Rapid course radiation therapy vs. more standard treatment: a randomized trial for bone metastases

What is the incidence and non-union rate of radiation-associated fractures? - A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Radiation-associated fractures (RAFs) are a challenging complication in oncologic patients, yet their incidence remains unknown and optimal management lacks consensus.

AIM

This review aimed to evaluate the incidence of RAFs in the trunk, pelvis, and extremities as well as non-union rates of surgical and non-surgical treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed and Embase databases was conducted. The study was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024513017). Studies were included if they reported RAFs in oncologic populations, had a sample size of at least five patients, and provided extractable data on RAF incidence or number. The STROBE checklist was utilized for evaluation of study quality. For eligible studies, quantitative analyses were conducted to determine weighted incidence of RAF and fracture non-union.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies comprising 9,980 patients treated with radiation therapy were included. The weighted incidence of RAFs was calculated to be 6.5% across 8,061 patients. The weighted incidence of femoral RAF was 5.2%, while pelvic RAF incidence was 17.1%. Non-union rates after initial treatment varied from 4% to 100%, with an overall weighted incidence of 48%. Treatments included intramedullary nailing, fixation with screws/plate, prosthetic replacement, conservative treatment, and amputation, with varying success rates.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights RAFs as a significant complication of radiation therapy, with a weighted incidence of 6.5% and a non-union rate of 48%. Advanced radiation techniques have reduced RAF occurrences, but non-union remains a challenge, necessitating tailored treatment strategies. Further research is needed to optimize RAF management and improve patient outcomes.

External Beam Radiation Therapy for Palliation of Symptomatic Bone Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for palliative external beam radiation therapy (RT) in symptomatic bone metastases.

METHODS

The ASTRO convened a task force to address 5 key questions regarding palliative RT in symptomatic bone metastases. Based on a systematic review by the Agency for Health Research and Quality, recommendations using predefined consensus-building methodology were established; evidence quality and recommendation strength were also assessed.

RESULTS

For palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases, RT is recommended for managing pain from bone metastases and spine metastases with or without spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Regarding other modalities with RT, for patients with spine metastases causing spinal cord or cauda equina compression, surgery and postoperative RT are conditionally recommended over RT alone. Furthermore, dexamethasone is recommended for spine metastases with spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Patients with nonspine bone metastases requiring surgery are recommended postoperative RT. Symptomatic bone metastases treated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy in 1 fraction (800 cGy/1 fx), 2000 cGy/5 fx, 2400 cGy/6 fx, or 3000 cGy/10 fx. Spinal cord or cauda equina compression in patients who are ineligible for surgery and receiving conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 1600 cGy/2 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, or 3000 cGy/10 fx. Symptomatic bone metastases in selected patients with good performance status without surgery or neurologic symptoms/signs are conditionally recommended stereotactic body RT over conventional palliative RT. Spine bone metastases reirradiated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, 2400 cGy/6 fx, or 2000 cGy/8 fx; nonspine bone metastases reirradiated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, or 2400 cGy/6 fx. Determination of an optimal RT approach/regimen requires whole person assessment, including prognosis, previous RT dose if applicable, risks to normal tissues, quality of life, cost implications, and patient goals and values. Relatedly, for patient-centered optimization of treatment-related toxicities and quality of life, shared decision making is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on published data, the ASTRO task force's recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases.

Comparison of twice weekly palliative RT versus continuous hypofractionated palliative RT for painful bone metastases

Background

Palliative hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) is an effective mode of treating painful bone metastasis. While 8 Gy single fraction radiation is often effective for the same, for complicated bone metastases a protracted fractionated regimen is preferred, of which 30 Gy/10#/2weeks or 20 Gy/5#/1 week are the most common worldwide. However such schedules add to the burden of already overburdened radiation treatment facilities in a busy center, wherein alternative logistic favourable schedules with treatment on weekends are preferred. Here we compare the efficacy of a twice weekly schedule to that of standard continuous 20 Gy/5 #/1 week schedule in terms of pain relief, response and quality of life.

Materials and methods

A prospective non randomized study was undertaken from Jan 2018 to May 2019, wherein eligible patients of complicated bone metastases received palliative radiotherapy of 20 Gy/5#, either continuously for 5 fractions from Monday to Saturday or twice weekly, Saturday and Wednesday, starting on a Saturday over about 2 weeks. Pain relief was assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and FACES pain scale recorded prior to starting palliative RT and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months.

Results

Thirteen patients received continuous Hypofractionated RT while 16 received it in a twice weekly schedule. Spine was the most common site receiving palliative Radiation (27/29), while breast cancer was the most common primary (16/29). The demographic and the baseline characteristics were comparable. The mean pain score decline at 4 weeks was 2.56 ± 1.1 and 2.71 ± 0.52 in the 5-day and the two-week schedule, respectively (p = 0.67).

Conclusion

A twice weekly schedule over about two weeks was found to be equivalent in pain control and response to the standard fractionated palliative radiation and, thus, can be safely employed in resource constrained, busy radiotherapy centers.

Radiation Therapy for Painful Bone Metastases: Fractionation, Recalcification, and Symptom Control

Bone is a common site for metastases, which may cause pain and other skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with advanced cancer. Since the 1980s, prospective clinical trials have demonstrated the high efficacy of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for pain relief from focal, symptomatic lesions. In uncomplicated bone metastases, which include those without pathologic fracture, evidence of cord compression, or prior surgical intervention, improvement or complete pain relief with radiotherapy is as high as 60%, with no difference in efficacy when radiotherapy is delivered in a single or multiple fractions. The ability to treat with a single fraction makes EBRT an attractive therapy even for patients with poor performance status and/or life expectancy. Even in patients with complicated bone metastases (eg cord compression), several randomized trials have demonstrated similar rates of pain relief in addition to improved functional outcomes such as ambulation. In this review, we summarize the role of EBRT for alleviating painful bone metastases and explore its role for other endpoints including functional outcomes, recalcification, and prevention of SREs.

Role of interventional radiology in pain management in oncology patients

This article reviews the current evidence of interventional radiology procedures for patients suffering with debilitating cancer pain, refractory to conventional therapies. Cancer pain is notoriously difficult to treat. Up to 90% of cancer patients experience pain with 56-82% of cancer pain controlled inadequately. Cancer pain influences a patient's ability to perform normal daily activities, causes higher risk of depression, and reduces quality of life. Pain-free status has been universally voted as a "good death". Alternative minimally invasive options include nerve blocks, neurolysis, bone ablation, spine and peripheral musculoskeletal augmentation techniques, embolisation, and cordotomy with evidence highlighting improved pain control, reduced analgesic requirements, and improved quality of life. Unfortunately, awareness and availability of these procedures is limited, potentially leaving patients suffering during their remaining life. The purpose of this review is to describe the basic concepts of interventional radiology techniques for pain palliation in oncology patients. In addition, emphasis will be given upon the need for an individually tailored approach aiming to augment efficacy and safety.

Palliative Radiation for Cancer Pain Management

Bone metastases are the most common cause of cancer-related pain. Radiation therapy (RT) is a very common and effective treatment to relieve pain. Conventionally fractionated RT typically consists of the following regimens: 8 Gy in a single treatment, 20 Gy in five fractions, 24 Gy in six fractions, or 30 Gy in ten fractions. All treatment regimens have similar rates of pain relief (range 50-80%), with single-fraction treatment often requiring retreatment. While many painful bony metastases can be managed with RT alone, some may be more complex, often requiring multidisciplinary management, including the need for surgical stabilization or augmentation prior to RT. There are multiple assessment tools including the neurologic, oncologic, mechanical, and systemic (NOMS) decision framework, which allows clinicians to assess the proper course of treatment for these patients. For patients with good prognosis, oligometastatic disease, or those presenting with more radioresistant tumors, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may be another option, which offers ablative doses of radiation delivered over several treatments. This chapter reviews the fundamentals of RT for palliation.

Musculoskeletal Oncologic Interventions: Proceedings from the Society of Interventional Radiology and Society of Interventional Oncology Research Consensus Panel

Musculoskeletal interventions are increasingly used with palliative and curative intent in the multidisciplinary treatment of oncology patients with bone and soft-tissue tumors. There is an unmet need for high-quality evidence to guide broader application and adoption of minimally invasive interventional technologies to treat these patients. Therefore, the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation and the Society of Interventional Oncology collaborated to convene a research consensus panel to prioritize a research agenda addressing the gaps in the current evidence. This article summarizes the panel's proceedings and recommendations for future basic science and clinical investigation to chart the course for interventional oncology within the musculoskeletal system. Key questions that emerged addressed the effectiveness of ablation within specific patient populations, the effect of combination of ablation with radiotherapy and/or immunotherapy, and the potential of standardization of techniques, including modeling and monitoring, to improve the consistency and predictability of treatment outcomes.

Clinical analysis of patients with skeletal metastasis of lung cancer

Background

Many factors influence bone metastases of lung cancer, and several studies report about survival of skeletal metastasis. However, few studies have focused on identifying the prognostic factors for skeletal metastasis of lung cancer, especially following orthopedic surgery. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical characteristics of skeletal metastasis from lung cancer and discuss the prognostic factors.

Methods

We performed a medical record review of 202 patients who were diagnosed with skeletal metastasis from lung cancer. Adenocarcinoma was found in 116 patients (57.4%), squamous cell carcinoma in 29 (14.4%), small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in 37 (18.7%), and large-cell carcinoma and other types of cancer in 20 patients (9.9%). Orthopedic surgery for skeletal metastasis was performed in 41 patients (20.3%).

Results

Lung cancer survival was 12.1 months. After diagnosis of lung cancer, skeletal metastasis was found at a mean of 2.5 months, and skeletal metastasis survival was 9.8 months. Lung cancer survival in patients younger than 60 years was 13.8 months, and lung cancer survival in patients 60 years or older was 10.8 months (p = 0.009). Skeletal metastasis survival in patients younger than 60 years was 11.0 months, and skeletal metastasis survival in patients 60 years or older was 8.8 months (p = 0.002). Mean skeletal metastasis survival with surgery was 12.6 months and without surgery was 9.1 months (p < 0.000). In the multivariate analysis of lung cancer survival, age under 60 years [HR (95% CI) 1.549 (1.122–2.139), p = 0.008], non-small cell lung cancer pathology type [HR (95% CI) 1.711 (1.157–2.532), p = 0.008], chemotherapy for skeletal metastasis [HR (95% CI) 8.064 (3.981–16.332), p < 0.000], and radiation therapy for skeletal metastasis [HR (95% CI) 1.791 (1.170–2.742), p = 0.007] were significant, independent, good prognostic factors. In the multivariate analysis of skeletal metastasis survival, age under 60 years [HR (95% CI) 1.549 (1.124–2.134), p = 0.007], non-small cell lung cancer pathology type [HR (95% CI) 2.045 (1.373–3.047), p < 0.000], chemotherapy for skeletal metastasis [HR (95% CI) 7.121 (3.542–14.317), p < 0.000], and orthopedic surgical treatment for skeletal metastasis [HR (95% CI) 1.710 (1.148–2.547), p = 0.008] were significant, independent, good prognostic factors.

Conclusions

Patients who survived longer were less than 60 years old, received chemotherapy as treatment for skeletal metastasis, had NSCLC rather than SCLC, and underwent orthopedic surgery for skeletal metastasis.

Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

Background

Treatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.

Results

In total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.

Conclusion

The cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.

The influence of fractionated radiotherapy on the stability of spinal bone metastases: a retrospective analysis from 1047 cases

BACKGROUND

The effect of radiotherapy, in particular the application of different multi-fraction schedules in the management of unstable spinal bone metastases (SBM), is incompletely understood. This study aims to compare the radiological response regarding various dose and fractionation schedules of radiotherapy in the palliative treatment of SBM.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed 1047 patients with osteolytic SBM, treated with palliative radiotherapy at our department between 2000 and 2015. Lung cancer (40.2%), breast (16.7%) and renal cancer (15.2%) were the most common solid tumors in this study. Different common multi-fraction regimen (5x4Gy, 10x3Gy, 14 × 2.5Gy and 20x2Gy) were compared with regard to radiological response and recalcification at 3 and 6 months after radiotherapy. The Taneichi score was used for classification of osteolytic SBM.

RESULTS

Median follow up was 6.3 months. The median overall survival (OS) in the short-course radiotherapy (SCR) group using less than 10 treatment fractions was 5.5 months vs. 9.5 months in the long-course radiotherapy (LCR) group using in excess of 10 fractions (log rank p < .0001). Overall survival (OS) in the SCR group after 3 and 6 months was 66.8 and 49.1%, respectively vs 80.9 and 61.5%, respectively in the LCR group. 17.6% (n = 54/306) and 31.1% (n = 89/286) of unstable SBM were classified as stable in the SCR group at 3 and 6 months post radiotherapy, respectively (p < .001 for both). In the LCR group, 24.1% (n = 28/116) and 34.2% (n = 38/111) of unstable SBM were stabilized after 3 and 6 months, respectively (p < .001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows no significant difference in stabilization achieving recalcification rates between multi-fraction schedules (SCR vs. LCR) in the palliative management of unstable SBM. Both groups with multi-fraction regimen demonstrate a stabilizing effect following 3 and 6 months after radiotherapy.

De Bari B, Chiesa S, Filippi AR, Gambacorta MA, D'Emilio V, Murino P, Livi L. The INTER-ROMA Project - a Survey among Italian Radiation Oncologists on Their Approach to the Treatment of Bone Metastases

Aims and background

Radiotherapy has an established palliative role for bone metastases but despite the large number of patients treated there is still controversy surrounding the optimal radiotherapy schedule to prescribe. The aim of this survey was to determine the decision patterns of Italian radiation oncologists in four different clinical cases of patients with bone metastases.

Methods and study design

During the latest national meeting of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO), four clinical cases were presented to attending radiation oncologists. The cases were different with respect to the histology of the primary tumor, performance status, pain before and after analgesics, tumor site, and radiological characteristics of the metastatic lesions. For each clinical case the respondents were asked to give an indication for treatment; prescribe doses, volumes and treatment field arrangements; decide whether to prescribe prophylactic supportive therapy or not; and provide information about factors that particularly influenced prescription. Finally, a descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

Results

Three hundred questionnaires were distributed to radiation oncologists attending the congress. One hundred twenty-five questionnaires were returned but only 122 (40.6%) were adequately completed and considered for the analysis. Considerable differences were observed among radiation oncologists in prescribing and delivering radiotherapy for bone metastases. There was also a notable divergence from international guidelines, which will be discussed in this report.

Conclusions

Despite the results of clinical trials, Italian radiation oncologists differ considerably in their decisions on treatment doses and volumes. National guidelines are needed in order that patients can be treated uniformly and better data will become available for evidence-based palliative radiotherapy.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Single-Fraction Versus Multiple-Fraction Radiotherapy in Patients with Painful Bone Metastases: An Iranian Patient's Perspective Study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate two of the various treatment strategies of bone metastasis- single-fraction radiotherapy and multiple-fraction radiotherapy.

METHODS

A multistage Markov decision model was applied to assess the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of single fraction against multiple fractions. The model had a monthly cycle length over a lifetime horizon with 1000 hypothetical cohort samples. The EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire was used to estimate the health-related quality of life in patients. To cope with parameters of uncertainty, we conducted a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte-Carlo simulation technique. Both cost and utility variables were discounted by 3% in the base model. Strategies were assessed considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $6578 per QALY gained.

RESULTS

The expected mean cost and quality-adjusted life-years were, respectively, US $447.28 and 5.95 months for patients receiving single-fraction radiotherapy and US $1269.66 and 7.87 months for those receiving multiple-fraction radiotherapy. The incremental cost-utility ratio was US $428.38 per QALY. Considering the Iranian gross domestic product per capita (US $6578) as the recommended willingness to pay for 1 QALY gained, the multiple-fraction method was found to be a cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Policymakers should advocate the multiple-fraction method instead of the single-fraction method in the treatment of patients with painful bone metastases.

The role of radiotherapy in bone metastases: A critical review of current literature

Radiotherapy is considered the treatment of choice for painful bone metastases. However, novel modalities of radiotherapy have emerged in the concept of oligometastasic disease. In addition, the increase of overall survival of patients with bone metastatic disease in the last decades due to systemic treatments has issued the silent topic of re-irradiation. The aim of this manuscript was to present a current thorough search of relevant literature. Originally, 6,087 articles revealed from PubMed database related to radiotherapy and bone metastases. The first objective was to identify prospective randomised phase III studies dealing with bone metastases and which treated primary with radiotherapy. Abstracts and non-English citations were excluded. Twenty-three phase III clinical trials, 17 prospective studies and eight meta-analysis/systemic reviews matching with these criteria, were identified. Eleven randomised studies were comparing single dose fraction to multi-fraction schedules of radiotherapy. The overall response rates and complete response rates were not significant between the two arms. Re-irradiations rates were significantly higher for the single dose fraction arms. Stereotactic radiotherapy showed excellent tumour control rates more than 80%. All trials showed the equivalence of either single or multi-fractionated radiotherapy for metastatic bone lesions. Stereotactic irradiation is feasible and safe for oligometastatic disease. However, it seems that the single fraction of 8 Gy is superior to 4 Gy, in terms of efficacy.

Survival and prognostic factors in patients with stable and unstable spinal bone metastases from solid tumors: a retrospective analysis of 915 cases

Background

Adequate prediction of survival plays an important role in treatment decisions for patients with spinal bone metastases (SBM). Several prognostic factors are already used in daily clinical practice, but factors related to stability of SBM are still unknown. Therefore, we designed this study to identify these prognostic factors.

Methods

We retrospectively assessed 915 patients from solid tumors with commonly metastased into the bone treated at our department between January 2000 and January 2012. Lung cancer (NSCLC), breast and renal cancer listed in Table 1 are the most common solid tumors with bone metastasis in this study. Prostate carcinoma was excluded due to osteoblastic SBM with no influence for stability. We calculated overall survival (OS) and bone survival (BS; time between first diagnosis of bone metastases until death) with the Kaplan-Meier method and assessed prognostic factors for BS with the log-rank test and a Cox regression model separately for patients with stable and unstable SBM.

Results

Median follow-up was 9.3 months. OS after 6 months, 1, 2, and 5 years was 81, 62, 42, and 25 % in patients with stable SBM and 78, 57, 38, and 22 % in patients with unstable SBM (p = 0.851). BS was 57, 38, 22, and 5 % in the group of stable SBM after 6 months, 1, 2, and 5 years. For patients with unstable SBM BS after 6 months, 1, 2, and 5 years was 59, 39, 19, and 8 % (p = 0.755). In multivariate analysis we found male gender (HR = 1.27 [95 % CI 1.01–1.60], p = 0.04), Karnofsky performance status (KPS) <80 % (HR = 1.27 [95%CI 1.04–1.55], p = 0.02) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; HR = 2.77 [95%CI 1.99–3.86], p < 0.0001) to be independent prognostic factors for shortened survival in patients with stable SBM. Independent prognostic factors for unstable SBM were age per year (HR = 1.01 [95 % CI 1.0–1.02], p = 0.025), multiple SBM (HR = 1.35 [95 % CI 1.1–1.65], p = 0.003), and NSCLC (HR = 2.0 [95 % CI 1.43–2.80], p < 0.0001). Additionally, not wearing an orthopedic corset (HR = 0.77 [95 % CI 0.62–0.96], p = 0.02) was associated with prolonged BS in patients with unstable SBM and in both groups BS was significantly longer in patients without liver metastases (stable SBM: HR = 0.72 [95 % CI 0.56–0.92], p = 0.008; unstable SBM: HR = 0.71 [95 % CI 0.54–0.92], p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Survival was equal for patients with stable and unstable SBM. However, prognostic factors differed in both groups and stability should therefore be considered in treatment decision-making.

Skeletal metastases from breast cancer: pathogenesis of bone tropism and treatment strategy

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common female cancer worldwide with approximately 10 % of new cases metastatic at diagnosis and 20-50 % of patients with early BC who will eventually develop metastatic disease. Bone is the most frequent site of colonisation and the development of skeletal metastases depends on a complex multistep process, from dissemination and survival of malignant cells into circulation to the actual homing and metastases formation inside bone. Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) can be detected in bone marrow in approximately 30 % of BC patients, likely reflecting the presence of minimal residual disease that would eventually account for subsequent metastatic disease. Patients with bone marrow DTCs have poorer overall survival compared with patients without them. Although bone-only metastatic disease seems to have a rather indolent behavior compared to visceral disease, bone metastases can cause severe and debilitating effects, including pain, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia and pathologic fractures. Delivering an appropriate treatment is therefore paramount and ideally it should require interdisciplinary care. Multiple options are currently available, from bisphosphonates to new drugs targeting RANK ligand and radiotherapy. In this review we describe the mechanisms underlying bone colonization and provide an update on existing systemic and locoregional treatments for bone metastases.

The role of radiation therapy in the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer

In the setting of castrate-resistant prostate cancer, patients present with a variety of symptoms, including bone metastases, spinal cord compression and advanced pelvic disease. Fortunately, a variety of radiotherapeutic options exist for palliation. This article focuses on these options, including both external beam radiotherapy and radiopharmaceuticals.

Multifraction Radiotherapy for Palliation of Painful Bone Metastases: 20 Gy versus 30 Gy

Aims and Background

To compare 2 multifraction radiotherapy schedules in the palliation of painful bone metastases.

Methods and Study Design

We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 105 patients with a total of 140 painful bone metastases who were treated with 20 Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The primary tumors were breast (30%), lung (28%), and prostate (14%). The main sites of irradiation were spine (n = 79) and sacrum or pelvis (n = 39). Pain was graded by patients according to the pain numeric rating scale just before and 1 month after radiotherapy. Pain progression was defined as an increase ≥2 on pain scale after an initial response.

Results

The overall response rate at 1 month was 88.6%. Overall response rate was 89.6% in the 20-Gy arm and 87.3% in the 30-Gy arm (p = 0.669). The rate of complete response was statistically better in patients treated with 30 Gy (p = 0.019). The mean reduction in pain was 3.2 in the 20-Gy group and 3.6 in the 30-Gy group. Pain progression was 6.5% and 1.6%, respectively. The incidence of acute toxicity was statistically significantly higher in the 30-Gy arm (23.8%) than in the 20-Gy arm (2.6%) (p = 0.001). One pathologic fracture of the irradiated bone was observed in the 30-Gy arm. Two lesions, one in each group, were re-irradiated for pain recurrence. Pain progression was found in 6.5% of the irradiated lesions in the 20-Gy arm and in 1.6% in the 30-Gy arm.

Conclusions

In our series, both regimens achieved high rate of pain relief, although the group treated with higher total dose reported better complete response rate. The 30-Gy arm had a significantly higher rate of acute toxicity.

Single fraction radiotherapy versus multiple fraction radiotherapy for bone metastases in prostate cancer patients: comparative effectiveness

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is an effective treatment for symptomatic bone metastases from a variety of primary malignancies. Previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews have reported on the efficacy of EBRT on bone metastases from multiple primaries. This review is focused on the comparative effectiveness of single fraction radiotherapy versus multiple fraction radiotherapy for bone metastases in prostate cancer patients.

Radiation therapy for the management of painful bone metastases: Results from a randomized trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two radiotherapy schedules in patients with bone metastases.

BACKGROUND

We analyzed the need for re-irradiation, rates of pain control, pathological fractures, and functionality in patients randomized to single-fraction (8 Gy 1×) or multiple-fraction radiotherapy (3 Gy 10×) with at least 12 months follow-up, during five years. The hypothesis was that the two radiotherapy schedules are equally effective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety patients with painful skeletal metastases were randomized to receive single fraction (8 Gy) or multiple fraction (3 Gy 10×) radiotherapy.

RESULTS

In the single-fraction group, seven pathological fractures occurred (15.5%) versus two (4.4%) in the multiple-fraction group. There was no statistically significant difference between the time it took to suffer a pathological fracture in both groups (p = 0.099). Patients in the single-fraction group received twelve re-irradiations (26.6%), four in the multiple-fraction group (8.8%), with no significant difference between time elapsed before the first re-irradiation (p = 0.438).

CONCLUSION

This study shows no difference between the two groups for the majority of patients with painful bone metastases. Patients were followed up during five years, and the trial showed no disadvantage for 8 Gy 1× compared to 3 Gy 10×. Despite the fact that the pathological fracture rate is 3.75 times higher in the single-fraction group, this schedule is considered more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for radiotherapy departments.

Minimally invasive local treatments for bone and pulmonary metastases

Surgery and chemotherapy have historically been the mainstay of treatment in patients with metastatic disease. However there are many alternative therapies available to relieve the symptoms and morbidity of metastases. In this paper, we review the role and highlight the advantages of minimally invasive techniques employed in patients with pulmonary and bone metastases.

WITHDRAWN: Radiotherapy for the palliation of painful bone metastases

This review is out of date and has been withdrawn. The content of the review may be of historical interest to readers.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Patterns of practice in the prescription of palliative radiotherapy for the treatment of bone metastases at the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program between 2005 and 2012

OBJECTIVE

We examined whether patterns of practice in the prescription of palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases had changed over time in the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program (rrrp).

METHODS

After reviewing data from August 1, 2005, to April 30, 2012, we analyzed patient demographics, diseases, organizational factors, and possible reasons for the prescription of various radiotherapy fractionation schedules. The chi-square test was used to detect differences in proportions between unordered categorical variables. Univariate logistic regression analysis and the simple Fisher exact test were also used to determine the factors most significant to choice of dose-fractionation schedule.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2549 courses of radiation therapy were prescribed. In 65% of cases, a single fraction of radiation therapy was prescribed, and in 35% of cases, multiple fractions were prescribed. A single fraction of radiation therapy was more frequently prescribed when patients were older, had a prior history of radiation, or had a prostate primary, and when the radiation oncologist had qualified before 1990.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with bone metastasis, a single fraction of radiation therapy was prescribed with significantly greater frequency.

Orthopaedic perspective on bone metastasis

The incidence of cancer is increasing worldwide, with the advent of a myriad of new treatment options, so is the overall survival of these patients. However, from an orthopaedic perspective, there comes the challenge of treating more patients with a variety of metastatic bone lesions. The consequences of such lesions can be significant to the patient, from pain and abnormal blood results, including hypercalcemia, to pathological fracture. Given the multiple options available, the treatment of bone metastasis should be based on a patient-by patient manner, as is the case with primary bone lesions. It is imperative, given the various lesion types and locations, treatment of bone metastasis should be performed in an individualised manner. We should consider the nature of the lesion, the effect of treatment on the patient and the overall outcome of our decisions. The dissemination of primary lesions to distant sites is a complex pathway involving numerous cytokines within the tumour itself and the surrounding microenvironment. To date, it is not fully understood and we still base a large section of our knowledge on Pagets historic “seed and soil” theory. As we gain further understanding of this pathway it will allow us develop more medical based treatments. The treatment of primary cancers has long been provided in a multi-disciplinary setting to achieve the best patient outcomes. This should also be true for the treatment of bone metastases. Orthopaedic surgeons should be involved in the multidisciplinary treatment of such patients given that there are a variety of both surgical fixation methods and non-operative methods at our disposal.

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.

Patient expectation of the partial response and response shift in pain score

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to define the minimum reduction in pain level that patients would expect and to examine whether response shift exists in the treatment of bone metastases with palliative radiation therapy (RT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with bone metastases were asked to quantify the minimal level of pain reduction by 2 months that they considered would justify the palliative RT based on their current pain (on a scale of 0-10 and a 4-point scale of none, mild, moderate, or severe). At the 2-month follow-up, they were asked the conventional "post-test" question, ie, what is their level of pain now? In addition, they were asked to retrospectively reevaluate their baseline "pretest" level of pain, which is referred to as a "then-test," ie, how would they now rate their level of pain before RT?

RESULTS

Two hundred seventeen patients were enrolled. The median minimum pain reduction they would expect from the radiation treatment at the time of consultation was 4. Patients expected a reduction of 50%-70% in their baseline pain after radiation treatment. At 2 months, 114 patients participated in the response shift study. Only 31 patients reported no change between the pretest and then-test pain scores. The other 83 patients (73%) demonstrated a response shift but in opposing directions.

CONCLUSION

Patients with bone metastases expected a 50%-70% reduction in pain score from baseline with the palliative RT. This might become the definition of partial response in future trials. Response shift was observed in this group of patients but in opposing directions and without affecting the overall outcome.

Radiotherapeutic Options for Symptom Control in Breast Cancer

SUMMARY: The majority of breast cancer patients will require radiation therapy at some time during the course of their disease. An estimated 30-50% of all radiation treatments are of palliative nature, either to alleviate symptoms or prophylactic to prevent deterioration of quality of life due to locally progressive disease. Radiotherapy is a locally effective tool, and typically causes no systemic and mostly mild acute side effects. The following article provides an overview of options and decision-making in palliative radiotherapy for symptom control.

Radiotherapy for metastatic bone disease: current standards and future prospectus

Changes in population dynamics will require increased end-of-life cancer care in the coming years. Palliative radiotherapy successfully relieves symptoms of advanced cancer, with the most common indication for its use being uncomplicated painful bone metastases. Single-fraction radiotherapy provides successful, time-efficient and cost-effective management of bone metastases. Newer technologies, such as stereotactic body radiotherapy, hold promise for some patients with spine metastases, although their niche has not been properly defined and their use outside of a protocol setting is inappropriate. Surgery should be considered for circumstances of completed or impending pathologic fracture, spinal instability, or spinal cord compression in patients who have adequate performance status and prognosis. Multiple sites of painful metastases may be treated with injectible radiopharmaceuticals or hemibody radiation. The future developments in palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases will mirror several forces affecting all of medicine, including resource allocation, the adoption of clinical guidelines and the integration of newer technologies.

Dose-Fractionation Schedules for Radiotherapy of Bone Metastases

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are common in breast cancer patients. Radiotherapy is safe and effective. This review aimes to contribute to the definition of the appropriate radiation regimens for different endpoints. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Information was compiled by searching PubMed and MEDLINE databases including early-release publications. When possible, primary sources were quoted. Full articles were obtained. References were checked for additional material when appropriate. RESULTS: Randomized trials and meta-analyses demonstrated that single-fraction radiotherapy with 1 × 8 Gy is as effective for pain relief as multi-fraction regimens such as 5 × 4 Gy or 10 × 3 Gy. Re-irradiation for recurrent pain is required more often after single-fraction radiotherapy. Re-irradiation with another single fraction is safe and effective. Multi-fraction long-course radiotherapy such as 10 × 3 Gy leads to better re-calcification and better local control of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). Because both re-calcification and MSCC recurrences occur only several months after radiotherapy, long-course radiotherapy is particularly appropriate for patients with a favorable survival prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: For uncomplicated painful bone metastases, single-fraction radiotherapy with 1 × 8 Gy may be considered the standard regimen. If re-calcification is a major goal, longer-course radiotherapy (i.e. 10 × 3 Gy) should be used. For MSCC, 10 × 3 Gy is preferable for patients with a favorable survival prognosis.

Economic analysis of radiation therapy oncology group 97-14: multiple versus single fraction radiation treatment of patients with bone metastases

INTRODUCTION

Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 97-14 concluded that a single fraction of radiation was as effective in relieving pain as multiple fractions in the treatment of patients with bone metastases. A statistically significant higher retreatment rate, however, was noted in patients undergoing a single fraction treatment. The purpose of the analysis was to determine whether multiple fraction treatment is cost-effective in treating patients with bone metastasis, by preventing further retreatment.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 30 Gy in 10 fractions in comparison with 8 Gy in 1 fraction. Transition probabilities, cost, and utilities were obtained from the clinical trial. Costs and outcomes were not discounted because of the short time line for the study.

RESULTS

The expected mean cost and quality-adjusted survival in months for patients receiving 8 Gy in 1 fraction and 30 Gy in 10 fractions was 998 US dollars and 7.26 months and 2316 US dollars and 9.53 months, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 6973 US dollars/quality-adjusted life year. The results were sensitive to the utility of the posttreatment state for both single and multiple fraction treatments.

CONCLUSION

Single fraction treatment was the less expensive treatment in the treatment of patients with bone metastasis treated on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 97-14.

International patterns of practice in palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: evidence-based practice?

PURPOSE

Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the equivalence of multifraction and single-fraction (SF) radiotherapy for the palliation of painful bone metastases (BM). However, according to previous surveys, SF schedules remain underused. The objectives of this study were to determine the current patterns of practice internationally and to investigate the factors influencing this practice.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The members of three global radiation oncology professional organizations (American Society for Radiology Oncology [ASTRO], Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology [CARO], Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists) completed an Internet-based survey. The respondents described what radiotherapy dose fractionation they would recommend for 5 hypothetical cases describing patients with single or multiple painful BMs from breast, lung, or prostate cancer. Radiation oncologists rated the importance of patient, tumor, institution, and treatment factors, and descriptive statistics were compiled. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables and the Student t test for continuous variables. Logistic regression analysis identified predictors of the use of SF radiotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 962 respondents, three-quarters ASTRO members, described 101 different dose schedules in common use (range, 3 Gy/1 fraction to 60 Gy/20 fractions). The median dose overall was 30 Gy/10 fractions. SF schedules were used the least often by ASTRO members practicing in the United States and most often by CARO members. Case, membership affiliation, country of training, location of practice, and practice type were independently predictive of the use of SF. The principal factors considered when prescribing were prognosis, risk of spinal cord compression, and performance status.

CONCLUSION

Despite abundant evidence, most radiation oncologists continue to prescribe multifraction schedules for patients who fit the eligibility criteria of previous randomized controlled trials. Our results have confirmed a delay in the incorporation of evidence into practice for palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases.

Treatment of spinal tumors using cyberknife fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery: pain and quality-of-life assessment after treatment in 200 patients

OBJECTIVE

Benign and malignant tumors of the spine significantly impair the function and quality of life of many patients. Standard treatment options, including conventional radiotherapy and surgery, are often limited by anatomic constraints and previous treatment. Image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery using the CyberKnife system (Accuray, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) is a novel approach in the multidisciplinary management of spinal tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery on pain and quality-of-life outcomes of patients with spinal tumors.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 200 patients with benign or malignant spinal tumors treated at Georgetown University Hospital between March 2002 and September 2006. Patients were treated by means of multisession stereotactic radiosurgery using the CyberKnife as initial treatment, postoperative treatment, or retreatment. Pain scores were assessed by the Visual Analog Scale, quality of life was assessed by the SF-12 survey, and neurological examinations were conducted after treatment.

RESULTS

Mean pain scores decreased significantly from 40.1 to 28.6 after treatment (P < 0.001) and continued to decrease over the entire 4-year follow-up period (P < 0.05). SF-12 Physical Component scores demonstrated no significant change throughout the follow-up period. Mental Component scores were significantly higher after treatment (P < 0.01), representing a quality-of-life improvement. Early side effects of radiosurgery were mild and self-limited, and no late radiation toxicity was observed.

CONCLUSION

CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery is a safe and effective modality in the treatment of patients with spinal tumors. CyberKnife offers durable pain relief and maintenance of quality of life with a very favorable side effect profile.

Cost-utility analysis of the cyberknife system for metastatic spinal tumors

OBJECTIVE

Using decision analysis, a cost-utility study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CyberKnife (Accuray, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in comparison to external beam radiation therapy in the treatment of metastatic spinal malignancies.

METHODS

The published literature provided evidence on the effectiveness of the comparator interventions in the absence of primary outcomes data. Costs of care were derived from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services fee schedules. A Markov model was constructed from the payer perspective to simulate the outcomes of patients undergoing nonchemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic spinal tumors. Because cancer therapies bear significant health and economic consequences, the impact of treatment-related toxicities was integrated into the model. Given the terminal nature of these conditions and the limited life expectancy of the patient population, the time horizon for the analysis was limited to 12 months.

RESULTS

Patients treated with CyberKnife SRS gained an additional net health benefit of 0.08 quality-adjusted life year; the calculated cost of CyberKnife SRS was $1933 less than external beam radiation therapy for comparable effectiveness. The incremental cost per benefit for this strategy ($41 500 per quality-adjusted life year) met payers' willingness-to-pay criteria.

CONCLUSION

Cost-utility analysis demonstrated that CyberKnife SRS was a superior, cost-effective primary intervention for patients with metastatic spinal tumors compared with conventional external beam radiation therapy.

Randomized clinical trial with two palliative radiotherapy regimens in painful bone metastases: 30 Gy in 10 fractions compared with 8 Gy in single fraction

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim was to demonstrate similar pain relief with two schedules of radiotherapy for painful bone metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 160 patients were assigned to receive a single 8-Gy fraction or 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Pain intensity was measured on an ordinal pain scale of 0-10. Partial response was defined as a pain reduction of two points or more and complete response as a pain score of zero at the treated area. Response follow-up was at 3, 12, 24 and 48 weeks.

RESULTS

The overall response was 75% in the 8-Gy arm and 86% in the 30-Gy arm. Complete response and partial response rates were 15% and 60% in the 8-Gy arm, 13% and 73% in the 30-Gy arm. Acute toxicity was of 18% in the 30-Gy arm and of 12% in the 8-Gy arm. These differences were not statistically significant. The re-treatment rate was 28% vs 2% in the 8-Gy and 30-Gy arms, respectively, these were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

A single-fraction regimen of 8 Gy was as safe and effective as a multifraction regimen of 30 Gy for painful bone metastases in terms of pain relief.

Cyberknife radiosurgery for breast cancer spine metastases: a matched-pair analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few options for breast cancer patients with spinal metastases recurrent within a previous radiation treatment field. CyberKnife radiosurgery has been used in our institution to treat such patients. To evaluate their outcomes, as there are no comparable radiation treatment options, the outcomes were compared between 18 patients with spinal metastases from breast cancer treated with CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery, 17 of which had prior radiotherapy to the involved spinal region and were progressing, and 18 matched patients who received conventional external beam radiotherapy (CRT) up-front for spinal metastases.

METHODS

Radiosurgery was delivered in 3 to 5 fractions to doses ranging from 2100 to 2800 cGy. Women were matched to patients in a CRT group with respect to time from original diagnosis to diagnosis of metastases, estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor (ER/PR) status, presence or absence of visceral metastases, prior radiotherapy, and prior chemotherapy. Survival and complications were compared between treatment groups. Surviving patients were followed out to 24 months.

RESULTS

The CyberKnife and CRT groups were comparable along all matching dimensions and in performance status before treatment. Outcomes of treatment were similar for patients in both groups; ambulation, performance status, and pain worsened similarly across groups posttreatment. Survival and the number of complications appeared to favor the CyberKnife group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The statistical comparability of the CyberKnife and CRT groups reflects the small sample size and stringent requirements for significance of the matched-pair analysis. Nevertheless, comparability in these difficult cases shows that salvage CyberKnife treatment is as efficacious as initial CRT without added toxicity.