Half body irradiation for the palliation of bone metastases

Hemibody Irradiation for Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hemibody irradiation (HBI) is a radiation therapy technique that involves treating one-half of the patient's skeletal system in a single radiation field. It is mostly given as upper hemibody irradiation (UHBI), lower hemibody irradiation (LHBI), or sequential UHBI and LHBI. It is used to treat extensive bone metastases from solid tumors. It was primarily utilized in the 1980s and 1990s and has since fallen out of favor. However, it is a potentially cost-effective treatment for widespread bone metastases. To determine its efficacy, we performed a meta-analysis of all available published articles on the efficacy of HBI to relieve pain from bone metastases. Twenty-seven articles involving 1318 patients were identified and analyzed. Our findings show that 80% of the patients had complete or partial pain relief and 29% had complete pain relief. The trials were of poor quality, but the results showed minimal heterogeneity in the response rates. These response rates are consistent with those seen with focal irradiation of bone metastases and for radionuclide treatment of bone metastases. The toxicity of the treatments decreased when delivered with modern treatment techniques. In light of this, we propose that this technique warrants re-evaluation with modern treatment methods.

Palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases: an evaluation of outcome measures

The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate important patient-based outcomes that are specific to the palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases. We first conducted a literature review to identify and evaluate outcomes that are currently in use. To identify outcomes that are important to patients, in-depth patient interviews were conducted. Finally, issues identified through the interviews were quantified through a prospective survey, in which patients completed a questionnaire prior to commencing radiotherapy and again after 6 weeks. In our literature review, we found that there was no standardized definition of either response to radiotherapy or assessment of pain relief. Pain measurement in many studies was undertaken using very simple measures, which could possibly yield inaccurate results. The vast majority of studies did not include quality of life as an endpoint. The patient interviews and survey showed that chronic pain and associated limitation of movement were the disease symptoms causing the most concern. Having a clear, alert mind and being able in self-care were the aspects of daily living given the highest priority. Sustained pain relief and minimizing the risk of future complications were the main priorities relating to radiotherapy treatment. The practical aspects of treatment (travelling distance, remaining at home and brevity of treatment) were of least importance. This study indicates the complexity of evaluating the outcomes of palliative interventions, and confirms the deficiencies of pain relief as the primary end-point. The patient's quality of life is affected by many factors other than pain (such as limited mobility, reduced performance, side effects and impaired role functioning); hence a wider range of end-points is required. Greater sensitivity is required than in currently used end-points. Concurrent diseases as well as concurrent therapies can make it difficult to attribute effects with precision. Unless such factors are considered in research design, the results may prove unreliable.

Radiotherapy for bone metastases: a critical appraisal of outcome measures

Pain from bone metastases is a common problem in patients with advanced cancer, and radiotherapy plays an important role in its palliation. Single fraction treatments are often prescribed, but there is no clear consensus on this issue and clinical practice shows significant variability. This situation is unsatisfactory for all patients--the patient, the clinician, and the health care administrator. Randomized trials may use poor outcome measures and this contributes to practice variability. The credibility of outcome studies is often reduced due to poor study design, small sample sizes, and the use of endpoints that are both unreliable and unsuitable. The endpoints used have been narrowly defined, the patient's perspective has generally been overlooked, and quality of life has only once been used as an endpoint. A review of the current literature suggests that instruments specific to bone metastases are required. These must be based on patient experience, and rely on self-report. In addition, there is a need to understand the relative priority that patients attribute to treatment outcomes. The use of better instruments and methodologies in future trials will enhance the credibility of results and reduce practice variations.