European French-speaking study from the GEMO group on bone metastases management: a special focus on external beam radiotherapy practice survey

[Ethical stakes in palliative care in radiation oncology]

In 2021, the Ethics Commission of the SFRO has chosen the issue of the practice of palliative care in radiotherapy oncology. Radiation oncology plays a central role in the care of patients with cancer in palliative phase. But behind the broad name of palliative radiotherapy, we actually find a large variety of situations involving diverse ethical issues. Radiation oncologists have the delicate task to take into account multiple factors throughout a complex decision-making process. While the question of the therapeutic indication and the technical choice allowing it to be implemented remains central, reflection cannot be limited to these decision-making and technical aspects alone. It is also a question of being able to create the conditions for a singularity focused care and to build an authentic care relationship, beyond technicity. It is through this daily ethical work, in close collaboration with patients, and under essential conditions of multidisciplinarity and multiprofessionalism, that our fundamental role as caregiver can be deployed.

Patterns of practice in palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases in UK centres

Background

There is abundant evidence of the comparative efficacy of single-fraction (SF) radiotherapy and multi-fraction (MF) radiotherapy when treating patients with bone metastases. Despite this, previous surveys have shown SF schedules to be underutilised.

Aim

To determine current patterns of practice in patients with bone metastasis and to investigate the factors that influence practice.

Method

An electronic audit was performed amongst 46 physicians, within 7 hospital trusts in the UK. The audit comprised of four hypothetical cases in which consultants and registrars chose which dose and fractionation they would recommend and their reasons for this recommendation.

Results

SF radiotherapy was the most common radiotherapy schedule in hypothetical cases 1, 3 and 4. SF radiotherapy was recommended by 65% of respondents in case 1, 47% in case 2, 89% in case 3 and 46% in case 4. For case 2, 50% proposed MF radiotherapy. For case 4, 22% of respondents recommended Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SABR). The following deciding factors were cited as influencing choice of an SF schedule: prognosis, published evidence, performance status and spinal cord compression.

Conclusion

The most common radiotherapy schedule selected was SF. However, there were inter-institution differences regarding the use of SF radiotherapy. Furthermore, the survey had shown that a third of respondents recommended an MF regime, despite evidence supporting the efficacy of an SF schedule.

[Radiotherapy of bone metastases in France: A descriptive monocentric retrospective study]

PURPOSE

Bone metastases cause pain and affect patients' quality of life. Radiation therapy is one of the reference analgesic treatments. The objective of this study was to compare the current practices of a French radiotherapy department for the treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases with data from the literature in order to improve and optimize the management of patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective monocentric study of patients who underwent palliative irradiation of uncomplicated bone metastases was performed.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients had 116 treatments of uncomplicated bone metastases between January 2014 and December 2015, including 44 men (48%) and 47 women (52%) with an average age of 63years (25-88years). Primary tumours most commonly found were breast cancer (35%), lung cancer (16%) and prostate cancer (12%). The regimens used were in 29% of cases 30Gy in ten fractions (group 30Gy), in 21% of cases 20Gy in five fractions (group 20Gy), in 22% of cases 8Gy in one fraction (group 8Gy) and in 28% of cases 23.31Gy in three fractions of stereotactic body irradiation (stereotactic group). The general condition of the patient (P<0.001), pain score and analgesic (P<0.001), oligometastatic profile (P=0.003) and practitioner experience (P<0.001) were factors influencing the choice of the regimen irradiation. Age (P=0.46), sex (P=0.14), anticancer treatments (P=0.56), concomitant hospitalization (P=0.14) and the distance between the radiotherapy centre and home (P=0.87) did not influence the decision significantly. A total of three cases of spinal compression and one case of post-therapeutic fracture were observed, occurring between one and 128days and 577days after irradiation, respectively. Eight percent of all irradiated metastases were reirradiated with a delay ranging between 13 and 434days after the first irradiation. The re-irradiation rate was significantly higher after 8Gy (P=0.02). The rate of death was significantly lower in the stereotactic arm (P<0.001) and overall survival was significantly greater in the stereotactic arm (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that patients' analysed was comparable to the population of different studies. Predictive factors for the choice of the treatment regimen were identified. Non-fractionnated therapy was underutilised while stereotactic treatment was increasingly prescribed, showing an evolution in the management of patients.

[Radiotherapy of bone metastases]

Radiotherapy plays a major role in palliative treatment of bone metastases. Recent developments of stereotactic radiotherapy and intensity modulated radiation therapy give the possibility to treat oligometastatic diseases. The objective of this paper is to report indications and treatment modalities of radiotherapy in these situations.

Safety of spinal radiotherapy in metastatic cancer patients receiving bevacizumab therapy: a bi-institutional case series

We retrospectively assessed the outcome of patients receiving emergency spinal radiation therapy (RT) concurrently with bevacizumab. Clinical records of 18 consecutive patients receiving emergency spinal RT for symptomatic vertebral metastases during the course of bevacizumab-based therapy were examined. Patients were receiving biweekly bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel (n=17) or with docetaxel/carboplatin (n=1) or as a single agent (n=1) for advanced metastatic carcinoma. RT was delivered at doses of 30 Gy in 10 fractions (n=8), 20 Gy in five fractions (n=9) or 18 Gy in nine fractions (n=1). In 10 patients (56%), irradiation field encompassed the thoracic vertebrae. The median time interval between the bevacizumab infusion and the RT course was 1.5 days (0-8 days). The median follow-up was 8.3 months (2 days-42 months). A clinical benefit of RT was reported in 13 patients (72%), including four patients with complete pain relief. Two of the three patients with neurological impairment at the time of RT experienced a partial improvement in their symptoms. No pain recrudescence was reported within the irradiated field after RT completion. All toxicities were mild to moderate, with no acute toxicity reported in 13 patients (72%). No RT disruption was necessary because of acute toxicity. No delayed toxicity was reported within RT fields among 11 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up. Spinal RT during the course of bevacizumab-based therapy was not associated with the occurrence of unexpected adverse effects. This suggests that emergency RT should not be contraindicated in these patients, provided that doses and treatment volumes are defined carefully.

Continuous controversy about radiation oncologists' choice of treatment regimens for bone metastases: should we blame doctors, cancer-related features, or design of previous clinical studies?

Recent studies from Italy, Japan and Norway have confirmed previous reports, which found that a large variety of palliative radiotherapy regimens are used for painful bone metastases. Routine use of single fraction treatment might or might not be the preferred institutional approach. It is not entirely clear why inter-physician and inter-institution differences continue to persist despite numerous randomized trials, meta-analyses and guidelines, which recommend against more costly and inconvenient multi-fraction regimens delivering total doses of 30 Gy or more in a large number of clinical scenarios. In the present mini-review we discuss the questions of whether doctors are ignoring evidence-based medicine or whether we need additional studies targeting specifically those patient populations where recent surveys identified inconsistent treatment recommendations, e.g. because of challenging disease extent. We identify open questions and provide research suggestions, which might contribute to making radiation oncology practitioners more confident in selecting the right treatment for the right patient.

[Evaluation of professional practices: improving cancer related-pain management in radiation oncology]

Radiation oncologist often faced cancer pain, regardless the stage of cancer. Given the high prevalence of cancer pain, and its potential for profound adverse consequences, all patients with active malignancy should be routinely screened and treated for pain. Using a questionnaire developed by the pain center of the Institut de cancérologie de la Loire, we questioned in a routine day 154 patients receiving radiation in our department. On 154 assessed patients, 92% (n = 143) were treated with curative intent and 8% (n = 11) with analgesic intent. Sixty-seven (44%) and 14 (9%) declared to feel pain outside and during radiotherapy, respectively. Using the visual analogic scale, 39, 41 and 20% rated their pain between 1 and 3, 4 and 6 and more than 7, respectively. One third of patients suffering from pain had no analgesic treatment and 55% of patients felt inadequately relieved. Almost all (97%) of these noted an impact on their quality of life. Half of them (54%) were aware of a specific consultation for pain. A pain consultation was offered to 19% of respondents and 26% of patients were referred for a specialized consultation at the end of the investigation. Despite the existence of a pain center in the Institute, the pain seems insufficiently assessed and supported for patients receiving radiation therapy. Better communication between caregivers and better information should enable a more comprehensive assessment and specific treatment for cancer-pain related.

Radiation therapy at the end of life in patients with incurable nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Receipt of chemotherapy at the end of life (EOL) is considered an indicator of poor quality of care for medical oncology. The objective of this study was to characterize the use of radiotherapy (RT) in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the same period.

METHODS

Treatment characteristics of patients with incurable NSCLC who received RT at the EOL, defined as within 14 days of death, were analyzed from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network NSCLC Outcomes Database.

RESULTS

Among 1098 patients who died, 10% had received EOL RT. Patients who did and did not receive EOL RT were similar in terms of sex, race, comorbid disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of receiving EOL RT included stage IV disease (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-3.83) or multiorgan involvement (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.08-2.84) at diagnosis, age <65 years at diagnosis (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.21-2.83), and treating institution (OR, 1.24-5.94; P = .02). Nearly 50% of EOL RT recipients did not complete it, most commonly because of death or patient preference.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, EOL RT was received infrequently, was delivered more commonly to younger patients with more advanced disease, and often was not completed as planned. There also was considerable variation in its use among National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions. Next steps include expanding this research to other cancers and settings and investigating the clinical benefit of such treatment.