Stereotactic body radiotherapy for painful spinal metastases

Risk-adapted stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with cervical spinal metastases

Owing to the complex anatomical structure and biomechanics, the current standard palliative treatments for cervical spinal metastases are associated with a high risk of recurrence and complications. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can provide radical dose to tumors while protecting normal organs to the maximum extent. However, the efficacy and safety of SBRT for cervical spinal metastases is not well characterized. Data from 71 patients with cervical spine metastases who were treated with SBRT using CyberKnife between 2006 and 2021 were obtained from our prospectively maintained database. Primary endpoint was pain response at 12 weeks following SBRT completion; secondary endpoints included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and adverse events. Standard-risk patients were planned to receive 30 Gy (range 21-36) with median fractions of 3 (range 1-3) and high-risk patients 35 Gy (range 24-50) with median fractions of 5 (range 4-5) according to the spinal cord and esophagus dose constraints. The median follow-up time was 17.07 months (range 3.1-118.9). After 12 weeks of SBRT completion, 54 (98.2%) of 55 patients with baseline pain achieved pain response and 46 (83.6%) achieved complete pain response. LC rates were 93.1% and 90% at 1 year and 2 year, respectively. The 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 66.2% and 37.4%, respectively. Eight patients experienced grades 1-4 adverse events (six vertebral compression fracture [VCF], five of them had VCF before SBRT; and two hemiparesis). No grade 5 adverse events were observed. Therefore, risk-adapted SBRT for cervical spine metastases achieved high pain control and LC rates with acceptable adverse events.

Prognostic Score in Radiotherapy Practice for Palliative Treatments (PROPHET) Study for Bone Metastases: An Investigation Into the Clinical Effect on Treatment Prescription

Purpose

Bone metastases frequently occur during malignant disease. Palliative radiation therapy (PRT) is a crucial part of palliative care because it can relieve pain and improve patients' quality of life. Often, a clinician's survival estimation is too optimistic. Prognostic scores (PSs) can help clinicians tailor PRT indications to avoid over- or undertreatment. Although the PS is supposed to aid radiation oncologists (ROs) in palliative-care scenarios, it is unclear what type of support, and to what extent, could impact daily clinical practice.

Methods and Materials

A national-based investigation of the prescriptive decisions on simulated clinical cases was performed in Italy. Nine clinical cases from real-world clinical practice were selected for this study. Each case description contained complete information regarding the parameters defining the prognosis class according to the PS (in particular, the Mizumoto Prognostic Score, a validated PS available in literature and already applied in some clinical trials). Each case description contained complete information regarding the parameters defining the prognosis class according to the PS. ROs were interviewed through questionnaires, each comprising the same 3 questions per clinical case, asking (1) the prescription after detailing the clinical case features but not the PS prognostic class definition; (2) whether the RO wanted to change the prescription once the PS prognostic class definition was revealed; and (3) in case of a change of the prescription, a new prescriptive option. Three RO categories were defined: dedicated to PRT (RO-d), nondedicated to PRT (RO-nd), and resident in training (IT). Interviewed ROs were distributed among different regions of the country.

Results

Conversion rates, agreements, and prescription trends were investigated. The PS determined a statistically significant 11.12% of prescription conversion among ROs. The conversion was higher for the residents and significantly higher for worse prognostic scenario subgroups, respectively. The PS improved prescriptive agreement among ROs (particularly for worse-prognostic-scenario subgroups). Moreover, PS significantly increased standard prescriptive approaches (particularly for worse-clinical-case presentations).

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, the PROPHET study is the first to directly evaluate the potential clinical consequences of the regular application of any PS. According to the Prophet study, a prognostic score should be integrated into the clinical practice of palliative radiation therapy for bone metastasis and training programs in radiation oncology.