Clinical spine surgery · 2026
Epidemiology and Oncologic Patterns of Cervical Spine Metastases and Primary Tumors.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rice Samuel W, Lambert William A, Schiedo Ryan M, Pieters Thomas A, Stauff Michael P
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the epidemiology and oncologic patterns of metastatic and primary cervical spine tumors and evaluate the classification systems, instability assessments, cord compression frameworks, and prognostic tools used in their management.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although relatively uncommon, cervical spine tumors carry disproportionate clinical consequences. Epidural spinal cord compression can cause quadriplegia and respiratory failure, while the region's distinctive anatomy and biomechanics complicate oncologic decision-making.
METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was performed, focusing on the epidemiology, primary tumor origins, biologic behavior, classification, spinal instability, epidural spinal cord compression, and survival prediction relevant to metastatic and primary cervical spine tumors.
RESULTS: Metastatic neoplasms constitute most cervical spine tumors and most commonly arise from lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Primary cervical spine tumors account for ∼5-10% of spinal neoplasms and encompass diverse pathologies with distinct biologic behavior and management implications. Existing classification systems, instability assessments, cord compression frameworks, and prognostic scores support multidisciplinary decision-making but incompletely reflect cervical anatomic and biomechanical complexity. Furthermore, survival prediction models may underestimate prognosis in the era of modern systemic therapy and spinal stereotactic radiosurgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Cervical spine tumors require individualized, multidisciplinary evaluation that integrates tumor biology, neurologic status, mechanical stability, anatomic level, systemic disease burden, and anticipated survival. Current frameworks remain clinically useful adjuncts but should not replace comprehensive clinical judgment, particularly as oncologic and radiation treatments continue to improve.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the epidemiology and oncologic patterns of metastatic and primary cervical spine tumors and evaluate the classification systems, instability assessments, cord compression frameworks, and prognostic tools used in their management.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although relatively uncommon, cervical spine tumors carry disproportionate clinical consequences. Epidural spinal cord compression can cause quadriplegia and respiratory failure, while the region's distinctive anatomy and biomechanics complicate oncologic decision-making.
METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was performed, focusing on the epidemiology, primary tumor origins, biologic behavior, classification, spinal instability, epidural spinal cord compression, and survival prediction relevant to metastatic and primary cervical spine tumors.
RESULTS: Metastatic neoplasms constitute most cervical spine tumors and most commonly arise from lung, breast, and prostate cancers. Primary cervical spine tumors account for ∼5-10% of spinal neoplasms and encompass diverse pathologies with distinct biologic behavior and management implications. Existing classification systems, instability assessments, cord compression frameworks, and prognostic scores support multidisciplinary decision-making but incompletely reflect cervical anatomic and biomechanical complexity. Furthermore, survival prediction models may underestimate prognosis in the era of modern systemic therapy and spinal stereotactic radiosurgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Cervical spine tumors require individualized, multidisciplinary evaluation that integrates tumor biology, neurologic status, mechanical stability, anatomic level, systemic disease burden, and anticipated survival. Current frameworks remain clinically useful adjuncts but should not replace comprehensive clinical judgment, particularly as oncologic and radiation treatments continue to improve.