Cancer treatment is giving some patients with metastatic disease something they once rarely had: time. That is changing the calculus of spine surgery.
Not long ago, a prognosis measured in months could largely determine whether a patient with metastatic spinal disease underwent surgery at all. A major operation could consume much of the time a patient had left in recovery.
Now, targeted therapies, immunotherapies and increasingly sophisticated radiation treatments are allowing some patients to live years with metastatic disease. For Zain Allison, MD, a neurosurgeon and spine surgeon with Littleton, Colo.-based Neurosurgery One, that progress has changed what spine surgery can, and should, accomplish.
“If you have the potential to live three, five or 10 years with the condition, then we shouldn’t leave a lot of this pathology alone,” Dr. Allison told Becker’s.
A spinal lesion that causes pain, instability or neurological decline carries different consequences when a patient may live with it for years. But longer survival does not automatically mean more surgery. It makes choosing the right intervention more consequential.
“The thing that’s changed the most is you need to have multidisciplinary care to treat spinal oncology,” he said.
A different surgical equation
The question is no longer simply whether an operation is technically possible. It is whether the patient will live long enough to benefit from it, and whether surgery will improve that time rather than consume it. For patients with very limited life expectancy, restraint remains important.
“The reason we don’t do massive surgeries on people that are going to live only two more months is because it’s painful,” Dr. Allison said. “You take somebody who has a horrible disease and make their last months horrible for them, and that’s not OK.”
The calculation changes when the prognosis stretches from months to years. Mobility becomes particularly important. Dr. Allison said losing the ability to walk can introduce additional complications and affect a patient’s longer-term prognosis.
That means the surgical decision increasingly depends on information from outside the operating room. Oncologists can assess how a tumor is likely to respond to systemic treatment. Radiation oncologists can determine whether radiation can control the disease.
Spine surgeons can evaluate instability, neurological compression and whether stabilization is necessary. No single specialty has the whole answer.
As patients live longer, surgery gets smaller
The changing equation is also reshaping the operation itself. Dr. Allison sees one of surgery’s most important roles today in stabilization and separation surgery.
Some tumors require radiation doses that can pose risks to the spinal cord. Separation surgery creates space between the tumor and cord, allowing radiation to target the disease while limiting exposure to the spinal cord. Historically, a large vertebral body tumor might have been treated with a corpectomy, removing the affected vertebral body and reconstructing it with an implant. Those operations can require substantial dissection and carry meaningful morbidity.
Dr. Allison increasingly favors less invasive strategies when appropriate, combining techniques such as radiofrequency ablation, vertebral augmentation, minimally invasive stabilization and separation surgery.
The goal is not necessarily to remove as much disease surgically as possible. It is to do enough. Enough to stabilize the spine. Enough to protect neurological function. Enough to allow the patient’s broader cancer treatment to continue, without imposing more surgical burden than necessary.
Smaller incisions and less muscle dissection can be particularly important for patients who may quickly return to radiation or systemic therapy. Better cancer treatment, in other words, has not simply expanded what surgeons can do. It has made deciding what they do not need to do increasingly important.
Taking subjectivity out of the decision
Surgeons also have more tools to determine where that line falls. Expected survival remains central, but scoring systems assessing epidural disease and spinal instability can help determine whether a lesion is mechanically unstable or threatening neurological structures.
Dr. Allison said those frameworks can make the decision less subjective. Earlier detection could shift it further. If disease is identified before fracture or significant instability develops, some patients may be candidates for smaller interventions rather than larger instrumented reconstructions later.
That means the future of spinal oncology surgery may depend as much on when disease is discovered as on what surgeons can do once they find it.
The weak link may come after surgery
Even the right operation can lose some of its benefit if the rest of a patient’s care fragments around it. Dr. Allison sees coordination after patients leave the acute hospital setting as one of spinal oncology’s largest remaining gaps.
A patient may need surgery, rehabilitation, repeat imaging, radiation and systemic therapy within a tightly coordinated period. Once that patient moves to an outside rehabilitation facility, transportation, appointments and treatment sequencing become harder to manage.
“You’re going through theoretically the worst thing that’s happened to you in your life,” Dr. Allison said. At the same time, patients can find themselves navigating numerous physicians and rehabilitation teams. “It’s one of the most important things,” he said of coordinating that care. “It’s paramount to their success.”
Dr. Allison sees dedicated cancer care coordinators as one potential solution: someone responsible for ensuring imaging, appointments, transportation and treatment plans happen in sequence.
The challenge is that those positions may not generate direct billable revenue. “For a really successful cancer program, I don’t think you can look at everything from a profitability standpoint,” he said. A coordinator may be difficult to justify as an individual line item, he said, while creating broader value for patients and health systems by keeping complex care connected.
When access doesn’t keep pace with treatment
Insurance can disrupt that coordination before treatment even begins. Dr. Allison said he has encountered surgical denials in cancer cases, creating another obstacle for patients already navigating a complex diagnosis.
“It’s so tough because you’re going through this really tough time, and then all of a sudden you get this denial letter,” he said.
Hospitals can sometimes help patients resolve those barriers, but Dr. Allison worries some ultimately forgo needed care. He believes addressing the problem will require coordination beyond the hospital among policymakers, insurers, clinicians and industry.
The same principle driving spinal oncology inside the hospital may therefore apply outside it: Better treatment alone is not enough if the systems surrounding it remain fragmented.
The goal: Less spine surgery
For all the advances occurring in the operating room, Dr. Allison believes one of spinal oncology’s biggest breakthroughs may happen before a patient ever reaches it.
His bet is on earlier diagnosis. Advances such as liquid biopsy and increasingly accessible imaging could eventually identify metastatic disease before a spinal lesion causes fracture, instability or significant neurological compromise.
Finding disease earlier could change the surgical trajectory altogether. A lesion caught before the spine becomes unstable may require a smaller intervention. Better systemic therapy may control disease that once required surgery. Some patients could avoid large spinal constructs altogether.
“The long-term goal might actually be almost no spine surgery for this,” Dr. Allison said. “That would be my goal.”
He compares the idea to his work with a nonprofit providing access to medical care internationally: Success ultimately means building a system effective enough to reduce the need for the intervention itself. “We’re here if they need it,” he said.
There will still be advances inside the operating room. Dr. Allison pointed to carbon-fiber instrumentation as one technology already changing spinal oncology care. But the future he hopes for is not defined by a bigger operation or a more ambitious reconstruction. It is one in which fewer patients need either.
At the Becker’s 32nd Annual Meeting: The Business and Operations of ASCs, taking place October 29-31 in Chicago, ASC leaders, surgeons and healthcare executives will explore strategies to drive growth, enhance operational performance, navigate reimbursement challenges and prepare for the future of ambulatory surgery. Apply for complimentary registration now.
