Randomized Pilot Study of 20 Gy in 5 Fractions versus 27 Gy in 3 Fractions Radiotherapy for Treating Painful Bone Metastases: A Single Institution Experience

Comparative Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation Therapy and Conventional Radiation Therapy in Cancer Pain Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

Approximately 55% of patients diagnosed with primary or metastatic cancer endure pain directly attributable to the disease. Consequently, it becomes imperative to address pain management through a comparative analysis of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and conventional radiation therapy (CRT), especially in light of the less efficacious improvement achieved solely through pharmacological interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic exploration was undertaken on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect databases to identify studies that compare Stereotactic Radiotherapy to Conventional radiation therapy for pain management in individuals with metastatic bone cancer. The analyses were executed utilizing the random-effects model.

RESULTS

A cohort of 1152 participants with metastatic bone cancer was analyzed, demonstrating significantly higher complete pain relief in the Stereotactic Radiotherapy group during both early and late follow-up (RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.17, 2.23, p-value: 0.004; I2: 0%). Stereotactic Radiotherapy also showed a non-significant increase in the incidence of partial pain relief (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.34, p-value: 0.56; I2: 18%). Furthermore, Stereotactic Radiotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stationary pain throughout follow-up (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.48, 0.76, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 0. The incidence of progressive pain was non-significantly reduced with Stereotactic Radiotherapy during both early and late follow-up (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50, 1.17, p-value: 0.22; I2: 0%). Secondary outcomes exhibited a non-significant trend favoring Stereotactic Radiotherapy for dysphagia, esophagitis, pain, and radiodermatitis, while a non-significant increase was observed for nausea, fatigue, and vertebral compression fracture.

CONCLUSION

In summary, stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) has improved in achieving complete pain relief while exhibiting a decreased probability of delivering stationary pain compared to conventional radiation therapy (CRT). Nevertheless, it is crucial in future research to address a noteworthy limitation, specifically, the risk of vertebral compression fracture.

Assessing the effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Palliative radiotherapy (RT) effectively relieves pain in patients with bone metastases (BMs). Furthermore, several clinical trials, in most cases conducted in high-income countries (HICs), proved that single-fraction RT is equally effective compared to multi-fractionated RT. However, the evidence is scarce regarding low/middle-income countries (LMICs), where the diagnosis of BMs could be later and RT techniques less advanced. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the efficacy of palliative RT of BMs in the LMIC setting. A literature search was performed independently by two authors on the PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases. Overall, 333 records were screened and after the selection process, 11 papers were included in the analysis. Complete pain response rates ranged from 11.5% to 37.1% (median: 22%) for single-fraction RT and from 0% to 35.1% (median: 19%) for multi-fractionated RT. Partial pain response rates ranged from 23.1% to 76.9% (median: 53.8%) for single fraction RT and from 23.8% to 84.6% (median: 65%) for multi-fractionated RT. Four randomized trials compared single-fraction RT with multiple-fraction RT and none of them showed significant differences in terms of pain relief. Our analysis showed that pain response rates after palliative RT recorded in LMIC are like those reported in studies performed in HIC. Even in this setting, RT in single fraction shows comparable pain response rates to multifractional RT.

Classification of Patients With Painful Tumors to Predict Response to Palliative Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify factors affecting pain response to develop a patient classification system for palliative radiation therapy (RT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Our prospective observational study (UMIN000044984) provided data on patients who received palliative RT for painful tumors. The eligibility criteria were having a numerical rating scale (NRS) score of 2 or more before treatment and receiving palliative RT between August 2021 and September 2022. Post-RT follow-up was scheduled prospectively at 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 52 weeks. Pain response was assessed using the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints criteria, with the primary outcome being the response rate within 12 weeks. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors affecting pain response and develop the classification system. Each class evaluated the differences in response rate, time to response, and progression.

RESULTS

Of the 488 registered lesions, 366 from 261 patients met the criteria. Most patients had bone metastases (75%), of whom 72% were using opioids and 22% underwent reirradiation. Conventional RT (eg, 8-Gy single fraction, 20 Gy in 5 fractions) was administered to 93% of patients. Over a median of 6.8 months of follow-up, the average NRS decreased from 6.1 to 3.4 at 12 weeks for 273 evaluable lesions, with a 60% response rate. Opioid use and reirradiation negatively affected the response rate in multivariate analysis (P < .01). Lesions were categorized into class 1 (no opioid use and no reirradiation; 89 lesions), class 2 (neither class 1 nor 3; 211 lesions), and class 3 (opioid use and reirradiation; 66 lesions), with respective response rates of 75%, 61%, and 36% (P < .001). Time to response was similar across the classes (P = .91), but the progression rates at 24 weeks differed (11%, 27%, and 63%, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid use and reirradiation are factors leading to significant variations in pain response rates and time to progression.

Stereotactic Body and Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are commonly used treatment options for relieving metastatic bone pain. The effectiveness of SBRT compared with cEBRT in pain relief has been a subject of debate, and conflicting results have been reported.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness associated with SBRT vs cEBRT for relieving metastatic bone pain.

Data Sources

A structured search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on June 5, 2023. Additionally, results were added from a new randomized clinical trial (RCT) and additional unpublished data from an already published RCT.

Study Selection

Comparative studies reporting pain response after SBRT vs cEBRT in patients with painful bone metastases.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies. Data were extracted for the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall and complete pain response at 1, 3, and 6 months after radiotherapy, according to the study's definition. Relative risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated for each study. A random-effects model using a restricted maximum likelihood estimator was applied for meta-analysis.

Results

There were 18 studies with 1685 patients included in the systematic review and 8 RCTs with 1090 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In 7 RCTs, overall pain response was defined according to the International Consensus on Palliative Radiotherapy Endpoints in clinical trials (ICPRE). The complete pain response was reported in 6 RCTs, all defined according to the ICPRE. The ITT meta-analyses showed that the overall pain response rates did not differ between cEBRT and SBRT at 1 (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30), 3 (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96-1.47), or 6 (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54) months. However, SBRT was associated with a higher complete pain response at 1 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.01), 3 (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.16-2.78), and 6 (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.24-4.91) months after radiotherapy. The PP meta-analyses showed comparable results.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, patients with painful bone metastases experienced similar overall pain response after SBRT compared with cEBRT. More patients had complete pain alleviation after SBRT, suggesting that selected subgroups will benefit from SBRT.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy in Pain Relief for Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the difference in pain relief between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and conventional radiation therapy (cRT) for patients with bone metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Clinical trials and observational studies comparing SBRT versus cRT for bone metastases were retrieved. The main endpoint was pain relief after radiation therapy; the secondary endpoints were pain score change, local progression-free survival, reirradiation rate, and toxic events. When there was a significant heterogeneity, the random-effects model was applied. Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used. Analyses of all included studies were performed first, followed by analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only.

RESULTS

Six RCTs, 1 prospective cohort study, and 3 retrospective observational studies were enrolled. Between 2004 and 2019, 448 patients received SBRT, and 445 patients received cRT. All prospective studies defined the lesions as oligometastatic. Pooled results based on all included studies indicated that SBRT was generally associated with a higher overall relief rate (P < .001 at 3 months; P = .015 at 6 months) and complete relief rate (P = .029 at 1 month; P < .001 at 6 months). Pooled results based on RCTs indicated that at 3 and 6 months, SBRT was associated with a higher overall relief rate (P < .001 and P = .017, respectively) and complete relief rate (P < .001 and P < .00, respectively). Subgroup analyses indicated that in more cases, the analgesic advantage of SBRT was more obvious when spinal lesions were irradiated, when the difference in the mean biological effective dose (BED) was less, or when intensity modulated radiation therapy was used to deliver SBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Excessive elevation of BED introduces the risk of diminishing the analgesic effect of SBRT. SBRT delivered using intensity modulated radiation therapy is preferred for pain relief in spinal oligometastases. More RCTs are required to determine the most appropriate BED or dose regimen for SBRT.

Pain Response Rates After Conventional Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases Assessed Using International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Initial Radiation Therapy and Reirradiation

Previous meta-analysis of conventional radiation therapy for painful bone metastases showed overall response (OR) rates of 72% to 75% (evaluable patients), 61% to 62% (intent-to-treat patients) for initial radiation therapy, and 68% for reirradiation (evaluable patients). However, the definition of pain response differed among the studies included. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pain response rates assessed by the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints (ICPRE) for both initial radiation therapy and reirradiation. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for articles published between 2002 and 2021. The inclusion criteria were (1) prospective studies or studies based on prospectively collected data and (2) studies in which pain response was assessed using ICPRE. Our primary outcomes of interest were the OR rates (sum of the complete and partial response rates) for both initial radiation therapy and reirradiation. Of the 6470 articles identified in our database search, 32 and 3 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of initial radiation therapy and reirradiation, respectively. The OR rates of initial radiation therapy in evaluable patients (n = 4775) and intent-to-treat patients (n = 6775) were 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55.2-65.4) and 45.4% (95% CI, 38.7-52.4), respectively. The OR rates of reirradiation in evaluable patients (n = 733) and intent-to-treat patients (n = 1085) were 70.8% (95% CI, 15.7-96.9) and 62.2% (95% CI, 5.3-98.0), respectively. Subgroup analyses of initial radiation therapy including the comparison of randomized and nonrandomized studies showed no significant differences in any comparison, indicating similar response rates across different study designs. For initial radiation therapy, we determined the ICPRE-assessed response rates, which were lower than previously reported. The OR and complete response rates should be benchmarks for future randomized and nonrandomized studies. For reirradiation, the wide CIs demonstrate that the response rates based on ICPRE require further investigation.

Efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: Evidence from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pain relief is one of the main objectives of radiotherapy for cancer patients with bone metastases. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) enables precise delivery of a higher dosage to the target area. Several trials have reported comparisons between SBRT and conventional radiotherapy (cRT) in patients with painful bone metastasis. However, the results of those investigations were inconsistent, and no systematic review or meta-analysis has been done till now.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinicaltrials.gov up to May 1, 2022 for relevant studies. Patients with painful bone metastasis who received SBRT or cRT were included. The primary outcome was the patients' pain response rate at three months. The secondary outcomes included the rate of pain responders at one month and six months, oral morphine equivalent dose (OMED) use, and any adverse events. STATA software 12.0 was used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We collected 533 patients' data from 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there was a significant difference of pain response rate at 3 months between two groups (RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.12-1.77, I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.003). However, no significant difference was found in pain response rate at 1 month (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.91-1.54, I2 = 31.5%, P = 0.201) and 6 months (RR = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.93-1.69, I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.140). OMED consumption was not significantly different in patients treated with SBRT compared with control group (WMD = -1.11, 95% CI: -17.51-15.28, I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.894). For safety outcome, no statistical difference was found between SBRT and cRT (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.46-1.14, I2=20.1%, P = 0.162).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that for painful bone metastases, patients with SBRT experienced better pain relief 3 months after radiation than patients with cRT, and SBRT did not increase the incidence of adverse events.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-6-0099/, identifier INPLASY202260099.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a promising approach in treating painful bone metastases. However, the superiority of SBRT over conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) remains controversial. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was conducted to compare SBRT and cEBRT for the treatment of bone metastases.

METHODS

A search was conducted using PubMed on January 22, 2022, with the following inclusion criteria: (i) randomised controlled trials comparing SBRT with cEBRT for bone metastases and (ii) endpoint including pain response. Effect sizes across studies were pooled using random-effects models in a meta-analysis of risk ratios.

RESULTS

A total of 1246 articles were screened, with 7 articles comprising 964 patients (522 and 442 patients in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively) meeting the inclusion criteria. The overall pain response (OR) rates of bone metastases at 3 months were 45% and 36% in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively. The present analyses showed no significant difference between the two groups. In four studies included for the calculation of OR rates of spinal metastases at three months, the OR rates were 40% and 35% in the SBRT and cEBRT arms, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups. The incidence of severe adverse effects and health-related quality of life outcomes were comparable between the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The superiority of SBRT over cEBRT for pain palliation in bone metastases was not confirmed in this meta-analysis. Although SBRT is a standard of care for bone metastases, patients receiving SBRT should be selected appropriately.

Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

FINDINGS

Among 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.

Palliative Efficacy of High-Dose Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Versus Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Non-Spine Bone Metastases: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

(1) Background: The superiority of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) over conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) in terms of pain palliation for bone metastases remains controversial. (2) Methods: This propensity score-matched study compared the overall pain response (OR) 3 months after radiotherapy among patients with painful (≥2 points on a 0-to-10 scale) non-spine bone metastases. Patients with lesions that were treated with SBRT or cEBRT and whose pain scores were evaluated 3 months after radiotherapy were included in this study. Pain response was evaluated according to the International Consensus Criteria. (3) Results: A total of 234 lesions (SBRT, n = 129; cEBRT, n = 105) were identified in our institutional database. To reduce the confounding effects, 162 patients were selected using a propensity score-matched analysis (n = 81 for each treatment). The OR rate at 3 months after SBRT was significantly higher than that after cEBRT (76.5% vs. 56.8%; p = 0.012). A noteworthy finding of our study is that the same trend was observed even after 6 months (75.9% vs. 50.0%; p = 0.011). The 1-year local failure rates after SBRT and cEBRT were 10.2% and 33.3% (p < 0.001), respectively. (4) Conclusions: Our findings suggest that SBRT is superior to cEBRT for pain palliation in patients with non-spine bone metastases.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy versus Conventional External Beam Radiation Therapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) in patients with previously unirradiated painful bone metastases (BM).

METHODS

We searched biomedical databases for eligible randomized trials (RCTs). The outcomes of interest were pain response, local progression, overall survival (OS) and adverse events. We used established tools to assess the quality of the individual trials and certainty of the pooled evidence. We performed meta-analyses using random effects models.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were identified. SBRT improved complete pain response rates at 3 months (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.88-6.07; high certainty), reduced local progression rates (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; high certainty) and increase pain flare rates. There were no differences for other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with previously unirradiated painful BM, SBRT significantly improved complete pain response rates at 3 months, delayed local progression and increase pain flare rates.