Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticleReview
Open Access

Intradural Cauda Equina Metastases: A Systematic Review of Clinico-radiological Features, Management, and Treatment Outcomes

PAOLO PALMISCIANO, SAIF E. ZAIDI, NATHAN A. SHLOBIN, NAVRAJ S. SAGOO, OTHMAN BIN ALAMER, GIANLUCA SCALIA, GIANLUCA FERINI, GIUSEPPE E. UMANA, SALAH G. AOUN and ALI S. HAIDER
Anticancer Research April 2022, 42 (4) 1661-1669; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15643
PAOLO PALMISCIANO
1Department of Neurosurgery, Trauma Center, Gamma Knife Center, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: paolo.palmisciano94{at}gmail.com
SAIF E. ZAIDI
2University of Paris School of Medicine, Paris, France;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NATHAN A. SHLOBIN
3Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NAVRAJ S. SAGOO
4Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
OTHMAN BIN ALAMER
5King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIANLUCA SCALIA
6Department of Neurosurgery, Highly Specialized Hospital of National Importance “Garibaldi”, Catania, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIANLUCA FERINI
7Department of Radiation Oncology, REM Radioterapia srl, Viagrande, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GIUSEPPE E. UMANA
1Department of Neurosurgery, Trauma Center, Gamma Knife Center, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SALAH G. AOUN
8Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, U.S.A.;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ALI S. HAIDER
9Texas A&M University College of Medicine, Houston, TX, U.S.A.;
10Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Intradural cauda equina metastases (ICEM) are rare tumors that reduce functional status. Surgery and radiation are feasible and effective treatments but may have debilitating complications. We systematically reviewed the literature on ICEMs. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched for studies reporting clinical data of patients with ICEMs. Clinical characteristics, management strategies, and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Results: We included 40 studies comprising 123 patients. Median age was 57 years. The most frequent primary tumors were lung (18.7%), breast (13%), and renal carcinomas (11.4%). Median time from primary tumor diagnosis to ICEMs’ presentation was 36 months. The most common presenting symptoms were lower back pain (74%) and motor deficits (62.6%), with acute cauda equina syndrome documented in 36 patients (29.3%). Most lesions were diagnosed at magnetic resonance imaging (56.9%) or computed tomography myelography (32.5%). All cases were treated with decompressive laminectomy and tumor resection, with partial resection (82.1%) more often than complete (15.4%). Adjuvant radiotherapy (83.7%) and/or chemotherapy (10.6%) were often administered. Most patients experienced post-treatment symptom improvement (86.2%) and favorable radiological response (82.9%). ICEM recurrences were reported in 4 cases (8.5%) with median local tumor control of 7 months. At last follow-up, most patients were dead (62.9%) with median overall-survival of 10 months. Conclusion: Patients with ICEMs have poor prognoses and significant tumor burden. Surgery and locoregional radiotherapy may offer optimal clinical and radiological outcomes but have a limited role in improving local tumor control and overall survival.

Key Words:
  • Cauda equina
  • intradural metastases
  • spine oncology
  • spine metastases
  • systematic review

The cauda equina is the conglomeration of lumbar and sacral nerve roots distally to the terminal portion of the spinal cord, starting at the L1-L2 vertebral level in most people. Cauda equina syndrome (CES) frequently results from nerve root compression and damage from herniated lumbar discs, spinal stenosis, post-traumatic fractured vertebral fragments, or tumors, which result in devastating morbidity (1). The clinical presentation is characterized by a combination of symptoms and signs, including lower back pain (LBP), radicular pain, lower extremities weakness, reduced deep tendon reflexes, saddle/perianal sensory deficits, bowel, bladder, and sexual dysfunction (2). Early diagnosis and timely intervention are critical to prevent symptom progression and, when feasible, promote neurological recovery (3, 4).

Neoplastic CES may arise from cauda equina primary tumors or secondary metastases, which may involve the vertebral bones, resulting in fracture and external nerve compression (5). A subset of neoplastic CES, intradural cauda equina metastases (ICEM), represent a rare but challenging entity (6, 7). The initial symptoms may be limited to LBP and paresthesia, but the prolonged neuropathic damage may become irreversible, severely affecting patients’ quality of life (8). The diagnosis of ICEM is often delayed, particularly when there is no known history of cancer, as patients frequently present with a long and nonspecific disease course due to slow tumor growth and gradual nerve roots compression (5, 9). Surgery with decompressive laminectomy and/or tumor resection may relieve symptoms and improve functional status in eligible patients, but locoregional radiotherapy may also be delivered as adjuvant or stand-alone treatment in selected cases (5, 10).

Due to the rare incidence of ICEMs, most treatment paradigms derive from few case reports and series with heterogeneous clinical features and treatments. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the clinical characteristics, management strategies, and treatment outcomes of patients with ICEMs.

Materials and Methods

Literature search. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (11). PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched from inception to November 11, 2021, using the combination of the Boolean operators “OR” and “AND” and the search terms: “cauda equina”, “conus medullaris”, “metastasis”, and “metastases”. Articles were uploaded to Mendeley, and duplicates were deleted manually.

Study selection. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined a priori. Studies were included if they: 1) presented ≥1 patients with histologically confirmed secondary intradural metastases involving the cauda equina region, as explicitly mentioned within their text or extracted from radiological images; 2) reported primary data on clinical features, treatment strategies, and post-treatment outcomes; 3) were written in English. Studies were excluded if they were: 1) reviews, autopsy reports, or animal studies; 2) studies with insufficient data on management and outcomes; 3) studies with no clear differentiation of patients with ICEM and patients with different spine metastases. ICEM were intended as intradural metastases involving the cauda equina nerve roots or the medullary cone, excluding cases with vertebral bone metastases and/or leptomeningeal metastases.

Two independent authors (P.P. and N.S.S.) screened titles and abstracts of all collected articles, and then evaluated full texts of studies that met inclusion criteria. A third author (A.S.H.) resolved any disagreements at both stages of screening. Eligible articles were included based on the pre-specified criteria and references were screened to retrieve additional studies.

Data extraction. One reviewer (S.E.Z.) extracted data from all articles, which were then confirmed by two independent reviewers (P.P. and N.S.S.). Extracted data included: authors, year, sample size, age, sex, primary tumors, systemic metastases, time interval between primary tumor diagnosis and ICEM onset, presenting symptoms, diagnostic protocol, ICEM location, surgery and extent of resection, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, treatment complications, clinical and radiological outcomes, recurrence, local tumor control (LC), overall survival (OS), survival status. Extent of resection was defined as “complete” for 100% tumor resection and “partial” for <100% Clinical and radiological responses were assessed at last available follow-up. Radiological responses were assessed using the “spine response assessment in neuro-oncology (SPINO)” criteria, describing: complete response (CR, complete tumor resolution), partial response (PR, decreased tumor volume), stable disease (SD, no volume change), progressive disease (PD, increased volume) (12).

Data synthesis and quality assessment. The primary outcomes of interest were the clinical-radiological features, treatment, and outcomes of patients with ICEMs. Levels of evidence were determined following the 2011 Oxford Centre For Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines (13). A study-level meta-analysis was precluded because all included articles had levels IV and V of evidence and hazard ratios could not be deducted. However, individual patient data were extracted for individual patient data meta-analysis. For each study, risk of bias was independently evaluated by two reviewers (P.P. and O.B.A.) in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for case reports and case series (14, 15). The risk of bias for this study overall was determined by considering the risk of bias of all included studies in aggregate.

Statistical analysis. The software SPSS V.25 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for all statistical analyses. Continuous variables are presented as medians and ranges, and categorical variables as frequencies and percentages. The time intervals between surgery and ICEM recurrence (LC curve) or death (OS curve) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.

Results

Study selection and overview. The Supplementary File 1 displays the literature search and study selection flowchart. The initial search returned 1,082 citations (PubMed: 368; Scopus: 446; Web of Science: 245; Cochrane: 23). In total, 5 case series and 35 case reports were included, respectively categorized as level IV and V of evidence (Supplementary File 2) (6, 7, 10, 16–52). Critical appraisal resulted in low risk of bias for all included articles (Supplementary File 3), predisposing this study to a low risk of bias overall.

Demographics and primary tumors’ characteristics. A total of 123 patients diagnosed with ICEMs were analyzed. Patients were mostly male (57.7%), with a median age of 57 years (range=11-87 years) (Table I). The most frequent primary tumors comprised lung cancer (18.7%), breast cancer (13%), renal cell carcinoma (11.4%), and prostate cancer (10.6%). Two patients had primary brain tumors, consisting of one pituitary carcinoma (36) and one cerebellar hemangiopericytoma (25). Primary tumors were mostly treated with surgery (98.4%) coupled with adjuvant radiotherapy (82.9%) and/or chemotherapy (8.1%). Systemic metastases were described in 55.3% of patients, commonly involving the lungs (50%), bones (26.9%), and/or brain parenchyma (26.9%). Metastatic peritoneal seeding was found in 1 patient with anal carcinoma (52) and 1 patient with ovary adenocarcinoma (7).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Summary of patients’ demographics and primary tumors’ characteristics.

Clinical and diagnostic features of ICEMs. The median time interval from primary tumor diagnosis to ICEMs onset was 36.0 months (range=0-360.0 months), with synchronous ICEMs identified in 12 patients (9.8%). The most frequent presenting symptoms were LBP (74%), motor deficits (62.6%), including paraparesis with walking impairment (21.1%), and radicular pain (59.3%) (Table II). Acute CES was documented in 36 cases (29.3%). Strong et al. (35) described one asymptomatic patient with renal cell carcinoma who was diagnosed with ICEM at oncological imaging follow-up. The diagnosis of ICEMs was mostly obtained at magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T1-contrast scans (56.9%), showing contrast-enhancing lesions encasing the cauda equina nerve roots. CT myelography and X-Ray myelography were performed in 40 (32.5%) and 10 (8.1%) patients, respectively, showing complete block of the contrast dye. Most lesions occurred in the lumbar (78.9%) and lumbar-sacral (10.6%) spine. Of note, Wu et al. (38) reported one patient with hepatocellular carcinoma presenting with an ICEM located at the T12-S1 spine levels. Concurrent extradural vertebral metastases were found in 8 patients, mostly involving the thoracic (4, 50%) and lumbar (4, 50%) spine (7, 10, 18, 37, 38, 40, 43, 49). Skoch et al. (37) described one case of ICEM from testicular choriocarcinoma with concomitant metastases of the brain parenchyma and the C3 vertebra.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Summary of clinical and radiological features of intradural cauda equina metastases.

Management strategies. All patients received decompressive laminectomy with tumor removal (100%) (Table III). Partial tumor resection was obtained in most cases (82.1%), whereas complete tumor resection (15.4%) and biopsy (2.4%) were less frequent. In 12 patients (9.8%), the cauda equina nerve roots were transected during tumor removal and intraoperative neuromonitoring, but no post-surgical complications were noted. Locoregional radiotherapy was delivered in 103 patients (83.7%) at a median dose of 30 Gy (range=10-50 Gy). Most patients received external beam radiotherapy targeting the lumbar-sacral spine, while the whole spine axis was radiated only in 2 patients (7, 25). Pagano et al. (10) reported the use of palliative stereotactic radiosurgery in one patient with lung ICEM. Systemic chemotherapy was administered in 13 patients (10.6%), mostly with methotrexate (47, 48) (2, 15.4%) and cisplatin plus etoposide (37, 39) (2, 15.4%). No treatment-related complications were reported across all included articles.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Summary of management strategies and treatment outcomes.

Treatment outcomes and survival. Patients were followed-up for a median of 10 months (range=0.5-152 months) (Table III). Most patients (86.2%) had post-treatment symptomatic improvement. Restoration of the ambulatory status was reported in all the 26 patients with pre-treatment walking impairment. Radiological responses were evaluated in 47 patients, documenting: CR in 16 (34%), PR in 23 (48.9%), SD in 2 (4.3%), and PD in 6 (12.8%). Median local tumor control was 7 months (range=0.5-36.0 months) (Figure 1), with 4 patients (8.5%) experiencing local ICEMs recurrences and 2 (4.3%) presenting concurrent new leptomeningeal metastases (LMs) (10, 31, 36, 40). Median OS was 10 months (range=0.5-152.0 months), with most patients dead at last follow-up (62.9%).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier curves of (A) local control and (B) overall survival of the pooled cohort.

Discussion

ICEMs represent late-stage complications of advanced systemic malignancies, and lead to major functional impairments in affected patients. Advances in imaging techniques and treatment strategies allow prompt and effective management, but outcomes have remained poor. We found that ICEMs commonly present with severe pain and motor deficits in known oncological patients. Current treatments offer short-term favorable clinical and radiological responses but are mostly intended only for palliation. This study aimed to provide useful insights into the management of ICEMs within the context of other spine metastases and primary cauda equina tumors.

In contrast to the more common extradural vertebral metastases, intradural spine metastases account only for 1-2% of all metastatic spine lesions (53). Metastases to the cauda equina are even rarer and mostly present with concurrent LMs (54), with only a few cases of focal space-occupying masses within the cauda dural sac described across the literature. In this review of ICEMs, the most frequent primary tumors were lung, breast, and renal carcinomas, in accordance with their prevalence in the general oncological population and in patients with spine metastases (55, 56). This likely suggests the presence of shared spreading routes among all spine metastases. A total of 5 different metastatic mechanisms have been hypothesized for ICEMs: 1) hematogenous spread through the arterial system, 2) the venous plexus of Batson, or 3) the perineural lymphatics; 4) cerebrospinal fluid dissemination; and 5) direct invasion from contiguous structures (18, 34). In our pooled cohort, we presume that most ICEMs originated from the arterio-venous and/or lymphatic spread of systemic cancers, owing to the high prevalence (55.3%) of patients with concurrent systemic metastases. Patients with gynecologic tumors, urologic neoplasms, and/or peritoneal seeding may have developed ICEMs from direct tumor invasion, especially from concurrent vertebral metastases (7, 37, 40). These preferred routes may also explain the delayed onset of ICEMs from primary tumor diagnosis found across our included studies (median 36 months). Of note, some aggressive neoplasms may have different metastatic mechanisms responsible for synchronous ICEMs, as reported in 12 of our pooled patients (9.8%) diagnosed with endometrial choriocarcinomas and stage 4 lung or renal cancers. Finally, the low rates of primary or metastatic brain tumors in our cohort may suggest that cerebrospinal fluid dissemination represents a less common route for ICEM development, as opposed to spine LMs (54).

Most ICEMs have a symptomatic but non-specific clinical presentation, often delaying diagnosis and leading to progressive worsening of neurological and functional status (6, 7). LBP is the most common presenting symptom, exacerbated by coughing, sneezing, and percussion to the lumbar spine, and frequently resulting in limited range of spinal motion (33, 34). Due to tumor-induced direct compression of the cauda equina nerve roots, patients may gradually experience radicular leg pain and motor deficits, which can promote paraparesis, walking inability, and severe functional impairment if the nerve roots are not decompressed (7, 38, 42). Acute CES, with or without sphincter incontinence, may also occur, necessitating emergent planning of appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic strategies (5, 37, 46). Although these symptoms may simulate the presence of lumbar disc disease, their rapid progression and high severity may serve as “red flags” that require further assessment (57, 58). In earlier series, spine myelography was the most commonly used diagnostic tool, allowing clinicians to detect contrast dye block at the cauda equina level and increase suspicion regarding the presence of metastases in patients with a known tumor history (6, 36, 47–51). Contrast-enhanced MRI scans represent the current diagnostic standard, visualizing ICEMs as single or multiple lesions encasing the cauda equina nerve roots or located within the conus medullaris (6, 7). MRI of the whole spine may also detect the presence of concurrent LMs or extradural vertebral metastases, providing valuable information for accurate treatment planning (54, 56). In some cases, MRI may lack specificity in differentiating primary versus metastatic cauda equina lesions, especially in patients with no prior history of cancer and single spine lesions (59). Still, early diagnosis with MRI is mandatory in patients with acute CES and suspected ICEMs in order to design timely therapies and avoid irreversible neurological deficits.

The primary therapeutic goals in patients with spine metastases and cauda equina tumors are providing pain relief, neurological improvement and/or restoration in walking ability, and prolonged LC and OS rates (60). As compared to other spine oncological lesions, challenges in the management of ICEMs mostly derive from their complex surgical anatomy, coupled with the poor clinical condition of patients with systemic malignancies. When feasible, surgical laminectomy and resection of ICEMs represent the mainstay of treatment for providing both histological confirmation and relief of the compressive pathology (10, 42). However, as most tumors agglutinate the cauda equina nerve roots and lack a distinct cleavage plane, complete resection is rarely possible without posing severe risks of post-surgical complications (44). Similar to other series of primary cauda equina tumors, partial tumor resection was performed in most of our pooled patients, achieving optimal clinical and radiological outcomes and further suggesting that complete resection may not be necessary for ICEMs (42). In contrast, total en-bloc ICEM resection was carried out in some patients with aggressive lesions by transecting the encased nerve roots and/or the filum terminale, with no post-operative deficits were noted (24, 27, 33, 41). In these cases, neuromonitoring assistance allowed surgeons to evaluate the preserved motor functions and plan operative approaches to minimize the risk of iatrogenic complications. Additionally, adjuvant treatments have been also described in patients with ICEMs, which provide superior benefits relative to surgery alone. While chemotherapy agents varied based on primary tumors, radiotherapy protocols were mostly consistent across our included studies. Indeed, post-surgical spine radiotherapy has demonstrated to effectively reduce tumor remnant size and prolong local control in patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (61). In our pooled cases, locoregional radiotherapy was mostly delivered to the lumbar-sacral spine for targeting the lesions of interest or was extended to other spine regions in patients with concurrent vertebral metastases (43, 49). Radiotherapy to the whole spine axis was delivered only in patients with suspected cerebrospinal fluid dissemination, with no radiation-induced complications (7, 25). Although recent targeted molecular therapy and immunotherapy agents have been introduced in the multidisciplinary management of patients with systemic cancers, their role in patients with ICEMs is still uncertain and requires further evaluation (54, 62).

Despite the current treatments, the prognosis of patients with ICEMs remains poor and is heavily dependent on the primary tumor histology and management (6, 10). We ascribe the low rates of LC (7 months) and OS (10 months) in our pooled cohort to the fact that most lesions occurred at later disease stages in patients with concurrent systemic metastases and high tumor burden. These factors, coupled with the limited availability of systemic therapies in ICEMs, may also explain the survival differences noted in comparison to patients with extradural vertebral metastases, who have OS rates ranging up to 2-years when treated with targeted molecular and immunotherapy agents (56). However, surgery and locoregional radiotherapy proved to be useful for palliation in patients with ICEMs. We found favorable rates of post-treatment clinical (86.2%) and radiological (82.9%) improvement, superior to those reported in patients with spine LMs (54). In particular, surgical decompression with tumor resection showed optimal outcomes in patients with pre-treatment paraparesis and walking impairment, leading to ambulatory restoration and improved quality of life in all cases (7, 48–50). However, due to the increasing survival of oncological patients and the growing incidence of spine metastases, novel patient-tailored treatments should be developed also for patients with ICEMs, to reduce neurological morbidity and improve quality of life.

Limitations. The limitations of this review should be considered. All included studies were retrospective case reports and case series likely subjected to publication and selection biases. Included studies also covered a 57-year time-period characterized by major advances in imaging and treatment protocols, which may have introduced some between-study heterogeneity in the analysis of radiological features and post-treatment outcomes. The low level of evidence of our included articles precluded a study level meta-analysis. By including only biopsy-proved cases, this review may have underestimated the overall prevalence and treatment-related outcomes of patients with ICEM, representing detection bias. However, our selective inclusion criteria were set a priori to minimize the risks of introducing confounding variables related to misdiagnoses of ICEMs from clinical and radiological assessments. Finally, pre- and post-treatment performance status scores could not be analyzed and compared due to the lack of granular data. Despite these limitations, we provide a methodologically rigorous, reproducible individual patient data meta-analysis of ICEMs to inform their management by neurosurgeons, neuro-oncologists, and radiation oncologists.

Conclusion

ICEMs comprise late-stage complications of systemic oncological diseases and lead to serious neurological and functional impairments in affected patients. ICEMs most commonly arise from lung, breast, and renal primary sources and present with acute cauda equina syndrome in one-third of cases. Surgical decompression and tumor resection, coupled with adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, demonstrate favorable rates of symptom improvement and positive radiological responses. However, rates of local tumor control and survival remain discouraging, with future studies required to evaluate the role of newer molecular and immune treatments.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Paolo Palmisciano: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data analysis, Writing – Original draft preparation; Saif E. Zaidi: Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing; Nathan Shlobin: Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing; Navraj S. Sagoo: Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing; Othman Bin Alamer: Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing; Gianluca Scalia: Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing; Gianluca Ferini: Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing; Giuseppe E. Umana: Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing; Salah G. Aoun: Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing; Ali S. Haider: Methodology, Resources, Writing – Reviewing and Editing, Supervision.

  • Supplementary Material

    Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u9nalvcbbsbasok/AADbPEkjKnI3lNYQan6TDRCYa?dl=0

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

  • Received January 30, 2022.
  • Revision received February 11, 2022.
  • Accepted February 14, 2022.
  • Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by the International Institute of Anticancer Research.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Gardner A,
    2. Gardner E and
    3. Morley T
    : Cauda equina syndrome: a review of the current clinical and medico-legal position. Eur Spine J 20(5): 690-697, 2011. PMID: 21193933. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-010-1668-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Gitelman A,
    2. Hishmeh S,
    3. Morelli BN,
    4. Joseph SA Jr.,
    5. Casden A,
    6. Kuflik P,
    7. Neuwirth M and
    8. Stephen M
    : Cauda equina syndrome: a comprehensive review. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 37(11): 556-562, 2008. PMID: 19104682.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Chau AM,
    2. Xu LL,
    3. Pelzer NR and
    4. Gragnaniello C
    : Timing of surgical intervention in cauda equina syndrome: a systematic critical review. World Neurosurg 81(3-4): 640-650, 2014. PMID: 24240024. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.11.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Srikandarajah N,
    2. Boissaud-Cooke MA,
    3. Clark S and
    4. Wilby MJ
    : Does early surgical decompression in cauda equina syndrome improve bladder outcome? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40(8): 580-583, 2015. PMID: 25646751. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000813
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bagley CA and
    2. Gokaslan ZL
    : Cauda equina syndrome caused by primary and metastatic neoplasms. Neurosurg Focus 16(6): e3, 2004. PMID: 15202873. DOI: 10.3171/foc.2004.16.6.3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Jawahar A,
    2. Ampil F,
    3. Reddy P,
    4. Hartman G,
    5. Sathyanarayana S and
    6. Nanda A
    : Analysis of outcome and prognostic factors in metastatic cauda equina compression: a 20-year single institution experience. Neurosurgery Quarterly 12(2): 108-113, 2021. DOI: 10.1097/00013414-200206000-00003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Löhr M,
    2. Tzouras G,
    3. Kocher M,
    4. Stenzel W,
    5. Reithmeier T,
    6. Klug N and
    7. Hampl JA
    : Treatment strategies of space-occupying intradural metastases of the cauda equina of nonneurogenic origin. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 151(3): 207-215, 2009. PMID: 19247571. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-009-0214-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Boogerd W and
    2. van der Sande JJ
    : Diagnosis and treatment of spinal cord compression in malignant disease. Cancer Treat Rev 19(2): 129-150, 1993. PMID: 8481926. DOI: 10.1016/0305-7372(93)90031-l
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Bennett SJ,
    2. Katzman GL,
    3. Roos RP,
    4. Mehta AS and
    5. Ali S
    : Neoplastic cauda equina syndrome: a neuroimaging-based review. Pract Neurol 16(1): 35-41, 2016. PMID: 26442520. DOI: 10.1136/practneurol-2015-001236
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Pagano A,
    2. Iaquinandi A,
    3. Fraioli MF,
    4. Bossone G,
    5. Carra N and
    6. Salvati M
    : Cauda equina syndrome from intradural metastasis of a non-neural tumor: case report and review of literature. Br J Neurosurg: 1-8, 2021. PMID: 34330176. DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2021.1958155
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Page MJ,
    2. McKenzie JE,
    3. Bossuyt PM,
    4. Boutron I,
    5. Hoffmann TC,
    6. Mulrow CD,
    7. Shamseer L,
    8. Tetzlaff JM,
    9. Akl EA,
    10. Brennan SE,
    11. Chou R,
    12. Glanville J,
    13. Grimshaw JM,
    14. Hróbjartsson A,
    15. Lalu MM,
    16. Li T,
    17. Loder EW,
    18. Mayo-Wilson E,
    19. McDonald S,
    20. McGuinness LA,
    21. Stewart LA,
    22. Thomas J,
    23. Tricco AC,
    24. Welch VA,
    25. Whiting P and
    26. Moher D
    : The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71, 2021. PMID: 33782057. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Thibault I,
    2. Chang EL,
    3. Sheehan J,
    4. Ahluwalia MS,
    5. Guckenberger M,
    6. Sohn MJ,
    7. Ryu S,
    8. Foote M,
    9. Lo SS,
    10. Muacevic A,
    11. Soltys SG,
    12. Chao S,
    13. Gerszten P,
    14. Lis E,
    15. Yu E,
    16. Bilsky M,
    17. Fisher C,
    18. Schiff D,
    19. Fehlings MG,
    20. Ma L,
    21. Chang S,
    22. Chow E,
    23. Parelukar WR,
    24. Vogelbaum MA and
    25. Sahgal A
    : Response assessment after stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis: a report from the SPIne response assessment in Neuro-Oncology (SPINO) group. Lancet Oncol 16(16): e595-e603, 2015. PMID: 26678212. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00166-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Jeremy Howick,
    2. Iain Chalmers,
    3. Paul Glasziou,
    4. Trish Greenhalgh,
    5. Carl Heneghan,
    6. Alessandro Liberati,
    7. Ivan Moschetti,
    8. Bob Phillips and HT
    : Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (Background Document). Oxford Cent Evidence-Based Med, 2011. Available at: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence [Last accessed on February 11, 2022]
  14. ↵
    1. Joanna Briggs Institute
    : Checklist for Case Series. 2020. Available at: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools [Last accessed on February 11, 2022]
  15. ↵
    1. Joanna Briggs Institute
    : Checklist for Case Reports. 2020. Available at: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools [Last accessed on February 11, 2022]
  16. ↵
    1. Schaller B,
    2. Merlo A,
    3. Kirsch E,
    4. Lehmann K,
    5. Huber PR,
    6. Lyrer P,
    7. Steck AJ and
    8. Gratzl O
    : Prostate-specific antigen in the cerebrospinal fluid leads to diagnosis of solitary cauda equina metastasis: a unique case report and review of the literature. Br J Cancer 77(12): 2386-2389, 1998. PMID: 9649164. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1998.397
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Maxwell M,
    2. Borges LF and
    3. Zervas NT
    : Renal cell carcinoma: a rare source of cauda equina metastasis. Case report. J Neurosurg 90(1 Suppl): 129-132, 1999. PMID: 10413138. DOI: 10.3171/spi.1999.90.1.0129
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Mak KH and
    2. Kwok JC
    : Intradural spinal metastasis from renal cell carcinoma: A case report. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 9(2): 57-61, 2001. PMID: 12118133. DOI: 10.1177/230949900100900212
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Takada T,
    2. Doita M,
    3. Nishida K,
    4. Miura J,
    5. Yoshiya S and
    6. Kurosaka M
    : Unusual metastasis to the cauda equina from renal cell carcinoma. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(6): E114-E117, 2003. PMID: 12642774. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000049910.72881.A0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Gaetani P,
    2. Di Ieva A,
    3. Colombo P,
    4. Tancioni F,
    5. Aimar E,
    6. Debernardi A and
    7. Rodriguez Y
    8. Baena R
    : Intradural spinal metastasis of renal clear cell carcinoma causing cauda equina syndrome. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 146(8): 857-861, 2004. PMID: 15254809. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-004-0299-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kubota M,
    2. Saeki N,
    3. Yamaura A,
    4. Iuchi T,
    5. Ohga M and
    6. Osato K
    : A rare case of metastatic renal cell carcinoma resembling a nerve sheath tumor of the cauda equina. J Clin Neurosci 11(5): 530-532, 2004. PMID: 15177402. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2003.09.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Alfieri A,
    2. Mazzoleni G,
    3. Schwarz A,
    4. Campello M,
    5. Broger M,
    6. Vitale M and
    7. Vigl EE
    : Renal cell carcinoma and intradural spinal metastasis with cauda equina infiltration: case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30(1): 161-163, 2005. PMID: 15626997.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Sikorski CW,
    2. Pytel P,
    3. Rubin CM and
    4. Yamini B
    : Intradural spinal Wilm’s tumor metastasis: case report. Neurosurgery 59(4): E942-3; discussion E943, 2006. PMID: 17038931. DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000232663.48673.A3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Kotil K,
    2. Kilinc BM and
    3. Bilge T
    : Spinal metastasis of occult lung carcinoma causing cauda equina syndrome. J Clin Neurosci 14(4): 372-375, 2007. PMID: 17336230. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2006.01.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Taniura S,
    2. Taniguchi M,
    3. Mizutani T and
    4. Takahashi H
    : Metastatic hemangiopericytoma to the cauda equina: a case report. Spine J 7(3): 371-373, 2007. PMID: 17482124. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2006.05.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kim DY,
    2. Lee JK,
    3. Moon SJ,
    4. Kim SC and
    5. Kim CS
    : Intradural spinal metastasis to the cauda equina in renal cell carcinoma: a case report and review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(24): E892-E895, 2009. PMID: 19910759. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b34e6c
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Cansever T,
    2. Kabatas S,
    3. Civelek E,
    4. Yilmaz C and
    5. Caner H
    : Spinal metastasis of occult lung carcinoma causing cauda equine syndrome with lumbar spinal stenosis. Turk Neurosurg 21(3): 408-412, 2011. PMID: 21845580. DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.2711-09.2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ito K,
    2. Miyahara T,
    3. Goto T,
    4. Horiuchi T,
    5. Sakai K and
    6. Hongo K
    : Solitary metastatic cauda equina tumor from breast cancer -case report-. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 50(5): 417-420, 2010. PMID: 20505303. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.50.417
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lin CL,
    2. Chang JL,
    3. Lo HC and
    4. Wu KA
    : Extramedullary-intradural spinal metastasis of small cell lung cancer causing cauda equina syndrome. Am J Med Sci 339(2): 192-194, 2010. PMID: 20019582. DOI: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181bedd1f
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tsimpas A,
    2. Post NH,
    3. Moshel Y and
    4. Frempong-Boadu AK
    : Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung metastatic to the cauda equina. Spine J 10(6): e1-e5, 2010. PMID: 20494806. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.03.031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Tsutsumi S,
    2. Nonaka Y,
    3. Abe Y,
    4. Yasumoto Y,
    5. Nakazato Y and
    6. Ito M
    : Intramedullary primitive neuroectodermal tumor presenting with rapidly-progressive cauda equina syndrome. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 50(11): 1031-1035, 2010. PMID: 21123993. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.50.1031
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lin TK,
    2. Chen SM and
    3. Jung SM
    : Solitary intradural extramedullary metastasis of renal cell carcinoma to the conus medullaris. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 27(1): 45-48, 2011. PMID: 21329893. DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2010.05.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Dobson GM,
    2. Polvikoski T,
    3. Nissen JJ and
    4. Holliman D
    : Cauda equina syndrome secondary to intradural renal cell carcinoma metastasis haemorrhage. Br J Neurosurg 27(2): 249-250, 2013. PMID: 22985045. DOI: 10.3109/02688697.2012.724122
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Ji GY,
    2. Oh CH,
    3. Kim SH,
    4. Shin DA and
    5. Kim KN
    : Intradural cauda equina metastasis of renal cell carcinoma: a case report with literature review of 10 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38(18): E1171-E1174, 2013. PMID: 23759799. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829cef66
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Strong C,
    2. Yanamadala V,
    3. Khanna A,
    4. Walcott BP,
    5. Nahed BV,
    6. Borges LF and
    7. Coumans JV
    : Surgical treatment options and management strategies of metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the lumbar spinal nerve roots. J Clin Neurosci 20(11): 1546-1549, 2013. PMID: 23931936. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.02.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Epstein JA,
    2. Epstein BS,
    3. Molho L and
    4. Zimmerman HM
    : Carcinoma of the pituitary gland with metastases to the spinal cord and roots of the cauda equina. J Neurosurg 21: 846-853, 1964. PMID: 14213483. DOI: 10.3171/jns.1964.21.10.0846
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Skoch J,
    2. Kobylanski K,
    3. Rice JM and
    4. Baaj AA
    : Metastatic choriocarcinoma to the lumbar spine: Case report and review of literature. Surg Neurol Int 5: 161, 2014. PMID: 25525554. DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.145205
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Wu CY,
    2. Huang HM and
    3. Cho DY
    : An acute bleeding metastatic spinal tumor from HCC causes an acute onset of cauda equina syndrome. Biomedicine (Taipei) 5(3): 18, 2015. PMID: 26298047. DOI: 10.7603/s40681-015-0018-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Xiong J and
    2. Zhang P
    : Cauda equina syndrome caused by isolated spinal extramedullary-intradural cauda equina metastasis is the primary symptom of small cell lung cancer: a case report and review of the literatrure. Int J Clin Exp Med 8(6): 10044-10050, 2015. PMID: 26309698.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Anand SK,
    2. Garling RJ,
    3. Johns J,
    4. Shah M and
    5. Chamiraju P
    : Intradural extramedullary spinal metastases from uterine carcinosarcoma: A case report. Surg Neurol Int 11: 354, 2020. PMID: 33194287. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_621_2020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Koyama K,
    2. Takahashi H,
    3. Inoue M,
    4. Okawa A,
    5. Nakajima A,
    6. Sonobe M,
    7. Akatsu Y,
    8. Saito J,
    9. Taniguchi S,
    10. Yamada M,
    11. Yamamoto K,
    12. Aoki Y,
    13. Furuya T,
    14. Koda M,
    15. Yamazaki M,
    16. Ohtori S and
    17. Nakagawa K
    : Intradural metastasis to the cauda equina found as the initial presentation of breast cancer: a case report. J Med Case Rep 13(1): 220, 2019. PMID: 31324210. DOI: 10.1186/s13256-019-2155-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Land CF,
    2. Bowden BD,
    3. Morpeth BG and
    4. DeVine JG
    : Intradural extramedullary metastasis: a review of literature and case report. Spinal Cord Ser Cases 5: 41, 2019. PMID: 31632701. DOI: 10.1038/s41394-019-0181-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Lockwood J,
    2. Khan P,
    3. Zeoli T and
    4. Maulucci CM
    : Intradural extramedullary metastatic melanoma: A case report and review of the literature. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 197: 106072, 2020. PMID: 32731084. DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2020.106072
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Mackel CE,
    2. Alsideiri G and
    3. Papavassiliou E
    : Intramedullary-extramedullary breast metastasis to the caudal neuraxis two decades after primary diagnosis: case report and review of the literature. World Neurosurg 140: 26-31, 2020. PMID: 32437992. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.05.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ali S,
    2. Qasim A,
    3. Salah R,
    4. Sarwar MR,
    5. Usman M and
    6. Shams S
    : Isolated late intradural cauda equina metastasis of renal cell carcinoma. Surg Neurol Int 12: 481, 2021. PMID: 34754531. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_721_2021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Mariniello G,
    2. Corvino S,
    3. Sgulò F,
    4. Guadagno E,
    5. Del Basso De Caro M and
    6. Maiuri F
    : Intradural cauda equina metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Interdiscip Neurosurg 27: 101397, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.inat.2021.101397
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Rome RM and
    2. Nelson JH Jr.
    : Compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina complicating gynecological malignancy: reports of five cases and a review of the literature. Gynecol Oncol 5(3): 273-290, 1977. PMID: 332602. DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(77)90036-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Kuten A,
    2. Cohen Y,
    3. Tatcher M,
    4. Kobrin I and
    5. Robinson E
    : Pregnancy and delivery after successful treatment of epidural metastatic choriocarcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 6(5): 464-466, 1978. PMID: 738625. DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(78)90056-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Mosdal C and
    2. Bang F
    : Intradural spinal metastases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 56(1-2): 107-110, 1981. PMID: 6264750. DOI: 10.1007/BF01400978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Hargraves RW,
    2. Cotelingam JD,
    3. Harris RD and
    4. Pulliam MW
    : Unusual metastasis to the cauda equina: case report. Neurosurgery 19(5): 828-830, 1986. PMID: 3785635. DOI: 10.1227/00006123-198611000-00020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Simpson RK Jr.,
    2. Goodman JC and
    3. Ehni G
    : Nasopharyngeal carcinoma metastatic to the cauda equina. Surg Neurol 26(3): 306-310, 1986. PMID: 3738729. DOI: 10.1016/0090-3019(86)90168-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Cho DY,
    2. Wang YC and
    3. Chen JT
    : Intradural metastasis to the cauda equina from carcinoma of the anus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(21): 2341-2344, 1995. PMID: 8553124. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199511000-00014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Stark RJ,
    2. Henson RA and
    3. Evans SJ
    : Spinal metastases. A retrospective survey from a general hospital. Brain 105(Pt 1): 189-213, 1982. PMID: 7066672. DOI: 10.1093/brain/105.1.189
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Palmisciano P,
    2. Sagoo NS,
    3. Kharbat AF,
    4. Kenfack YJ,
    5. Alamer OB,
    6. Scalia G,
    7. Umana GE,
    8. Aoun SG and
    9. Haider AS
    : Leptomeningeal metastases of the spine: a systematic review. Anticancer Res 42(2): 619-628, 2022. PMID: 35093859. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15519
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Cancer. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer [Last accessed on May 12, 2021]
  44. ↵
    1. Barzilai O,
    2. Fisher CG and
    3. Bilsky MH
    : State of the art treatment of spinal metastatic disease. Neurosurgery 82(6): 757-769, 2018. PMID: 29481645. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyx567
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Umana GE,
    2. Scalia G,
    3. Palmisciano P,
    4. Passanisi M,
    5. Pompili G,
    6. Amico P,
    7. Ippolito M,
    8. Sabini MG,
    9. Cicero S and
    10. Perrotta R
    : Spontaneous sacral fracture with associated acrometastasis of the hand. Surg Neurol Int 12: 534, 2021. PMID: 34754584. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_917_2021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Passanisi M,
    2. Scalia G,
    3. Palmisciano P,
    4. Franceschini D,
    5. Crea A,
    6. Capone C,
    7. Tranchina MG,
    8. Nicoletti GF,
    9. Cicero S and
    10. Umana GE
    : Difficulty differentiating between a posterior extradural lumbar tumor versus sequestered disc even with gadolinum-enhanced MRI. Surg Neurol Int 12: 267, 2021. PMID: 34221598. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_504_2021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Hoeritzauer I,
    2. Wood M,
    3. Copley PC,
    4. Demetriades AK and
    5. Woodfield J
    : What is the incidence of cauda equina syndrome? A systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine: 1-10, 2020. PMID: 32059184. DOI: 10.3171/2019.12.SPINE19839
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Burton MR,
    2. De Jesus O and
    3. Mesfin FB
    : Conus and cauda equina tumors. 2021. PMID: 28722908.
  49. ↵
    1. Patchell RA,
    2. Tibbs PA,
    3. Regine WF,
    4. Payne R,
    5. Saris S,
    6. Kryscio RJ,
    7. Mohiuddin M and
    8. Young B
    : Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 366(9486): 643-648, 2005. PMID: 16112300. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66954-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Palmisciano P,
    2. Haider AS,
    3. Nwagwu CD,
    4. Wahood W,
    5. Yu K,
    6. Ene CI,
    7. O’Brien BJ,
    8. Aoun SG,
    9. Cohen-Gadol AA and
    10. El Ahmadieh TY
    : The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in leptomeningeal disease: a systematic review. Anticancer Res 41(11): 5333-5342, 2021. PMID: 34732403. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15346
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research
Vol. 42, Issue 4
April 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Intradural Cauda Equina Metastases: A Systematic Review of Clinico-radiological Features, Management, and Treatment Outcomes
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Intradural Cauda Equina Metastases: A Systematic Review of Clinico-radiological Features, Management, and Treatment Outcomes
PAOLO PALMISCIANO, SAIF E. ZAIDI, NATHAN A. SHLOBIN, NAVRAJ S. SAGOO, OTHMAN BIN ALAMER, GIANLUCA SCALIA, GIANLUCA FERINI, GIUSEPPE E. UMANA, SALAH G. AOUN, ALI S. HAIDER
Anticancer Research Apr 2022, 42 (4) 1661-1669; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15643

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Intradural Cauda Equina Metastases: A Systematic Review of Clinico-radiological Features, Management, and Treatment Outcomes
PAOLO PALMISCIANO, SAIF E. ZAIDI, NATHAN A. SHLOBIN, NAVRAJ S. SAGOO, OTHMAN BIN ALAMER, GIANLUCA SCALIA, GIANLUCA FERINI, GIUSEPPE E. UMANA, SALAH G. AOUN, ALI S. HAIDER
Anticancer Research Apr 2022, 42 (4) 1661-1669; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15643
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Intradural Extramedullary Spinal Metastases from Non-neurogenic Primary Tumors: A Systematic Review
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Recurrence and Malignant Transformation After Borderline Ovarian Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
  • Cytometry by Time-of-Flight for Profiling Therapeutic Response in Colorectal Cancer: Strengths, Limitations, and Translational Challenges
  • Metabolism-driven Immune Escape Defines Therapeutic Vulnerability in Type I and Type II Ovarian Cancer
Show more Review

Keywords

  • Cauda equina
  • intradural metastases
  • spine oncology
  • spine metastases
  • systematic review
Anticancer Research

© 2026 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire