1
|
Aziz K, Koffler D, Vassantachart A, Rattani A, Ankrah NK, Gogineni E, Andraos TY, Sahgal A, Vellayappan B, Dunne EM, Siva S, Moraes FY, Guckenberger M, Lubelski D, Chao S, Combs S, Chang E, Amin AG, Foote M, Gibbs I, Kim M, Palmer J, Lo S, Redmond KJ. Radiosurgery Society Case-Based Guide to Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Challenging Cases of Spinal Metastases. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024:S1879-8500(24)00212-1. [PMID: 39233007 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2024] [Revised: 08/11/2024] [Accepted: 08/13/2024] [Indexed: 09/06/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become the standard of care in management of patients with limited sites of metastatic disease, radio-resistant histologies, painful vertebral metastases with long life expectancy and cases of reirradiation. Our case-based guidelines aim to assist radiation oncologists in the appropriate utilization of SBRT for common, yet challenging, cases of spinal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS Cases were selected to include scenarios of large volume sacral disease with nerve entrapment, medically inoperable disease abutting the thecal sac, and local failure after prior SBRT. Relevant literature was reviewed, and areas requiring further investigation were discussed to offer a framework for evidence-based clinical practice. RESULTS Spinal SBRT can be effectively delivered in challenging cases following multidisciplinary discussion by utilizing a methodical approach to patient selection, appropriate dose selection, and adherence to evidence-based dose constraints. CONCLUSIONS The Radiosurgery Society's case-based practice review offers guidance to practicing physicians treating technically challenging SBRT candidate patients with spinal metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khaled Aziz
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Daniel Koffler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - April Vassantachart
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
| | - Abbas Rattani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111, USA
| | - Nii-Kwanchie Ankrah
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Emile Gogineni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital/The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Therese Y Andraos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital/The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Balamurugan Vellayappan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute Singapore, National University Hospital, Singapore
| | - Emma M Dunne
- Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency - Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | - Shankar Siva
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Fabio Y Moraes
- Department of Oncology - Division of Radiation Oncology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Lubelski
- Department of Neurological Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
| | - Samuel Chao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Stephanie Combs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany; Institute of Radiation Medicine (IRM), Department of Radiation Sciences, Helmholtz Zentrum Munich, Neuherberg, Germany; German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Eric Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
| | - Anubhav G Amin
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98115, USA
| | - Matthew Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, University of Queensland, and ICON Cancer Centre, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Iris Gibbs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Minsun Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Joshua Palmer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital/The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Simon Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Kristin J Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Moore-Palhares D, Zeng KL, Tseng CL, Chen H, Myrehaug S, Soliman H, Maralani P, Larouche J, Shakil H, Jerzak K, Ruschin M, Zhang B, Atenafu EG, Sahgal A, Detsky J. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Sacral Metastases: Deviation From Recommended Target Volume Delineation Increases the Risk of Local Failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 119:1110-1121. [PMID: 38395085 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.01.213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/26/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Although spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is considered a standard of care in the mobile spine, mature evidence reporting outcomes specific to sacral metastases is lacking. Furthermore, there is a need to validate the existing sacral SBRT international consensus contouring guidelines to define the optimal contouring approach. We report mature rates of local failure (LF), adverse events, and the effect of contouring deviations in the largest experience to date specific to sacrum SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS Consecutive patients who underwent sacral SBRT from 2010 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoint was magnetic resonance imaging-based LF with a focus on adherence to target volume contouring recommendations. Secondary endpoints included vertebral compression fracture and neural toxicity. RESULTS Of the 215 sacrum segments treated in 112 patients, most received 30 Gy/4 fractions (51%), 24 Gy/2 fractions (31%), or 30 Gy/5 fractions (10%). Sixteen percent of segments were nonadherent to the consensus guideline with a more restricted target volume (undercontoured). The median follow-up was 21.4 months (range, 1.5-116.9 months). The cumulative incidence of LF at 1 and 2 years was 18.4% and 23.1%, respectively. In those with guideline adherent versus nonadherent contours, the LF rate at 1 year was 15.1% versus 31.4% and at 2 years 18.8% versus 40.0% (hazard ratio [HR], 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4-4.6; P = .003), respectively. On multivariable analysis, guideline nonadherence (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.7; P = .008), radioresistant histology (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.4-4.1; P < .001), and extraosseous extension (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.7; P = .005) predicted for an increased risk of LF. The cumulative incidence of vertebral compression fracture was 7.1% at 1 year and 12.3% at 2 years. Seven patients (6.3%) developed peripheral nerve toxicity, of whom 4 had been previously radiated. CONCLUSIONS Sacral SBRT is associated with high efficacy rates and an acceptable toxicity profile. Adhering to consensus guidelines for target volume delineation is recommended to reduce the risk of LF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Moore-Palhares
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - K Liang Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Chia-Lin Tseng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Hanbo Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sten Myrehaug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Hany Soliman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Pejman Maralani
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeremie Larouche
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Husain Shakil
- Division of Neurosurgery, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Katarzyna Jerzak
- Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mark Ruschin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Beibei Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Eshetu G Atenafu
- Department of Biostatistics, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jay Detsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Patel PP, Esposito EP, Zhu J, Chen X, Khan M, Kleinberg L, Lubelski D, Theodore N, Lo SFL, Hun Lee S, Kebaish K, Bydon A, Redmond KJ. Antiresorptive Medications Prior to Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Spinal Metastasis are Associated with Reduced Incidence of Vertebral Body Compression Fracture. Global Spine J 2024; 14:1778-1785. [PMID: 36749660 PMCID: PMC11268289 DOI: 10.1177/21925682231156394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE Antiresorptive drugs are often given to minimize fracture risk for bone metastases, but data regarding optimal time or ability to reduce stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)-induced fracture risk is limited. This study examines the association between antiresorptive use surrounding spinal SBRT and vertebral compression fracture (VCF) incidence to provide information regarding effectiveness and optimal timing of use. METHODS Patients treated with SBRT for spinal metastases at a single institution between 2009-2020 were included. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare cumulative incidence of VCF for those taking antiresorptive drugs pre-SBRT, post-SBRT only, and none at all. Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to identify additional factors associated with VCF. RESULTS Of the 234 patients (410 vertebrae) analyzed, 49 (20.9%) were taking bisphosphonates alone, 42 (17.9%) were taking denosumab alone, and 25 (10.7%) were taking both. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a statistically significant lower VCF incidence for patients initiating antiresorptive drugs before SBRT compared to those taking none at all (4% vs 12% at 1 year post-SBRT, P = .045; and 4% vs 23% at 2 years, P = .008). On multivariate analysis, denosumab duration (HR: .87, P = .378) or dose (HR: 1.00, P = .644) as well as bisphosphonate duration (HR: .98, P= .739) or dose (HR: .99, P= .741) did not have statistical significance on VCF incidence. CONCLUSION Initiating antiresorptive agents before SBRT may reduce the risk of treatment-induced VCF. Antiresorptive drugs are underutilized in patients with spine metastases and may represent a useful intervention to minimize toxicity and improve long-term outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Palak P. Patel
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Edward P. Esposito
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jiafeng Zhu
- Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Xuguang Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Majid Khan
- Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Lawrence Kleinberg
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Daniel Lubelski
- Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Nicholas Theodore
- Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Sheng-fu Larry Lo
- Department of Neurosurgery, Zucker School of Medicine at Hoftstra, Manhasset, NY, USA
| | - Sang Hun Lee
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Khaled Kebaish
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Ali Bydon
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kristin J. Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sacino AN, Chen H, Sahgal A, Bettegowda C, Rhines LD, Maralani P, Redmond KJ. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: A new standard of care. Neuro Oncol 2024; 26:S76-S87. [PMID: 38437670 PMCID: PMC10911798 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noad225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/06/2024] Open
Abstract
Advancements in systemic therapies for patients with metastatic cancer have improved overall survival and, hence, the number of patients living with spinal metastases. As a result, the need for more versatile and personalized treatments for spinal metastases to optimize long-term pain and local control has become increasingly important. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has been developed to meet this need by providing precise and conformal delivery of ablative high-dose-per-fraction radiation in few fractions while minimizing risk of toxicity. Additionally, advances in minimally invasive surgical techniques have also greatly improved care for patients with epidural disease and/or unstable spines, which may then be combined with SBRT for durable local control. In this review, we highlight the indications and controversies of SBRT along with new surgical techniques for the treatment of spinal metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda N Sacino
- Department of Neurosurgery, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Hanbo Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Chetan Bettegowda
- Department of Neurosurgery, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Laurence D Rhines
- Department of Neurosurgery, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pejman Maralani
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Kristin J Redmond
- Department of Radiation and Molecular Oncology, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Redmond KJ, Hattangadi-Gluth J, Pollum EL, Trifiletti DM, Kim MM, Milano M. Navigating the Spinal Frontier: Recent Data on Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Spine Metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 118:313-317. [PMID: 38220248 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2023] [Revised: 11/07/2023] [Accepted: 11/07/2023] [Indexed: 01/16/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin J Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology & Molecular Radiation Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
| | | | - Erqi Liu Pollum
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California
| | | | - Michelle M Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Michael Milano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sahgal A, Kellett S, Nguyen T, Maralani P, Greenspoon J, Linden K, Pearce A, Siddiqi F, Ruschin M. A Cancer Care Ontario Consensus-Based Organizational Guideline for the Planning and Delivery of Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Treatment in Ontario. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:499-509. [PMID: 37597616 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/01/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2023]
Abstract
The proposed recommendations are primarily based on the consensus opinion and in-field experience of the Ontario Health/Cancer Care Ontario stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for Spine Metastasis Guideline Development Group and published literature when available. Primary consideration was given to the perceived benefits for patients and the small likelihood of harm arising from recommendation implementation. Apart from the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up strategy, all evidence was considered indirect and was provided by the working group in conjunction with their collective expertise in the field of SBRT. The application of an SBRT program requires a multidisciplinary team consisting of a radiation oncologist, spine surgeon, neuroradiologist, medical physicist, medical dosimetrist, and radiation therapist. In Canada, linear accelerators are the most used treatment delivery units and should follow technology-specific quality assurance procedures. Immobilization technique is location dependant. Treatment planning MRI sequences should be acquired no more than 14 days from the date of treatment. In the case of epidural disease, simulation MRI should be completed no more than 7 days from the date of treatment. After treatment, patients should be followed with routine clinical visits every 3 months for the first year, every 3 to 6 months during years 2 and 3, and every 4 to 6 months thereafter. The recommendations enclosed provide a framework for the minimum requirements for a cancer center in Ontario, Canada to offer SBRT for spine metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arjun Sahgal
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Sarah Kellett
- Program in Evidence-Based Care, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Fawaz Siddiqi
- London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mark Ruschin
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Moore-Palhares D, Sahgal A, Zeng KL, Myrehaug S, Tseng CL, Detsky J, Chen H, Ruschin M, Atenafu EG, Wilson J, Larouche J, da Costa L, Maralani PJ, Soliman H. 30 Gy in 4 Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Fractions for Complex Spinal Metastases: Mature Outcomes Supporting This Novel Regimen. Neurosurgery 2023; 93:813-823. [PMID: 37074052 DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002498] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2023] [Accepted: 02/23/2023] [Indexed: 04/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES We designed a 30 Gy in 4 fractions stereotactic body radiotherapy protocol, as an alternative option to our standard 2-fraction approach, for primarily large volume, multilevel, or previously radiated spinal metastases. We report imaging-based outcomes of this novel fractionation scheme. METHODS The institutional database was reviewed to identify all patients who underwent 30 Gy/4 fractions from 2010 to 2021. Primary outcomes were magnetic resonance-based vertebral compression fracture (VCF) and local failure per treated vertebral segment. RESULTS We reviewed 245 treated segments in 116 patients. The median age was 64 years (range, 24-90). The median number of consecutive segments within the treatment volume was 2 (range, 1-6), and the clinical target volume (CTV) was 126.2 cc (range, 10.4-863.5). Fifty-four percent had received at least 1 previous course of radiotherapy, and 31% had previous spine surgery at the treated segment. The baseline Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score was stable, potentially unstable, and unstable for 41.6%, 51.8%, and 6.5% of segments, respectively. The cumulative incidence of local failure was 10.7% (95% CI 7.1-15.2) at 1 year and 16% (95% CI 11.5-21.2) at 2 years. The cumulative incidence of VCF was 7.3% (95% CI 4.4-11.2) at 1 year and 11.2% (95% CI 7.5-15.8) at 2 years. On multivariate analysis, age ≥68 years ( P = .038), CTV volume ≥72 cc ( P = .021), and no previous surgery ( P = .021) predicted an increased risk of VCF. The risk of VCF for CTV volumes <72 cc/≥72 cc was 1.8%/14.6% at 2 years. No case of radiation-induced myelopathy was observed. Five percent of patients developed plexopathy. CONCLUSION 30 Gy in 4 fractions was safe and efficacious despite the population being at increased risk of toxicity. The lower risk of VCF in previously stabilized segments highlights the potential for a multimodal treatment approach for complex metastases, especially for those with a CTV volume of ≥72 cc.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Moore-Palhares
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - K Liang Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Sten Myrehaug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Chia-Lin Tseng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Jay Detsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Hanbo Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Mark Ruschin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Eshetu G Atenafu
- Department of Biostatistics, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Jeff Wilson
- Division of Neurosurgery, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Jeremie Larouche
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Leodante da Costa
- Division of Neurosurgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Pejman Jabehdar Maralani
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| | - Hany Soliman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto , Ontario , Canada
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Tanaka O, Taniguchi T, Nakaya S, Adachi K, Kiryu T, Makita C, Matsuo M. Stereotactic body radiation therapy to the spine: contouring the cauda equina instead of the spinal cord is more practical as the organ at risk. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2023; 28:407-415. [PMID: 37795406 PMCID: PMC10547411 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2023.0040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/05/2023] [Indexed: 10/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is recognized as a curative treatment for oligometastasis. The spinal cord becomes the cauda equina at the lumbar level, and the nerves are located dorsally. Recently, a consensus has been reached that the cauda equina should be contoured as an organ at risk (OAR). Here, we examined the separate contouring benefits for the spinal canal versus the cauda equina only as the OAR. Materials and methods A medical physicist designed a simulation plan for 10 patients with isolated lumbar metastasis. The OAR was set with three contours: the whole spinal canal, cauda equina only, and cauda equina with bilateral nerve roots. The prescribed dose for the planning target volume (PTV) was 30 Gy/3 fx. Results For the constrained QAR doses, D90 and D95 were statistically significant due to the different OAR contouring. The maximum dose (Dmax) was increased to the spinal canal when the cauda equina max was set to ≤ 20 Gy, but dose hotspots were observed in most cases in the medullary area. The Dmax and PTV coverage were negatively correlated for the cauda equina and the spinal canal if Dmax was set to ≤ 20 Gy for both. Conclusions A portion of the spinal fluid is also included when the spinal canal is set as the OAR. Thus, the PTV coverage rate will be poor if the tumor is in contact with the spinal canal. However, the PTV coverage rate increases if only the cauda equina is set as the OAR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osamu Tanaka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Takuya Taniguchi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Shuto Nakaya
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Kousei Adachi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Takuji Kiryu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Asahi University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Chiyoko Makita
- Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| | - Masayuki Matsuo
- Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu City, Gifu, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Nguyen EK, Ruschin M, Zhang B, Soliman H, Myrehaug S, Detsky J, Chen H, Sahgal A, Tseng CL. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spine metastases: a review of 24 Gy in 2 daily fractions. J Neurooncol 2023; 163:15-27. [PMID: 37155133 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04327-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has proven to be a highly effective treatment for selected patients with spinal metastases. Randomized evidence shows improvements in complete pain response rates and local control with lower retreatment rates favoring SBRT, compared to conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT). While there are several reported dose-fractionation schemes for spine SBRT, 24 Gy in 2 fractions has emerged with Level 1 evidence providing an excellent balance between minimizing treatment toxicity while respecting patient convenience and financial strain. METHODS We provide an overview of the 24 Gy in 2 SBRT fraction regimen for spine metastases, which was developed at the University of Toronto and tested in an international Phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial. RESULTS The literature summarizing global experience with 24 Gy in 2 SBRT fractions suggests 1-year local control rates ranging from 83-93.9%, and 1-year rates of vertebral compression fracture ranging from 5.4-22%. Reirradiation of spine metastases that failed prior cEBRT is also feasible with 24 Gy in 2 fractions, and 1-year local control rates range from 72-86%. Post-operative spine SBRT data are limited but do support the use of 24 Gy in 2 fractions with reported 1-year local control rates ranging from 70-84%. Typically, the rates of plexopathy, radiculopathy and myositis are under 5% in those series reporting mature follow up, with no cases of radiation myelopathy (RM) reported in the de novo setting when the spinal cord avoidance structure is limited to 17 Gy in 2 fractions. However, re-irradiation RM has been observed following 2 fraction SBRT. More recently, 2-fraction dose escalation with 28 Gy, with a higher dose constraint to the critical neural tissues, has been reported suggesting improved rates of local control. This regimen may be important in those patients with radioresistant histologies, high grade epidural disease, and/or paraspinal disease. CONCLUSION The dose-fractionation of 24 Gy in 2 fractions is well-supported by published literature and is an ideal starting point for centers looking to establish a spine SBRT program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric K Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Mark Ruschin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Beibei Zhang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Hany Soliman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Sten Myrehaug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Jay Detsky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Hanbo Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Chia-Lin Tseng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Blaaza M, Figueira CFC, Ramali MR, McNamara C, Severino M, Tortora D, Mankad K, Rossi A. Assessment of the levels of termination of the conus medullaris and thecal sac in the pediatric population. Neuroradiology 2023; 65:835-843. [PMID: 36680571 PMCID: PMC10033476 DOI: 10.1007/s00234-022-03111-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Accepted: 12/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study assessed the position of the termination of the conus medullaris (the point where the spinal cord tapers to an end) and thecal sac (the sheath of dura mater that surrounds the spinal cord and caudal nerve roots) in a large pediatric population, to characterise the nature of the pediatric Gaussian distribution and assess whether age affected the distribution. The study further aimed to assess the effect of gender on termination positions. METHODS A total of 520 MRI spine studies of children aged between 1 month and 19 years old were collected from two pediatric tertiary referral centres in the UK and Italy. Studies with pathological findings were excluded, and normal scans were found using keyword search algorithms on a database of radiologists' reports. The reported scans were individually assessed and reviewed by two experienced neuroradiologists. The termination points of the conus medullaris and thecal sac were determined for each study. Local IRB approvals were sought. RESULTS The results showcased a Gaussian distribution in both conus medullaris (r=0.8997) and thecal sac termination levels (r=0.9639). No statistically significant results were noted with increasing age for the termination positions of the conus medullaris or thecal sac (p = 0.154, 0.063). No statistical significance was observed with gender variation with either anatomical landmark. A weak positive correlation was observed between the termination levels of the conus medullaris and the thecal sac (r=0.2567) CONCLUSION: Termination levels across all pediatric age range followed a Gaussian distribution. Knowledge of normal termination levels has relevant clinical implications, including the assessment of patients with suspected spinal dysraphism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Domenico Tortora
- Neuroradiology Unit, IRCCS Insituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy
| | | | - Andrea Rossi
- Neuroradiology Unit, IRCCS Insituto Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy
- Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Zeng KL, Abugarib A, Soliman H, Myrehaug S, Husain ZA, Detsky J, Ruschin M, Karotki A, Atenafu EG, Larouche J, Campbell M, Maralani P, Sahgal A, Tseng CL. Dose-Escalated 2-Fraction Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: 28 Gy Versus 24 Gy in 2 Daily Fractions. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 115:686-695. [PMID: 36309076 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.09.076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Revised: 09/18/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spine metastases improves pain response rates compared with conventional external beam radiation therapy; however, the optimal fractionation schedule is unclear. We report local control and toxicity outcomes after dose-escalated 2-fraction spine SBRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS A prospectively maintained institutional database of over 600 patients and 1400 vertebral segments treated with spine SBRT was reviewed to identify those prescribed 28 or 24 Gy in 2 daily fractions. The primary endpoint was magnetic resonance imaging based local failure (LF), and secondary endpoints included overall survival and vertebral compression fracture (VCF). RESULTS A total of 947 treated vertebral segments in 482 patients were identified, of which 301 segments in 159 patients received 28 Gy, and 646 segments in 323 patients received 24 Gy in 2 fractions. Median follow-up per patient was 23.5 months, and median overall survival was 49.1 months. In the 28 Gy cohort, the 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative incidences of LF were 3.5%, 5.4%, and 11.1%, respectively, versus 6.0%, 12.5%, and 17.6% in the 24 Gy cohort, respectively (P = .008). On multivariable analysis, 24 Gy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.525; 95% confidence interval, 1.039-2.238; P = .031), paraspinal disease extension (HR, 1.422; 95% confidence interval, 1.010-2.002; P = .044), and epidural extension in either radioresistant or radiosensitive histologies (HR, 2.117 and 1.227, respectively; P = .003) were prognostic for higher rates of LF. Risk of VCF was 5.5%, 7.6%, and 10.7% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, and was similar between cohorts (P = .573). Spinal malalignment (P < .001), baseline VCF (P = .003), junctional spine location (P = .030), and greater minimum dose to 90% of planning target volume were prognostic for higher rates of VCF. CONCLUSIONS Dose escalation to 28 Gy in 2 daily fractions was associated with improved local control without increasing the risk of VCF. The 2-year local control rates are consistent with those predicted by the Hypofractionated Treatment Effects in the Clinic spine tumor control probability model, and these data will inform a proposed dose escalation randomized trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Liang Zeng
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ahmed Abugarib
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Oncology Department, Sohag University Hospital, Sohag, Egypt
| | - Hany Soliman
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sten Myrehaug
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Zain A Husain
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jay Detsky
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mark Ruschin
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Aliaksandr Karotki
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Eshetu G Atenafu
- Department of Biostatistics, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jeremie Larouche
- Division of Orthopedic Surgery and Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mikki Campbell
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Pejman Maralani
- Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Chia-Lin Tseng
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Dose-Volume Constraints fOr oRganS At risk In Radiotherapy (CORSAIR): An "All-in-One" Multicenter-Multidisciplinary Practical Summary. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:7021-7050. [PMID: 36290829 PMCID: PMC9600677 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29100552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2022] [Revised: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 09/22/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The safe use of radiotherapy (RT) requires compliance with dose/volume constraints (DVCs) for organs at risk (OaRs). However, the available recommendations are sometimes conflicting and scattered across a number of different documents. Therefore, the aim of this work is to provide, in a single document, practical indications on DVCs for OaRs in external beam RT available in the literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS A multidisciplinary team collected bibliographic information on the anatomical definition of OaRs, on the imaging methods needed for their definition, and on DVCs in general and in specific settings (curative RT of Hodgkin's lymphomas, postoperative RT of breast tumors, curative RT of pediatric cancers, stereotactic ablative RT of ventricular arrythmia). The information provided in terms of DVCs was graded based on levels of evidence. RESULTS Over 650 papers/documents/websites were examined. The search results, together with the levels of evidence, are presented in tabular form. CONCLUSIONS A working tool, based on collected guidelines on DVCs in different settings, is provided to help in daily clinical practice of RT departments. This could be a first step for further optimizations.
Collapse
|
13
|
Radiation myelopathy following stereotactic body radiation therapy for spine metastases. J Neurooncol 2022; 159:23-31. [PMID: 35737172 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-022-04037-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is now considered a standard of care treatment option in the management of spine metastases. One of the most feared complications of spine SBRT is radiation myelopathy (RM). METHODS We provided a narrative review of RM following spine SBRT based on review of the published literature, including data on spinal cord dose constraints associated with the risk of RM, strategies to mitigate the risk, and management options for RM. RESULTS There are limited published data of cases of RM following spine SBRT with detailed spinal cord dosimetry. The HyTEC report provided recommendations for the point maximal dose (Dmax) for the spinal cord that is associated with a < 5% risk of RM for 1-5 fractions spine SBRT. In the setting of spine SBRT reirradiation after previous conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT), factors associated with RM are: SBRT spinal cord Dmax, cumulative spinal cord Dmax, and the time interval between previous RT and SBRT reirradiation. There are various strategies to mitigate the risk of RM, including accurate delineation of the spinal cord (or thecal sac), strict adherence to the recommended spinal cord dose constraints, and robust treatment immobilisation set-up and delivery. Limited effective treatment options are available for patients who develop RM, and these include corticosteroids, hyperbaric oxygen, and bevacizumab; however, none have been supported by high quality evidence. CONCLUSION RM is a rare but devastating complication following SBRT for spine metastases. There are strategies to minimise the risk of RM to ensure safe delivery of spine SBRT.
Collapse
|
14
|
Diez P, Hanna GG, Aitken KL, van As N, Carver A, Colaco RJ, Conibear J, Dunne EM, Eaton DJ, Franks KN, Good JS, Harrow S, Hatfield P, Hawkins MA, Jain S, McDonald F, Patel R, Rackley T, Sanghera P, Tree A, Murray L. UK 2022 Consensus on Normal Tissue Dose-Volume Constraints for Oligometastatic, Primary Lung and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2022; 34:288-300. [PMID: 35272913 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2022.02.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2021] [Revised: 01/21/2022] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
The use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in the UK has expanded over the past decade, in part as the result of several UK clinical trials and a recent NHS England Commissioning through Evaluation programme. A UK SABR Consortium consensus for normal tissue constraints for SABR was published in 2017, based on the existing literature at the time. The published literature regarding SABR has increased in volume over the past 5 years and multiple UK centres are currently working to develop new SABR services. A review and update of the previous consensus is therefore appropriate and timely. It is hoped that this document will provide a useful resource to facilitate safe and consistent SABR practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Diez
- Radiotherapy Physics, National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - G G Hanna
- Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK; Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - K L Aitken
- Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK; Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - N van As
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - A Carver
- Department of Medical Physics, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - R J Colaco
- Department of Clinical Oncology, The Christie Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - J Conibear
- Radiotherapy Department, Barts Cancer Centre, London, UK
| | - E M Dunne
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - D J Eaton
- Radiotherapy Physics, National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK; Department of Medical Physics, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; School of Biomedical Engineering & Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - K N Franks
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - J S Good
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - S Harrow
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Edinburgh Cancer Centre, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - P Hatfield
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - M A Hawkins
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomechanical Engineering, University College London, London, UK; Department of Clinical Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - S Jain
- Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK; Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - F McDonald
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Chelsea, London, UK
| | - R Patel
- Radiotherapy Physics, National Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA), Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - T Rackley
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - P Sanghera
- Department of Clinical Oncology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
| | - A Tree
- Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey, UK; Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - L Murray
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Leeds Cancer Centre, St James's University Hospitals, Leeds, UK; Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
| |
Collapse
|