were grouped using AJCC metastatic staging as metastasis to the lung only (M1a) or other pattern of metastasis (M1b). Overall survival and cause-specific survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate cox regression models. Multivariate models adjusted for multiple demographic, tumor characteristic, and treatment covariates.
Results Five hundred and twenty-six cases met the inclusion criteria for this study. Two hundred and forty-eight were staged as M1a, and 278 were staged as M1b. Mean follow-up time for the cohort was 18.21 months (SD = 16.76). Fifty percent (124 of 248) of M1a and 59.4% (165 of 278) of M1b patients had died by the end of the study. Overall (P = .003) and cause-specific survival (P = .010) times were significantly lower for M1b patients via log-rank test. Adjusted analysis showed that M1b patients had poorer overall survival (HR, 1.505; 95% CI, 1.138-1.989; P = .004) and cause-specific survival (HR, 1.446; 95% CI, 1.091-1.918; P = .010) compared to M1a patients.
Conclusion Metastasis pattern is an independent predictor of survival. M1a metastatic disease tends to have a better prognosis compared to M1b. This study supports the decision of the AJCC to subclassify metastatic disease for the purposes of staging and highlights the differences in prognosis between these two patterns of disease.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding or financial support.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study did not qualify as human subject research, as defined by the institutional IRB regulations at 45 CFR46.012 (d)(f) and at 21 CFR 56, as it was conducted using de-identified data from a publicly accessible database, and therefore did not require IRB approval or oversight.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos