Reporting the Pooled Last Follow-up Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score Underestimates Functional Improvements Seen Over Time.

INTRODUCTION

The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score is the most commonly used functional outcome tool in Orthopaedic Oncology. However, there are no published recommendations on how to collect, analyze, and report these data. To address this knowledge gap, we performed (1) a systematic review to analyze the methodology of reporting MSTS scores and (2) an analysis of two different reporting methods (pooled last follow-up versus longitudinal time based).

METHODS

The mean MSTS score and length of follow-up were calculated using data provided in articles included in the systematic review. Paired t-tests were used to compare mean MSTS scores calculated at standardized postoperative intervals versus mean MSTS scores calculated from last follow-up time points using prospectively collected data from a single institutional database.

RESULTS

More than 300 articles met inclusion criteria. Most authors reported a single pooled score calculated from MSTS scores obtained at the patients' last follow-up visits (91.6%, n = 356). When comparing this method (pooled reporting) versus longitudinal time-based reporting, the pooled MSTS scores were only comparable to the MSTS scores at the 6-month postoperative visit. The pooled last follow-up scores underestimated MSTS scores obtained after 6 months (P < 0.0001 at 1 year and P = 0.0047 at 3 years). Improvements were seen in the MSTS domains after the 6-month visit (average time to stability was 1.8 years).

CONCLUSION

The most common historical method of reporting MSTS scores, the pooled last follow-up method, underestimates functional improvements observed during long-term follow-up. Longitudinal time-based reporting provides more accurate representation of the functional outcomes over time.