Development of a score predicting survival after palliative reirradiation

Effective delivery of palliative radiotherapy: A prospective study

PURPOSE

The main goal of palliative radiotherapy is to reduce patient's discomfort. But sometimes patients do not receive any benefits from this treatment because of rapid worsening of their general condition. This prospective monocentric study assessed the effective delivery of palliative radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1st December 2015 to 29th February 2016, all consecutive patients receiving palliative radiotherapy in our hospital were included. The primary endpoint was the effective delivery of palliative radiotherapy according to the initial prescription (total dose, overall treatment time and fractionation). The secondary endpoints were the number of treatment breaks, the clinical benefit, the number of deaths and the delays for admission in the palliative care unit.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were included and 64 treatments were analysed. The treatment sites were: bone (70.3%) and brain (21.9%). The treatment goals were: pain control only (43.8%), decompression only (21.9%), pain control and decompression (32.8%), haemostatic aim (1.6%). Palliative treatment was achieved in 57 cases (89%). Temporary interruption of the radiotherapy treatment was necessary in six cases (9.4%; three for medical reason, three for logistic reason). The main reason of permanent interruption was worsening of performance status (seven cases). Palliation of symptoms (complete or partial responses) was obtained in 44 cases (68.8%). Seven patients (11.9%) died during the month after the end of the treatment. No delay or cancellation for admission in the palliative care unit were observed.

CONCLUSION

Palliative radiotherapy was completed as originally planned in 51 cases (79.9%) with a clinical benefit for 44 cases (68.8%). Radiation therapy must not be neglected as a palliative treatment at the end-of-life.

Second Re-irradiation: Clinical Examples of Worthwhile Treatment

INTRODUCTION

 Improved treatment approaches have resulted in longer survival of patients with certain types of incurable cancer, without eliminating the need for symptom palliation and supportive measures. In this context, re-irradiation is an increasingly important option. Little data exists about a second or repeat re-irradiation.

METHODS

From a single institution database, patients who received a second re-irradiation with cumulative equivalent doses (equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) for late effects, alpha/beta-value 3 Gy) of more than 90 Gy and survived for more than six months were identified. Illustrative clinical examples were provided.

RESULTS

The examples describe the treatment of sacral bone metastases, recurrent rectal cancer, and pelvic lymph node metastases. The maximum cumulative EQD2 was 142 Gy. Symptomatic responses were obtained without clinically relevant side effects.

CONCLUSION

 These three cases illustrate that a second re-irradiation has the potential to provide worthwhile palliative effects without causing overt late toxicity during the remaining life time. In patients who tolerated previous radiotherapy well, further re-irradiation may contribute to the ever-increasing armamentarium of options that increase the survival of patients with incurable cancer and try to prolong the time period where independent living is possible.

Frequency and Prognostic Impact of Consistently Low Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Score in the Patients Treated with Palliative Radiotherapy

Introduction

Our department's standard work-flow includes assessment of all the patients with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a one-sheet questionnaire addressing 11 major symptoms and wellbeing on a numeric scale of zero-10, before the palliative radiotherapy (PRT). Based on previous research, we hypothesized that the patients with minimal or moderate total symptom burden might have better overall survival after the PRT than those with at least one higher symptom score.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 94 patients and calculated actuarial survival from the first day of the PRT (Kaplan-Meier method). We identified the patients with the score zero for all ESAS items (no symptoms), at least one item with score one-two (minimal symptoms), and at least one item with the score three (moderate symptoms).

Results

High proportions of the patients had ESAS scores zero- two for nausea (80%), sadness/depression (65%) and constipation (64%). The mean values were often in the range of two-four. Only one patient reported scores of zero throughout the questionnaire. He was treated for hematuria, a symptom that is not part of the ESAS. Three patients reported scores of zero-two throughout the questionnaire. Except for the performance status zero-one, their baseline characteristics were heterogeneous. Two patients reported scores not exceeding three for all items. These patients had excellent performance status, too. None of the six patients (6%) with relatively low ESAS scores of zero-three received care by the hospital's multidisciplinary palliative team. Only one was using opioid analgesics. The median survival for this small subset of six patients was six months, identical to the result for all the patients with higher symptom burden (p = 0.62).

Conclusion

The proportion of the patients with ESAS scores zero-three throughout the questionnaire was 6%, which resulted in the limited statistical power for the survival comparisons. The survival outcomes were similar. Before PRT, 94% of the patients reported at least one ESAS item of severity four-10. The symptoms not included in the questionnaire, e.g., hematuria might result in erroneous assignment to the low-symptom-burden group and obscure the prognostic impact of low ESAS symptom burden.

Overall survival after reirradiation of spinal metastases - independent validation of predictive models

BACKGROUND

It is unknown if survival prediction tools (SPTs) sufficiently predict survival in patients who undergo palliative reirradiation of spinal metastases. We therefore set out to clarify if SPTs can predict survival in this patient population.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed spinal reirradiations performed (n = 58, 52 patients, 44 included in analysis). SPTs for patients with spinal metastases were identified and compared to a general palliative score and to a dedicated SPT to estimate prognosis in palliative reirradiation independent of site (SPT-Nieder).

RESULTS

Consistently in all tests, SPT-Nieder showed best predictive performance as compared to other tools. Items associated with survival were general condition (KPS), liver metastases, and steroid use. Other factors like primary tumor site, pleural effusion, and bone metastases were not correlated with survival. We adapted an own score to the data which performed comparable to SPT-Nieder but avoids the pleural effusion item. Both scores showed good performance in identifying long-term survivors with late recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival prediction in case of spinal reirradiation is possible with sufficient predictive separation. Applying SPTs in case of reirradiation helps to identify patients with good life expectancy who might benefit from dose escalation or longer treatment courses.

Palliative radiotherapy during the last month of life: Predictability for referring physicians and radiation oncologists

Oncologists commonly overestimate the survival time of patients receiving palliative therapy, which may result in the administration of treatments that are too aggressive for patients near the end of their lives. Previous studies have discussed the negative implications of palliative radiotherapy if administered during the last month of life. Models predicting a limited survival time may improve the ability of the oncologists to tailor the treatment according to the needs of each individual patient. In the present study, prognostic factors for survival time, and the use of palliative radiotherapy during the last month of life, were analyzed in 873 patients. Models predicting the likelihood of administering such therapy were examined, and the risk of receiving radiotherapy during the last month of life was observed to be lower in patients with non-metastatic cancer than in those with metastatic cancer (7 vs. 13%, respectively; P=0.12). On multivariate analysis, 11 factors that significantly influenced the survival time were identified. These findings emphasize the complexity of potential prediction models. The most important risk factor regarding the prediction of extremely short survival times was observed to be an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 4, followed by an ECOG PS of 3 (median survival times, 14 and 64 days, respectively). A limited number of patients who received palliative radiotherapy during their last month of life died unexpectedly. Disease-specific prediction models were developed; however, the small number of events available for analysis limited their immediate clinical impact. Furthermore, these prediction models identified a minority of patients who received radiotherapy during the last month of life. In conclusion, the majority of the palliative radiotherapy courses administered to patients with advanced cancer during their last month of life may be preventable if accurate decision models for the clinic are developed. However, due to the complexity associated with the prediction of survival times in patients receiving palliative radiotherapy, large databases are required to allow accurate models to be established. The present study also discusses the recommendations of the Department of Oncology and Palliative Medicine of Nordland Hospital (Bodø, Nordland, Norway) with regard to the use of palliative radiotherapy during the last month of life of patients with terminal cancer.