1
|
Sekar V, Walsh J, Pearson LH, Barzilai O, Sharif S, Zileli M. Radiation therapy, radiosurgery, chemotherapy and targeted therapies for metastatic spine tumors: WFNS Spine committee recommendations. Neurosurg Rev 2024; 48:12. [PMID: 39739070 DOI: 10.1007/s10143-024-03123-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2024] [Revised: 11/11/2024] [Accepted: 11/15/2024] [Indexed: 01/02/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This review aims to formulate the most current, evidence-based recommendations regarding radiation therapy, radiosurgery, and chemotherapy for patients with metastatic spine tumors. METHODS A systematic literature using PRISMA methodology was performed from 2010-2023 using the search terms "radiosurgery," "radiation therapy," "external beam radiation therapy," or "stereotactic body radiation therapy" in conjunction with "spinal," "spine," "metastasis," "metastases," or "metastatic." RESULTS Spinal metastases should be managed in a multidisciplinary team consisting of spine surgeons, radiation oncologists, radiologists and oncologists. Patients identified as potential candidates for SRS/EBRT using internationally recognized frameworks and criteria should be assessed by surgeons to see if surgical cyto-reduction/ separation surgery can be achieved. Choices for treatment of recurrence include re-irradiation with SBRT vs EBRT, surgical debulking, additional chemotherapy or palliative care. There is a lack of current clinical evidence to support the routine use of targeted therapies in the management of metastatic spinal tumors. CONCLUSIONS Improving the management of spinal metastasis will lead to increased quality of life and improved survival. This review provides current, evidence-based guidelines on radiation therapy, radiosurgery, and chemotherapy for patients with metastatic spine tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vashisht Sekar
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Florida Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
| | - Jamie Walsh
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Luke H Pearson
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Florida Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - Ori Barzilai
- Department of Neurosurgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital, New York, USA
| | - Salman Sharif
- Department of Neurosurgery, Liaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - Mehmet Zileli
- Department of Neurosurgery, Sanko University, Gaziantep, Türkiye
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jahraus CD, Wallner PE, Heron DE, Crook W, Finkelstein SE, Harris AA, Kestin L, Landau E, Rivera D, Thomas TO, Koontz BF. ACROPath Oligometastases: The American College of Radiation Oncology Clinical Pathway. Cureus 2024; 16:e74098. [PMID: 39575357 PMCID: PMC11580758 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.74098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2024] [Accepted: 11/20/2024] [Indexed: 11/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Radiation oncology is among the most data-driven specialties in medicine. Recently, a wealth of peer-reviewed data has been published supporting the treatment of oligometastatic malignancies, demonstrating improved survival with metastasis-directed therapy, such as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), when combined with appropriate patient selection and treatment. However, there are currently few, if any, established guidelines that synthesize the abundance of data specific to radiotherapy into a single, easily accessed resource for clinicians. ACROPath® is a major initiative of the American College of Radiation Oncology (ACRO) that aims to present aggregated clinical pathway data in a highly usable format that is readily accessible to clinicians at the point of care in real time. The oligometastases pathway is the first published algorithm in this collection, with additional pathways anticipated in future publications. Clinical radiation oncologists with expertise in the treatment and management of oligometastatic disease were recruited from across ACRO's diverse membership, including both academic and private practice physicians, to ensure a broad-based experience and insight. Individual participants were assigned subsections of the pathway for guideline development, and then, each subsection was presented to the full group for evaluation and consensus development based on published data. Rather than presenting an unstructured set of treatment options, as is common in other treatment guidelines, this initiative aimed to categorize appropriate treatments based on published clinical evidence in a hierarchy further ranked by efficacy, toxicity, and cost. Based on these strata, treatment recommendations were collated and grouped into three rank categories (gold, silver, or bronze) to denote the degree of applicability. The team assembled an interactive document that will eventually be available online, and it is summarized in detail here. Recommendations are grouped both by the anatomic site of metastasis and by the primary tumor type, recognizing that original histology might impact the treatment differently in different anatomic locations. After a review of available published clinical evidence, the committee reached a consensus on all recommendations presented, categorizing each option as gold, silver, or bronze to guide clinicians appropriately. This first iteration of ACROPath® Oligometastases represents one of the few comprehensive clinical decision support tools available for managing patients with limited metastatic disease. It presents available data in a highly accessible, easily used reference, which will be formally reviewed and updated by the committee as frequently as emerging data requires, likely at six- to 12-month intervals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher D Jahraus
- Radiation Oncology, ACROPath Project, American College of Radiation Oncology, Alabaster, USA
- Radiation Oncology, Generations Radiotherapy & Oncology PC, Alabaster, USA
| | - Paul E Wallner
- Radiation Oncology, American College of Radiation Oncology, Moorestown, USA
| | - Dwight E Heron
- Radiation Oncology, Mercy Health, Youngstown, USA
- Radiation Oncology, American College of Radiation Oncology, Youngstown, USA
| | | | | | | | - Larry Kestin
- Radiation Oncology, Michigan Healthcare Professionals (MHP) Radiation Oncology Institute, Farmington Hills, USA
| | - Evan Landau
- Radiation Oncology, GenesisCare, Fort Lauderdale, USA
| | - Douglas Rivera
- Radiation Oncology, Austin Cyberknife, Austin, USA
- Radiation Oncology, Central Texas Cancer Centers, Georgetown, USA
| | - Tarita O Thomas
- Radiation Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Alcorn S, Cortés ÁA, Bradfield L, Brennan M, Dennis K, Diaz DA, Doung YC, Elmore S, Hertan L, Johnstone C, Jones J, Larrier N, Lo SS, Nguyen QN, Tseng YD, Yerramilli D, Zaky S, Balboni T. External Beam Radiation Therapy for Palliation of Symptomatic Bone Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:377-397. [PMID: 38788923 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2024] [Revised: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 04/25/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Alcorn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
| | - Ángel Artal Cortés
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Lisa Bradfield
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | | | - Kristopher Dennis
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dayssy A Diaz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Yee-Cheen Doung
- Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Shekinah Elmore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Lauren Hertan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Candice Johnstone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Joshua Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, New York
| | - Nicole Larrier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Simon S Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Yolanda D Tseng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Divya Yerramilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Sandra Zaky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Tracy Balboni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Terlizzi M, Limkin E, Sellami N, Louvel G, Blanchard P. Is single fraction the future of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)? A critical appraisal of the current literature. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2023; 39:100584. [PMID: 36816840 PMCID: PMC9931895 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2023.100584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2022] [Revised: 01/15/2023] [Accepted: 01/15/2023] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) is a standard of care for many localizations but the question of the optimal fractionation remains a matter of concern. If single fraction sessions are routinely used for intracranial targets, their utilization for mobile extracranial lesions is a source of debate and apprehension. Single session treatments improve patient comfort, provide a medico-economic benefit, and have proven useful in the context of the SARS-CoV 2 pandemic. However, both technical and radiobiological uncertainties remain. Experience from intracranial radiosurgery has shown that the size of the target, its proximity to organs at risk, tumor histology, and the volume of normal tissue irradiated are all determining factors in the choice of fractionation. The literature on the use of single fraction for extracranial sites is still scarce. Only primary and secondary pulmonary tumors have been evaluated in prospective randomized trials, allowing the integration of these fractionation schemes in daily practice, for highly selected cases and in trained teams. The level of evidence for the other organs is mainly based on dose escalation or retrospective trials and calls for caution, with further studies being needed before routine use in clinical practice.
Collapse
|
5
|
Wang HH, Tian SS, Yang JM, Sun BS, Chen Y, Song YC, Dong Y, Wang JS, Yuan ZY, Cui YL, Meng MB. Risk-adapted stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with cervical spinal metastases. Cancer Sci 2022; 113:4277-4288. [PMID: 36056609 DOI: 10.1111/cas.15559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2022] [Revised: 08/17/2022] [Accepted: 08/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Huan-Huan Wang
- Department of Radiotherapy and CyberKnife Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Shou-Sen Tian
- Department of Radiotherapy and CyberKnife Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Jia-Min Yang
- Department of Radiotherapy and CyberKnife Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Bing-Sheng Sun
- Department of Lung Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Ying Chen
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Yong-Chun Song
- Department of Radiotherapy and CyberKnife Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Yang Dong
- Department of Radiotherapy and CyberKnife Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Jing-Sheng Wang
- Department of Radiotherapy and CyberKnife Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Zhi-Yong Yuan
- Department of Radiotherapy and CyberKnife Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Yao-Li Cui
- Department of Lymphoma, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| | - Mao-Bin Meng
- Department of Radiotherapy and CyberKnife Center, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Dibs K, Blakaj DM, Prasad RN, Olausson A, Bourekas EC, Boulter D, Ayan AS, Cochran E, Marras WS, Mageswaran P, Thomas E, Lee H, Grecula J, Raval RR, Mendel E, Scharschmidt T, Lonser R, Chakravarti A, Elder JB, Palmer JD. Spine Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy to Three or More Contiguous Vertebral Levels. Front Oncol 2022; 12:912804. [PMID: 35756685 PMCID: PMC9213679 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.912804] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2022] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background With survival improving in many metastatic malignancies, spine metastases have increasingly become a source of significant morbidity; achieving durable local control (LC) is critical. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) may offer improved LC and/or symptom palliation. However, due to setup concerns, SBRT is infrequently offered to patients with ≥3 contiguous involved levels. Because data are limited, we sought to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity, and cancer control outcomes of spine SBRT delivered to ≥3 contiguous levels. Methods We retrospectively identified all SBRT courses delivered between 2013 and 2019 at a tertiary care institution for postoperative or intact spine metastases. Radiotherapy was delivered to 14-35 Gy in 1-5 fractions. Patients were stratified by whether they received SBRT to 1-2 or ≥3 contiguous levels. The primary endpoint was 1-year LC and was compared between groups. Factors associated with increased likelihood of local failure (LF) were explored. Acute and chronic toxicity was assessed. In-depth dosimetric data were collected. Results Overall, 165 patients with 194 SBRT courses were identified [54% were men, median age was 61 years, 93% had Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) ≥70, and median follow-up was 15 months]. One hundred thirteen patients (68%) received treatment to 1-2 and 52 to 3-7 (32%) levels. The 1-year LC was 88% (89% for 1-2 levels vs. 84% for ≥3 levels, p = 0.747). On multivariate analysis, uncontrolled systemic disease was associated with inferior LC for patients with ≥3 treated levels. No other demographic, disease, treatment, or dosimetric variables achieved significance. Rates of new/progressive fracture were equivalent (8% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.839). There were no radiation-induced myelopathy or grade 3+ acute or late toxicities in either group. Coverage of ≥95% of the planning target volume with ≥95% prescription dose was similar between groups (96% 1-2 levels vs. 89% ≥3 levels, p = 0.078). Conclusions For patients with ≥3 contiguous involved levels, spine SBRT is feasible and may offer excellent LC without significant toxicity. Prospective evaluation is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khaled Dibs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Dukagjin M Blakaj
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Rahul N Prasad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Alexander Olausson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Eric C Bourekas
- Department of Radiology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Daniel Boulter
- Department of Radiology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Ahmet S Ayan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Eric Cochran
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - William S Marras
- Spine Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Prasath Mageswaran
- Spine Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Evan Thomas
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Hyeri Lee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - John Grecula
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Raju R Raval
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| | - Ehud Mendel
- Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - Thomas Scharschmidt
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, GA, United States
| | - Russell Lonser
- Department of Neurosurgery, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, GA, United States
| | - Arnab Chakravarti
- Department of Neurosurgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - James B Elder
- Department of Neurosurgery, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, GA, United States
| | - Joshua D Palmer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The James Cancer Hospital at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Guo L, Ke L, Zeng Z, Yuan C, Wu Z, Chen L, Lu L. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: a review. Med Oncol 2022; 39:103. [DOI: 10.1007/s12032-021-01613-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
|
8
|
Colosimo C, Pasqualetti F, Aristei C, Borghesi S, Forte L, Mignogna M, Badii D, Bosio M, Paiar F, Nanni S, Bertocci S, Lastrucci L, Parisi S, Ingrosso G. Stereotactic radiotherapy for bone oligometastases. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2022; 27:40-45. [PMID: 35402030 PMCID: PMC8989454 DOI: 10.5603/rpor.a2022.0009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2021] [Accepted: 11/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
About 60–90% of cancer patients are estimated to develop bone metastases, particularly in the spine. Bone scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT ) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI ) are currently used to assess metastatic bone disease; positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET-CT ) has become more widespread in clinical practice because of its high sensitivity and specificity with about 95% diagnostic accuracy. The most common and well-known radiotracer is 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG); several other PET-radiotracers are currently under investigation for different solid tumors, such as 11C or 18FDG-choline and prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT for prostate cancer. In treatment planning, standard and investigational imaging modalities should be registered with the planning CT so as to best define the bone target volume. For target volume delineation of spine metastases, the International Spine Radiosurgery Consortium (ISRC ) of North American experts provided consensus guidelines. Single fraction stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT ) doses ranged from 12 to 24 Gy; fractionated SRT administered 21–27 Gy in 3 fractions or 20–35 Gy in 5 fractions. After spine SRT, less than 5% of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 acute toxicity. Late toxicity included the extremely rare radiation-induced myelopathy and a 14% risk of de novo vertebral compression fractures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caterina Colosimo
- Operative Unit of Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, San Luca Hospital, Lucca, Italy
| | - Francesco Pasqualetti
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Cynthia Aristei
- Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Italy
| | - Simona Borghesi
- Radiation Oncology Unit of Arezzo-Valdarno, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Italy
| | - Letizia Forte
- Department of Radiotherapy, Livorno Hospital, ATNO, Italy
| | - Marcello Mignogna
- Operative Unit of Radiotherapy, Department of Oncology, San Luca Hospital, Lucca, Italy
| | | | - Manrico Bosio
- Department of Radiotherapy, Livorno Hospital, ATNO, Italy
| | - Fabiola Paiar
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, University of Pisa, Italy
| | - Sara Nanni
- Radiation Oncology Unit of Arezzo-Valdarno, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Italy
| | - Silvia Bertocci
- Radiation Oncology Unit of Arezzo-Valdarno, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Italy
| | | | - Silvana Parisi
- Radiation Oncology Unit - Department of Biomedical, Dental Science, and Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Italy
| | - Gianluca Ingrosso
- Radiation Oncology Section, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lancellotta V, Fanetti G, Monari F, Mangoni M, Mazzarotto R, Tagliaferri L, Gobitti C, Lodi Rizzini E, Talomo S, Turturici I, Paiar F, Corvò R, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Donato V, Vianello F. Stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) oligometastases: an AIRO (Italian association of radiotherapy and clinical oncology) systematic review. LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA 2022; 127:681-689. [PMID: 35394605 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-022-01489-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this systematic review was to examine efficacy of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) in patients with oligometastatic thyroid cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic search was conducted by means of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library. CLINICALTRIALS gov was searched for ongoing or recently completed trials, and PROSPERO was searched for ongoing or recently completed systematic reviews. We analyzed only clinical studies as full text carried out on patients with oligometastatic thyroid cancer treated with SRT. Conference papers, surveys, letters, editorials, book chapters, and reviews were excluded. Time of publication was restricted to the years 1990-2021. RESULTS The number of evaluated patients was 146 (267 lesions), and the median age was 58 years. The median 1-year local control (LC) was 82% (range 67.0%-97.1%); the median disease-free survival (DFS) was 12 months (range 4-53); the median 1-year overall survival was 72% (range 66.6%-85.0%); the 3-year cancer-specific survival was 75.0%; and the 4-year cancer-specific survival was 37.5%. No grade 3-5 acute toxicity was reported. No late effects were recorded. CONCLUSIONS SRT for oligometastases from thyroid cancer as salvage therapy is well tolerated and yields high rates of LC and prolonged DFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valentina Lancellotta
- U.O.C. Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Fanetti
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Via Franco Gallini 2, 33081, Aviano, PN, Italy.
| | - Fabio Monari
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Monica Mangoni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, AOUC-Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Renzo Mazzarotto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Luca Tagliaferri
- U.O.C. Radioterapia Oncologica, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Carlo Gobitti
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Via Franco Gallini 2, 33081, Aviano, PN, Italy
| | - Elisa Lodi Rizzini
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IRCSS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Sara Talomo
- Radiotherapy Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto - IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| | - Irene Turturici
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano (CRO) IRCCS, Via Franco Gallini 2, 33081, Aviano, PN, Italy
| | - Fabiola Paiar
- Radiation Oncology Unit, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Renzo Corvò
- Department of Radiation Oncology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino and Health Science Department (DISSAL), University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa
- Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Vittorio Donato
- Radiation Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliera San Camillo-Forlanini, Roma, Italy
| | - Federica Vianello
- Radiotherapy Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto - IRCCS, Padova, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Deshazer G, Narayanasamy G, Bimali M, Galhardo E, Kalantari F, Xia F, Penagaricano JA, Morrill S. A dosimetric comparative analysis of Brainlab elements and Eclipse RapidArc for spine SBRT treatment planning. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2022; 8. [PMID: 35086071 DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/ac4f97] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Accepted: 01/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
Purpose:This is a dosimetric study comparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans of spine tumors using Brainlab Elements Spine planning module against Eclipse RapidArc plans. Dose conformity, dose gradient, dose fall-off, and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) metrics were evaluated.Methods:Twenty patients were immobilized in supine position using half Vac-Lok. A prescription dose of 16 Gy in a single fraction was planned for Varian TrueBeam. Conformal arc plans were generated with Pencil beam (PB), MonteCarlo (MC) in Elements, and RapidArc with Acuros XB algorithm in Eclipse using identical treatment geometry.Results:Eclipse, Elements PB, and Elements MC generated dosimetrically conformal plans having Inverse Paddick Conformity Index (IPCI) <1.3. All plans satisfied the dose constraints to target and OARs. Elements PB had a sharper gradient than Elements MC with average GI of 3.67(95% CI: 3.52-3.82) and 4.06 (95% CI: 3.93-4.20) respectively. Eclipse plans were more homogeneous with mean HI= 1.22 (95% CI: 1.20-1.23) that is lower than others. Average maximum clinical target volume (CTV) doses were higher in Elements MC with 22.31Gy (95% CI: 21.87-22.74), while PB plans have 21.15Gy (95% CI: 20.36-21.96), respectively. Elements MC and PB plans had lower average dose to 0.35 cc of spinal cord (D0.35cc) of 7.60Gy (95% CI: 7.18-8.02) and 8.42Gy (95% CI: 7.83-9.01). All plans had >95% points passing the gamma QA criteria at 3%/2 mm.Conclusion:All treatment plans achieved clinically acceptable target coverage >95% and meet spinal cord dose limits. Smart optimization in Brainlab Elements spine module produced dosimetrically superior plans by better spinal cord sparing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Garron Deshazer
- FirstHealth of the Carolinas, 155 Memorial Dr, Pinehurst, North Carolina, 28374-3000, UNITED STATES
| | - Ganesh Narayanasamy
- Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham St Slot 771, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205-7101, UNITED STATES
| | - Milan Bimali
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham St, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205-7101, UNITED STATES
| | - Edvaldo Galhardo
- Radiation Oncology Center, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham St Slot 771, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205-7101, UNITED STATES
| | - Faraz Kalantari
- Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham St Slot 771, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205-7101, UNITED STATES
| | - Fen Xia
- Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham St, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205-7101, UNITED STATES
| | - Jose A Penagaricano
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 USF Magnolia Drive, Tampa, Florida, 33612-9416, UNITED STATES
| | - Steven Morrill
- Radiation Oncology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham St, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205-7101, UNITED STATES
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Zhou Q, Jin H, Shi N, Gao S, Wang X, Zhu S, Yan M. Inhibit inflammation and apoptosis of pyrroloquinoline on spinal cord injury in rat. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2021; 9:1360. [PMID: 34733912 PMCID: PMC8506531 DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-1951] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2021] [Accepted: 07/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Background Pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ) is a redox cofactor that can participate in a variety of physiological and biochemical processes, such as anti-inflammatory, cytoprotection, anti-aging, and anti-apoptosis. PQQ plays an important protective role in the central nervous system (CNS). However, the effects of PQQ on astrocytes of the CNS and spinal cord injury (SCI) of rats is still unclear. The present study investigates the role of PQQ in inflammation, apoptosis, and autophagy after SCI in rats. And the effect of PQQ on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced apoptosis and inflammation of astrocytes in vitro, to explore the neuroprotective mechanism of PQQ. Methods Sixty specific pathogen free (SPF) SD male rats (200–250 g) were randomly divided into Normal group, Sham group, SCI group, and SCI + PQQ group, with 15 rats in each group. BBB score, HE staining, Nissl staining, Western blot, immunofluorescence, and other methods were used for detection. Results Our results showed that PQQ could upregulate BBB score in SCI rats. In the second place, PQQ can increase the number and improve the morphology of neurons after SCI. The expression of IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-6 was significantly decreased after PQQ treatment. And then, the ratio of B-cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2)/Bcl-2 associated X protein (Bax) increased significantly, and the positive signal of NeuN increased obviously after PQQ treatment. There are a large number of co-localizations between Bcl-2 and NeuN. Meanwhile, PQQ could down-regulate the expression of Active-Caspase3, and PQQ treatment could reverse the transfer of Active-Caspase3/Caspase3 from the cytoplasm to the nucleus in neurons and astrocytes after SCI. At the same time, PQQ had no significant effect on the LC3b/a ratio. PQQ could decrease the LAMP2 expression in spinal cord after injury. The expression level of phospho-Akt (p-AKT) increased after SCI and decreased after PQQ treatment. In primary astrocytes, LPS could induce the expression levels of IL-1β, TNF-α, and IL-6, and which were inhibited by PQQ treatment at 12 hours. After treatment with LPS, the expression level of Active-Caspase3 increased, which could be reversed by PQQ treatment for 24 h. Conclusions These results suggest that PQQ can ameliorate the motor function of hind limbs and the pathological changes of neurons and injured spinal cord after SCI, down-regulate the expressions of IL-1β, TNF-α, and IL-6, inhibit apoptosis after SCI, and inhibit LPS-induced apoptosis and inflammation of astrocytes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qiao Zhou
- The Key Laboratory of Neuroregeneration of Jiangsu and Ministry of Education, Co-innovation Center of Neuroregeneration, Nantong University, Nantong, China
| | - Hui Jin
- The Key Laboratory of Neuroregeneration of Jiangsu and Ministry of Education, Co-innovation Center of Neuroregeneration, Nantong University, Nantong, China
| | - Naiqi Shi
- School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Shumei Gao
- The Key Laboratory of Neuroregeneration of Jiangsu and Ministry of Education, Co-innovation Center of Neuroregeneration, Nantong University, Nantong, China
| | - Xiaoyu Wang
- The Key Laboratory of Neuroregeneration of Jiangsu and Ministry of Education, Co-innovation Center of Neuroregeneration, Nantong University, Nantong, China
| | - Shunxing Zhu
- Experimental Animal Center of Nantong University, Nantong, China
| | - Meijuan Yan
- The Key Laboratory of Neuroregeneration of Jiangsu and Ministry of Education, Co-innovation Center of Neuroregeneration, Nantong University, Nantong, China
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hemmatazad H, Mathier E, Aebersold DM, Shelan M. [Single dose of 24 Gy or 3-fraction SBRT regimen in the treatment of oligometastatic cancer? : A phase III multi-center trial]. Strahlenther Onkol 2021; 197:859-861. [PMID: 34189598 DOI: 10.1007/s00066-021-01806-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/08/2021] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Hossein Hemmatazad
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, 3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Etienne Mathier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, 3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Daniel M Aebersold
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, 3010, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Mohamed Shelan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 10, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Gouveia AG, Chan DCW, Hoskin PJ, Marta GN, Trippa F, Maranzano E, Chow E, Silva MF. Advances in radiotherapy in bone metastases in the context of new target therapies and ablative alternatives: A critical review. Radiother Oncol 2021; 163:55-67. [PMID: 34333087 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.07.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2021] [Revised: 07/05/2021] [Accepted: 07/22/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
In patients with bone metastases (BM), radiotherapy (RT) is used to alleviate symptoms, reduce the risk of fracture, and improve quality of life (QoL). However, with the emergence of concepts like oligometastases, minimal invasive surgery, ablative therapies such as stereotactic ablative RT (SABR), radiosurgery (SRS), thermal ablation, and new systemic anticancer therapies, there have been a paradigm shift in the multidisciplinary approach to BM with the aim of preserving mobility and function survival. Despite guidelines on using single-dose RT in uncomplicated BM, its use remains relatively low. In uncomplicated BM, single-fraction RT produces similar overall and complete response rates to RT with multiple fractions, although it is associated with a higher retreatment rate of 20% versus 8%. Complicated BM can be characterised as the presence of impending or existing pathologic fracture, a major soft tissue component, existing spinal cord or cauda equina compression and neuropathic pain. The rate of complicated BM is around 35%. Unfortunately, there is a lack of prospective trials on RT in complicated BM and the best dose/fractionation regimen is not yet established. There are contradictory outcomes in studies reporting BM pain control rates and time to pain reduction when comparing SABR with Conventional RT. While some studies showed that SABR produces a faster reduction in pain and higher pain control rates than conventional RT, other studies did not show differences. Moreover, the local control rate for BM treated with SABR is higher than 80% in most studies, and the rate of grade 3 or 4 toxicity is very low. The use of SABR may be preferred in three circumstances: reirradiation, oligometastatic disease, and radioresistant tumours. Local ablative therapies like SABR can delay change or use of systemic therapy, preserve patients' Qol, and improve disease-free survival, progression-free survival and overall survival. Moreover, despite the potential benefit of SABR in oligometastatic disease, there is a need to establish the optial indication, RT dose fractionation, prognostic factors and optimal timing in combination with systemic therapies for SABR. This review evaluates the role of RT in BM considering these recent treatment advances. We consider the definition of complicated BM, use of single and multiple fractions RT for both complicated and uncomplicated BM, reirradiation, new treatment paradigms including local ablative treatments, oligometastatic disease, systemic therapy, physical activity and rehabilitation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- André G Gouveia
- Radiation Oncology Department, Américas Centro de Oncologia Integrado, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil.
| | - Dominic C W Chan
- Department of Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong, China
| | - Peter J Hoskin
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London, United Kingdom; Radiation Oncology Department, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Gustavo N Marta
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil; Radiation Oncology Department, Hospital Sírio Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Fabio Trippa
- Radiation Oncology Center, Santa Maria Hospital, Terni, Italy
| | | | - Edward Chow
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Mauricio F Silva
- Latin America Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG), Porto Alegre, Brazil; Radiation Oncology Unit, Santa Maria Federal University, Santa Maria, Brazil; Clínica de Radioterapia de Santa Maria, Brazil.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Guckenberger M, Mantel F, Sweeney RA, Hawkins M, Belderbos J, Ahmed M, Andratschke N, Madani I, Flentje M. Long-Term Results of Dose-Intensified Fractionated Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Painful Spinal Metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2021; 110:348-357. [PMID: 33412262 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.12.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2020] [Revised: 12/16/2020] [Accepted: 12/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To report long-term outcome of fractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for painful spinal metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS This prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial enrolled 57 patients with 63 painful, unirradiated spinal metastases between March 2012 and July 2015. Patients were treated with 48.5 Gy in 10 SBRT fractions (long life expectancy [Mizumoto score ≤4]) or 35 Gy in 5 SBRT fractions (intermediate life expectancy [Mizumoto score 5-9]). Pain response was defined as pain improvement of a minimum of 2 points on a visual analog scale, and net pain relief was defined as the sum of time with pain response (complete and partial) divided by the overall follow-up time. RESULTS All 57 patients received treatment per protocol; 32 and 25 patients were treated with 10- and 5-fraction SBRT, respectively. The median follow-up of living patients was 60 months (range, 33-74 months). Of evaluable patients, 82% had complete or partial pain response (responders) at 3 months' follow-up (primary endpoint), and pain response remained stable over 5 years. Net pain relief was 74% (95% CI, 65%-80%). Overall survival rates of 1, 3, and 5 years were 59.6% (95% CI, 47%-72%), 33.3% (95% CI, 21%-46%), and 21% (95% CI, 10%-32%), respectively. Freedom from local spinal-metastasis progression was 82% at the last imaging follow-up. Late grade-3 toxicity was limited to pain in 2 patients (nonresponders). There were no cases of myelopathy. SBRT resulted in long-term improvements of all dimensions of the 5-level EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire except anxiety/depression. CONCLUSIONS Fractionated SBRT achieved durable pain response and improved quality of life at minimum late toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
| | - Frederick Mantel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Reinhart A Sweeney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Schweinfurt, Germany
| | - Maria Hawkins
- Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - José Belderbos
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Merina Ahmed
- Department of Radiation Therapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | - Nicolaus Andratschke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Indira Madani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Michael Flentje
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Jaja BNR, Badhiwala J, Guest J, Harrop J, Shaffrey C, Boakye M, Kurpad S, Grossman R, Toups E, Geisler F, Kwon B, Aarabi B, Kotter M, Fehlings MG, Wilson JR. Trajectory-Based Classification of Recovery in Sensorimotor Complete Traumatic Cervical Spinal Cord Injury. Neurology 2021; 96:e2736-e2748. [PMID: 33849991 DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000012028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2020] [Accepted: 03/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that sensorimotor complete traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is a heterogenous clinical entity comprising several subpopulations that follow fundamentally different trajectories of neurologic recovery. METHODS We analyzed demographic and injury data from 655 patients who were pooled from 4 prospective longitudinal multicenter studies. Group-based trajectory modeling was applied to model neurologic recovery trajectories over the initial 12 months postinjury and to identify predictors of recovery trajectories. Neurologic outcomes included upper extremity motor score, total motor scores, and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade improvement. RESULTS The analysis identified 3 distinct trajectories of neurologic recovery. These clinical courses included (1) marginal recovery trajectory, characterized by minimal or no improvement in motor strength or change in AIS grade status (remained grade A); (2) moderate recovery trajectory, characterized by low baseline motor scores that improved approximately 13 points or AIS conversion of 1 grade point; (3) good recovery trajectory, characterized by baseline motor scores in the upper quartile that improved to near maximum values within 3 months of injury. Patients following the moderate or good recovery trajectories were younger, had more caudally located injuries, had a higher degree of preserved motor and sensory function at baseline examination, and exhibited a greater extent of motor and sensory function in the zone of partial preservation. CONCLUSION Cervical complete SCI can be classified into one of 3 distinct subpopulations with fundamentally different trajectories of neurologic recovery. This study defines unique clinical phenotypes based on potential for recovery, rather than baseline severity of injury alone. This approach may prove beneficial in clinical prognostication and in the design and interpretation of clinical trials in SCI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Blessing N R Jaja
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Jetan Badhiwala
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - James Guest
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - James Harrop
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Chris Shaffrey
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Max Boakye
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Shekar Kurpad
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Robert Grossman
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Elizabeth Toups
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Fred Geisler
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Brian Kwon
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Bizhan Aarabi
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Mark Kotter
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Michael G Fehlings
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK
| | - Jefferson R Wilson
- From the Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (B.N.R.J., M.G.F.), Toronto Western Hospital, Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program (J.B.), and Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, St. Michael's Hospital (J.R.W.), University of Toronto, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery (J.G.), University of Miami, FL; Division of Neurosurgery (J.H.), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA; Duke Spine Division (C.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Division of Neurosurgery (M.B.), University of Louisville, KY; Division of Neurosurgery (S.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Division of Neurosurgery (R.G., E.T.), Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX; Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch (F.G.), Rush University, IL; Division of Spine Surgery (B.K.), Vancouver General Hospital, University of British Columbia, Canada; Division of Neurosurgery, Shock Trauma (B.A.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences (M.K.), University of Cambridge, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Ehret F, Mose L, Kufeld M, Fürweger C, Windisch P, Haidenberger A, Schichor C, Tonn JC, Muacevic A. Image-Guided Robotic Radiosurgery for the Treatment of Same Site Spinal Metastasis Recurrences. Front Oncol 2021; 11:642314. [PMID: 34123794 PMCID: PMC8193921 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.642314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2020] [Accepted: 03/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Due to recent medical advancements, patients suffering from metastatic spinal disease have a prolonged life expectancy than several decades ago, and some will eventually experience relapses. Data for the retreatment of spinal metastasis recurrences occurring at the very same macroscopic spot as the initially treated lesion are limited. Previous studies mainly included recurrences in the boundary areas as well as other macroscopic parts of the initially affected vertebrae. This study exclusively analyzes the efficacy and safety of spinal reirradiation for recurrences on the same site utilizing single-session robotic radiosurgery. Materials and Methods Patients between 2005 and 2020 who received radiotherapy for a spinal metastasis suffering from a local recurrence were eligible for analysis. Only patients undergoing a single-session reirradiation were included. All recurrences must have been occurred in the same location as the initial lesion. This was defined as a macroscopic recurrence on computed tomography occurring at the same site as the initial spinal metastasis. All other lesions, including those in the boundary areas or other parts of the initially affected vertebrae, were excluded. Results Fifty-three patients with fifty-three lesions were retreated for spinal metastases. The median dose and number of fractions for the initial radiotherapy were 36 Gy and 15, respectively. Eleven patients were initially treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy. Retreatment was performed with a median dose of 18 Gy prescribed to a median isodose of 70%. The local control was 77% after a median follow-up of 22.2 months. Patients experiencing a second recurrence received a lower dose (p = 0.04), mostly below 18 Gy, and had a worse coverage (p = 0.01) than those showing local tumor control. 51% of patients experienced an improvement in pain control after treatment delivery. Besides, four vertebral compression fractures (7% of patients) but no other adverse events higher than grade 2 were observed. Conclusion Single-session robotic radiosurgery appears to be a safe, time-saving, and effective treatment modality for spinal metastasis recurrences occurring in the same initial location if a considerable dose and coverage can be applied. Treatment results are comparable to reirradiated metastases in the boundary areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix Ehret
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany.,European Cyberknife Center, Munich, Germany
| | - Lucas Mose
- European Cyberknife Center, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Christoph Fürweger
- European Cyberknife Center, Munich, Germany.,Department of Stereotaxy and Functional Neurosurgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Paul Windisch
- European Cyberknife Center, Munich, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland
| | | | - Christian Schichor
- Department of Neurosurgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jörg-Christian Tonn
- Department of Neurosurgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Park C, Howell EP, Mehta VA, Ramirez L, Price MJ, Floyd SR, Kirkpatrick JP, Torok J, Abd-El-Barr MM, Karikari IO, Goodwin CR. Patient outcomes and tumor control in single-fraction versus hypofractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases. J Neurosurg Spine 2021; 34:293-302. [PMID: 33157523 DOI: 10.3171/2020.6.spine20349] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2020] [Accepted: 06/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) offers efficient, noninvasive treatment of spinal neoplasms. Single-fraction (SF) high-dose SBRT has a relatively narrow therapeutic window, while hypofractionated delivery of SBRT may have an improved safety profile with similar efficacy. Because the optimal approach of delivery is unknown, the authors examined whether hypofractionated SBRT improves pain and/or functional outcomes and results in better tumor control compared with SF-SBRT. METHODS This is a single-institution retrospective study of adult patients with spinal metastases treated with SF- or three-fraction (3F) SBRT from 2008 to 2019. Demographics and baseline characteristics, radiographic data, and posttreatment outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 3 months are reported. RESULTS Of the 156 patients included in the study, 70 (44.9%) underwent SF-SBRT (median total dose 1700 cGy) and 86 (55.1%) underwent 3F-SBRT (median total dose 2100 cGy). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the 3F-SBRT group had a worse baseline profile, including severity of pain (p < 0.05), average use of pain medication (p < 0.001), and functional scores (p < 0.05) compared with the SF-SBRT cohort. At the 3-month follow-up, the 3F-SBRT cohort experienced a greater frequency of improvement in pain compared with the SF-SBRT group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, patients treated with 3F-SBRT demonstrated a higher frequency of improved Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) scores (p < 0.05) compared with those treated with SF-SBRT, with no significant difference in the frequency of improvement in modified Rankin Scale scores. Local tumor control did not differ significantly between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS Patients who received spinal 3F-SBRT more frequently achieved significant pain relief and an increased frequency of improvement in KPS compared with those treated with SF-SBRT. Local tumor control was similar in the two groups. Future work is needed to establish the relationship between fractionation schedule and clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Luis Ramirez
- 3Duke Center for Brain and Spine Metastasis, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | - Scott R Floyd
- 2Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center; and
| | | | - Jordan Torok
- 2Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center; and
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Xiaozhou L, Xing Z, Xin S, Chengjun L, Lei Z, Guangxin Z, Sujia W. Efficacy Analysis of Separation Surgery Combined with SBRT for Spinal Metastases-A Long-Term Follow-Up Study Based on Patients with Spinal Metastatic Tumor in a Single-Center. Orthop Surg 2020; 12:404-420. [PMID: 32034999 PMCID: PMC7189043 DOI: 10.1111/os.12594] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2019] [Revised: 11/14/2019] [Accepted: 11/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Follow‐up data of patients with spinal metastatic tumors were analyzed to investigate the effect of separation surgery combined with SBRT on clinical outcomes. Methods The clinical data of 52 patients with spinal metastatic tumors admitted to our hospital from January 2015 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 24 males and 28 females, aged 25–77 years, with an average of 56.7 ± 7.4 years. The separation surgery of all patients was successfully completed and followed up. Frankel neurological function grading, Karnofsky performance scores, VAS scores, Epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) grading and muscle strength grading were used to assess the patients’ condition. Kaplan‐Meier analysis and the Log⁃rank test were used to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) and the 95% feasible interval for patients with different ages, genders, and treatments. The multivariate Cox regression model was used to calculate the risk value HR and the 95% feasible interval in patients undergoing only separation surgery or separation surgery combined with SBRT. Results After separation surgery, 46 patients had pain relief (88.5%), and the average VAS score decreased to 2.17 ± 0.52 points, which was significantly improved compared with preoperative score (P < 0.01). Muscle strength grading decreased in seven cases, showed no change in two cases, and recovered in 19 cases. Postoperative Frankel neurological function grading and Karnofsky performance scores were also significantly improved compared with preoperative scores (P < 0.01). The patients who accepted separation surgery were followed up for 9–47 months (26.3 ± 18.1 months), and 15 patients died due to the deterioration of the primary tumor. Thirteen patients received SBRT after surgery, including 12 cases of pain relief. The average VAS score of these 13 patients decreased to 1.64±0.41 points, which was significantly improved compared with preoperative and postoperative (P < 0.01), and muscle strength recovered in eight cases. Frankel neurological function grading and Karnofsky performance scores of these patients were also significantly improved compared with preoperative and postoperative Frankel neurological function grading and Karnofsky performance scores (P < 0.01). The patients who accepted separation surgery combined with SBRT were followed up for 11–38 months (mean 22.5 ± 10.2 months), and five cases died of primary tumor. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that separation surgery combined with SBRT was an independent predictor of overall survival rate (OS). Conclusions Separation surgery combined with SBRT is an effective way to treat spinal metastatic tumors as it not only has smaller surgical trauma, but can also significantly relieve pain, improve nerve function, and relieve spinal cord compression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liu Xiaozhou
- Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China
| | - Zhou Xing
- Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China
| | - Shi Xin
- Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China
| | - Li Chengjun
- Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China
| | - Zhang Lei
- Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China
| | - Zhou Guangxin
- Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China
| | - Wu Sujia
- Department of Orthopedics, Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Beeler WH, Speth KA, Broderick MT, Jairath NK, Ballouz D, Gharzai LA, Jackson WC, Kim MM, Owen D, Szerlip NJ, Paradis KC, Spratt DE. Local Control and Toxicity of Multilevel Spine Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy. Neurosurgery 2020; 86:E164-E172. [PMID: 31541240 DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyz348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2019] [Accepted: 06/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (sSBRT) is commonly limited to 1 or 2 vertebral levels given a paucity of efficacy and toxicity data when more than 2 levels are treated. OBJECTIVE To prove our hypothesis that multilevel sSBRT could provide similar rates of local control (LC) (primary endpoint) and toxicity as single-level treatment using the same clinical target, planning target, and planning organ-at-risk volumes. METHODS We analyzed consecutive cases of sSBRT treated from 2013 to 2017. Time-to-event outcomes for single-level and multilevel cases were compared using mixed effect Cox models and differences in toxicity rates were evaluated using linear mixed effect models. All models incorporate a patient-level random intercept to account for any within-patient correlation across cases. RESULTS There were 101 single-level and 84 multilevel sSBRT cases (2-7 continuous vertebral levels). One-year LC was 95% vs 85%, respectively. After adjusting for baseline covariates, dose delivered, and accounting for within-patient correlation, there was no significant difference in time to local failure (hazard ratio, HR 1.79 [0.59-5.4]; P = .30). Pain improved in 83.5% of the 139 initially symptomatic tumors. There were no significant differences in grade 2+ acute or late toxicities between single-level and multilevel sSBRT. CONCLUSION With rigorous patient immobilization, quality assurance, and image guidance, multilevel sSBRT provides high rates of LC, similar to single-level treatment, without need for larger planning volume margins. Efforts to improve prognostication and case selection for multilevel sSBRT are warranted to ensure that the benefits of improved LC over palliative radiation are justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Whitney H Beeler
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Kelly A Speth
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Neil K Jairath
- University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Dena Ballouz
- University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Laila A Gharzai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Michelle M Kim
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Dawn Owen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | | | - Kelly C Paradis
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Moraes FY, Chen X, Yan M, Spratt DE, Redmond K, Jackson WC, Yamada YJ. Evolving Role of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in the Management of Spine Metastases: Defining Dose and Dose Constraints. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2020; 31:167-189. [PMID: 32147009 DOI: 10.1016/j.nec.2019.12.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
When treating solid tumor spine metastases, stereotactic high-dose-per-fraction radiation, given in a single fraction or in a hypofractionated approach, has proved to be a highly effective and safe therapeutic option for any tumor histology, in the setting of de novo therapy, as salvage treatment of local progression after previous radiation, and in the postoperative setting. There are variations in practice based on the clinical presentation, goals of therapy, as well as institutional preferences. As a biologically potent therapy, a thoughtful and careful attention to detail with patient selection, treatment planning, and delivery is crucial for treatment success.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fabio Y Moraes
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Xuguang Chen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Michael Yan
- Department of Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Daniel E Spratt
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Kristen Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - William C Jackson
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Yoshiya Josh Yamada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Chen Y, He Y, Zhao C, Li X, Zhou C, Hirsch FR. Treatment of spine metastases in cancer: a review. J Int Med Res 2019; 48:300060519888107. [PMID: 31878807 PMCID: PMC7607531 DOI: 10.1177/0300060519888107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
As a consequence of the improvements in diagnostic technology along with gains in life expectancy of cancer patients, the incidence of spine metastases has increased. Spine metastases can affect the patient's quality of life and negatively impact on their prognosis. Multidisciplinary treatments involve surgery, chemotherapy, radiosurgery and radiotherapy. Spine metastases should be treated using a multidisciplinary and integrated approach that involves spinal surgeons, medical oncologists and radiologists. More research is required to elucidate the pathological mechanisms involved in the aetiology of spine metastasis. This review describes the current situation regarding the diagnosis of spine metastasis, what is understood about the pathological development of spine metastasis and the evolution of the multidisciplinary treatments that are available for patients with spine metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Chen
- Spine Centre, Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Yayi He
- Department of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University Medical School Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Chao Zhao
- Department of Lung Cancer and Immunology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University Medical School Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Xuefei Li
- Department of Lung Cancer and Immunology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University Medical School Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Caicun Zhou
- Department of Medical Oncology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University Medical School Cancer Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Fred R Hirsch
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Loi M, Nuyttens JJ, Desideri I, Greto D, Livi L. Single-Fraction Radiotherapy (SFRT) For Bone Metastases: Patient Selection And Perspectives. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11:9397-9408. [PMID: 31807069 PMCID: PMC6842277 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s186630] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2019] [Accepted: 10/22/2019] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Bone metastases are a frequent and important source of morbidity in cancer patients. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an established treatment option for local control and pain relief of bone metastases, and it is increasingly used as upfront treatment, postoperative consolidation or salvage treatment after prior RT. However, heterogeneity of dose schedules described in literature represents a severe limitation in the definition of the role of SBRT as a standard of care. No consensus is available on the use of single versus multiple fraction SBRT for bone metastases. Advantages of single-fraction SBRT include shorter overall duration of treatment, absence of inter-fraction uncertainty, improved compliance, theoretical increased efficacy, and lower costs. However, caution has been advised due to reports of severe late toxicities, in particular, vertebral collapse fracture (VCF). The aim of this paper is to review dose fractionation and indications for the management of bone metastases using SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mauro Loi
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Joost J Nuyttens
- Radiotherapy Department, Erasmus MC Cancer Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Isacco Desideri
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Daniela Greto
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Livi
- Radiotherapy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Clinical Efficacy of Frameless Stereotactic Radiosurgery in the Management of Spinal Metastases From Thyroid Carcinoma. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019; 44:E1188-E1195. [PMID: 31261273 DOI: 10.1097/brs.0000000000003087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN A retrospective data review. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of CyberKnife (CK) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for thyroid spinal metastasis (SMs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Thyroid carcinoma is an infrequent cause of SM. The absolute efficacy of SRS generally and CK in particular remains poorly characterized for thyroid SM. The current study is the first to specifically evaluate the efficacy of CK SRS for thyroid SMs. METHODS A retrospective review of patients at our institution between 2003 and 2013 was done. Details about tumor location, radiographic findings before and after CK SRS, tumor recurrence, prescription isodose level, total and maximum dose, number of fractions, and gross tumor volume coverage were similarly collected. For comparison with other studies, the biologically effective dose and the equivalent total dose in 2 Gy fractions were calculated. Each patient was assessed for survival and local disease control from the time of the first CK session and survival analysis was carried out using the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk factors for local failure were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS A total of 12 patients with 32 spinal metastases from thyroid carcinoma that were treated with CK SRS were identified. Survival for 1, 2, and 3 years was 55%, 44%, and 33%, and local control was 67%, 56%, and 34% respectively. The study found that the single strongest factor associated with local control was prior radiotherapy (β-coefficient -27.72, P = 0.01). No complications occurred in the immediate or late follow-up period. CONCLUSION This was the first study to specifically investigate the efficacy of CK for treatment of thyroid SMs. Our findings suggest that CK can be safely used to treat spinal SMs from thyroid cancer and is associated with a high rate of local control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4.
Collapse
|
24
|
Spencer KL, van der Velden JM, Wong E, Seravalli E, Sahgal A, Chow E, Verlaan JJ, Verkooijen HM, van der Linden YM. Systematic Review of the Role of Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases. J Natl Cancer Inst 2019; 111:1023-1032. [PMID: 31119273 PMCID: PMC6792073 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2018] [Revised: 04/07/2019] [Accepted: 05/15/2019] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) might improve pain and local control in patients with bone metastases compared to conventional radiotherapy, although an overall estimate of these outcomes is currently unknown. METHODS A systematic review was carried out following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies reporting pain response and local control among patients with bone metastases from solid-organ tumors who underwent SBRT in 1-6 fractions. All studies prior to April 15, 2017, were included. Study quality was assessed by predefined criteria, and pain response and local control rates were extracted. RESULTS A total of 2619 studies were screened; 57 were included (reporting outcomes for 3995 patients) of which 38 reported pain response and 45 local control rates. Local control rates were high with pain response rates above those previously reported for conventional radiotherapy. Marked heterogeneity in study populations and delivered treatments were identified such that quantitative synthesis was not appropriate. Reported toxicity was limited. Of the pain response studies, 73.7% used a retrospective cohort design and only 10.5% used the international consensus endpoint definitions of pain response. The median survival within the included studies ranged from 8 to 30.4 months, suggesting a high risk of selection bias in the included observational studies. CONCLUSIONS This review demonstrates the potential benefit of SBRT over conventional palliative radiotherapy in improving pain due to bone metastases. Given the methodological limitations of the published literature, however, large randomized trials are now urgently required to better quantify this benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katie L Spencer
- Correspondence to: Katie Spencer, MB, BChir, FRCR, Cancer Epidemiology Group, Level 11 Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9NL, West Yorkshire, UK (e-mail: )
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Conti A, Acker G, Kluge A, Loebel F, Kreimeier A, Budach V, Vajkoczy P, Ghetti I, Germano' AF, Senger C. Decision Making in Patients With Metastatic Spine. The Role of Minimally Invasive Treatment Modalities. Front Oncol 2019; 9:915. [PMID: 31608228 PMCID: PMC6761912 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00915] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2019] [Accepted: 09/03/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Spine metastases affect more than 70% of terminal cancer patients that eventually suffer from severe pain and neurological symptoms. Nevertheless, in the overwhelming majority of the cases, a spinal metastasis represents just one location of a diffuse systemic disease. Therefore, the best practice for treatment of spinal metastases depends on many different aspects of an oncological disease, including the assessment of neurological status, pain, location, and dissemination of the disease as well as the ability to predict the risk of disease progression with neurological worsening, benefits and risks associated to treatment and, eventually, expected survival. To address this need for a framework and algorithm that takes all aspects of care into consideration, we reviewed available evidence on the multidisciplinary management of spinal metastases. According to the latest evidence, the use of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal metastatic disease is rapidly increasing. Indeed, aggressive surgical resection may provide the best results in terms of local control, but carries a significant rate of post-surgical morbidity whose incidence and severity appears to be correlated to the extent of resection. The multidisciplinary management represents, according to current evidence, the best option for the treatment of spinal metastases. Noteworthy, according to the recent literature evidence, cases that once required radical surgical resection followed by low-dose conventional radiotherapy, can now be more effectively treated by minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) followed by spine SRS with decreased morbidity, improved local control, and more durable pain control. This combination allows also extending this standard of care to patients that would be too sick for an aggressive surgical treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alfredo Conti
- Department of Neurosurgery and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.,Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Güliz Acker
- Department of Neurosurgery and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.,Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.,Charité CyberKnife Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Anne Kluge
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Franziska Loebel
- Department of Neurosurgery and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.,Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.,Charité CyberKnife Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Anita Kreimeier
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Volker Budach
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Peter Vajkoczy
- Department of Neurosurgery and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.,Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.,Charité CyberKnife Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Ilaria Ghetti
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
| | | | - Carolin Senger
- Charité CyberKnife Center, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Abstract
Bone is a major site of haematogenous tumour cell spread in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and most patients with RCC will develop painful and functionally disabling bone metastases at advanced disease stages. The prognosis of these patients is generally poor and the treatment is, therefore, aimed at palliation. However, RCC-associated bone metastases can be curable in select patients. Current data support a multimodal management strategy that includes wide resection of lesions, radiotherapy, systemic therapy, and other local treatment options, which can improve quality of life and survival. Nevertheless, the optimal approach for metastatic bone disease in RCC has not yet been defined and practical recommendations are rare. To improve the management and outcomes of patients with RCC and bone metastases, the International Kidney Cancer Coalition and the interdisciplinary working group on renal tumours of the German Cancer Society convened a meeting of experts with a global perspective to perform an unstructured review and elaborate on current treatment strategies on the basis of published data and expertise. The panel formulated recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with RCC and metastasis to the bone. Furthermore, the experts summarized current challenges and unmet patient needs that should be addressed in the future. In this Expert Consensus, Grünwald et al. summarize their recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma and metastasis to the bone. They also outline current challenges and unmet patient needs that should be addressed in the future.
Collapse
|
27
|
Gong Y, Xu L, Zhuang H, Jiang L, Wei F, Liu Z, Li Y, Yu M, Ni K, Liu X. Efficacy and safety of different fractions in stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: A systematic review. Cancer Med 2019; 8:6176-6184. [PMID: 31489788 PMCID: PMC6797563 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2546] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2019] [Revised: 07/28/2019] [Accepted: 08/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the treatment of spinal metastases, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) delivers precise, high-dose radiation to the target region while sparing the spinal cord. A range of doses and fractions had been reported; however, the optimal prescribed scheme remains unclear. METHODS Two reviewers performed independent literature searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science databases. Articles were divided into one to five fractions groups. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess the quality of studies. Local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) were presented for the included studies and a pooled value was calculated by the weighted average. RESULTS The 38 included studies comprised 3,754 patients with 4,731 lesions. The average 1-year LCs for the one to five fractions were 92.7%, 84.6%, 86.8%, 82.6%, and 80.6%, respectively. The average 1-year OS for the one to five fractions were 53.0%, 70.4%, 60.1%, 48%, and 80%, respectively. The 24 Gy/single fraction scheme had a higher 1-year LC (98.1%) than those of 24 Gy/two fractions (85.4%), 27 Gy/three fractions (84.9%), and 24 Gy/three fractions (89.0%). The incidence of vertebral compression fracture was 10.3%, with 10.7% in the single-fraction group and 10.1% in the multi-fraction group. The incidence of radiation-induced myelopathy was 0.19%; three and two patients were treated with single-fraction and multi-fraction SBRT, respectively. The incidence of radiculopathy was 0.30% and all but one patient were treated with multi-fraction SBRT. CONCLUSIONS SBRT provided satisfactory efficacy and acceptable safety for spinal metastases. Single-fraction SBRT demonstrated a higher local control rate than those of the other factions, especially the 24 Gy dose. The risk of vertebral compression fracture (VCF) was slightly higher in single-fraction SBRT and more patients developed radiculopathy after multi-fraction SBRT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yining Gong
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Lingyi Xu
- Eight-Year-Program, Grade 2015, Health Science Center, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Hongqing Zhuang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Liang Jiang
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Feng Wei
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zhongjun Liu
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yan Li
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Miao Yu
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Kaiwen Ni
- Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaoguang Liu
- Department of Orthopedics, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Outcomes in the radiosurgical management of metastatic spine disease. Adv Radiat Oncol 2019; 4:283-293. [PMID: 31011673 PMCID: PMC6460302 DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2018.10.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2018] [Accepted: 10/29/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a common treatment option for patients with metastatic tumors of the spine. The optimal treatment-, tumor-, and patient-specific characteristics necessary to achieve durable outcomes remain less well understood given the heterogeneous nature of the patient population this modality typically serves. The objective of this analysis was to better understand the determinants underlying SBRT spine treatment outcomes. Methods and Materials A total of 127 patients with 287 spine tumors were treated between March 2010 and May 2015. The median total doses for single-fraction and hypofractionated courses of treatment were 16 Gy (range, 16-20 Gy) and 24 Gy (range, 16-40 Gy), respectively. Radiologic local control and numeric pain score data were measured, and univariate and multivariate analyses were done to determine factors predictive of treatment response. Results Median follow-up was 5.9 months (range, 1-61 months). Radiologic local control was achieved in 84.7% of patients at 6 months and in 74.7% of patients at 1 year. Local control was found to be affected by the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score, and was worse in patients with scores ≥7 (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-11.51). Patients who required upfront surgical intervention to alleviate spinal cord compression, address mechanical spinal instability, or both had worse local control than those who did not require surgery (HR: 2.32; 95% CI, 1.04-5.17). Patients treated with a hypofractionated course compared with a single fraction had worse radiologic local control (HR: 2.63; 95% CI, 1.27-5.45). No patients developed radiation-induced myelitis after treatment, and the vertebral compression fracture rate was 9.1% after SBRT. Conclusions Patients with potentially unstable spines or needing upfront spinal surgery before SBRT are less likely to achieve durable radiologic local control. Additionally, patients treated with single-fraction regimens have improved local control compared with those treated with hypofractionated radiation.
Collapse
|
29
|
Silva SR, Gliniewicz A, Martin B, Prabhu VC, Germanwala AV, Melian E, Jones GA, Solanki AA. Oligometastatic Disease State Is Associated with Improved Local Control in Patients Undergoing Three or Five Fraction Spine Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy. World Neurosurg 2019; 122:e342-e348. [DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2018] [Revised: 10/04/2018] [Accepted: 10/05/2018] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
|
30
|
Saenz DL, Crownover R, Stathakis S, Papanikolaou N. A dosimetric analysis of a spine SBRT specific treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2019; 20:154-159. [PMID: 30461183 PMCID: PMC6333144 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12499] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2018] [Revised: 10/12/2018] [Accepted: 10/23/2018] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The Brainlab Elements treatment planning system utilizes distinct modules for treatment planning specific to stereotactic treatment sites including single or multiple brain lesions as well as spine. This work investigates the hypothesis that an optimization tailored specifically to spine can in fact create dosimetrically superior plans to those created in more general use treatment planning systems (TPS). METHODS Ten spine patients at our institution were replanned in Brainlab Elements, Phillips Pinnacle3 , and Elekta Monaco. The planning target volume (PTV) included the vertebral body (in either the thoracic or lumbar spine), pedicles, and transverse processes. In all plans, the target was prescribed 20 Gy to 95% of the PTV. Objectives for the study included D5%<25 Gy and spinal cord D0.035cc < 14 Gy. Plans were evaluated by the satisfaction of the objectives as well total monitor units (MU), gradient index (GI), conformity index (CI), and dose gradient (distance between 100% and 50% isodose lines) in a selected slice between the vertebral body and spinal cord. RESULTS All TPS produced clinically acceptable plans. The sharpest dose gradient was achieved with Elements (mean 3.3 ± 0.2 mm). This resulted in lowest spinal cord maximum point doses (6.6 ± 1.0 Gy). Gradient indices were also the smallest for Elements (3.6 ± 0.5). Further improvement in gradient index and spinal cord sparing were not performed due to the subsequent violation of the PTV D5% < 25 Gy constraint or the loss of conformity due to the loss of coverage at the PTV-spinal canal interface. CONCLUSIONS Brainlab Elements planning which relies on arc duplication to specifically optimize for spine anatomy did result in dosimetrically superior plans while holding prescription levels constant. While any planning system can improve upon specific dosimetric objectives, the simultaneous satisfaction of all constraints was best achieved with Brainlab Elements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel L. Saenz
- University of Texas Health San AntonioMays Cancer CenterSan AntonioTXUSA
| | - Richard Crownover
- University of Texas Health San AntonioMays Cancer CenterSan AntonioTXUSA
| | - Sotirios Stathakis
- University of Texas Health San AntonioMays Cancer CenterSan AntonioTXUSA
| | - Niko Papanikolaou
- University of Texas Health San AntonioMays Cancer CenterSan AntonioTXUSA
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Le Fèvre C, Antoni D, Thiéry A, Noël G. Radiothérapie des métastases osseuses : revue multi-approches de la littérature. Cancer Radiother 2018; 22:810-825. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2017.10.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2017] [Revised: 08/20/2017] [Accepted: 10/12/2017] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
|
32
|
Bazire L, Darmon I, Calugaru V, Costa É, Dumas JL, Kirova YM. [Technical aspects and indications of extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy]. Cancer Radiother 2018; 22:447-458. [PMID: 30064828 DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2017.09.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2017] [Revised: 09/10/2017] [Accepted: 09/16/2017] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
Extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy has developed considerably in recent years and is now an important part of the therapeutic alternatives to be offered to patients with cancer. It offers opportunities that have progressively led physicians to reconsider the therapeutic strategy, for example in the case of local recurrence in irradiated territory or oligometastatic disease. The literature on the subject is rich but, yet, there is no real consensus on therapeutic indications. This is largely due to the lack of prospective, randomized studies that have evaluated this technique with sufficient recoil. We propose a review of the literature on the technical aspects and indications of extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Bazire
- Département de radiothérapie oncologie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France.
| | - I Darmon
- Département de radiothérapie oncologie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - V Calugaru
- Département de radiothérapie oncologie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - É Costa
- Département de radiothérapie oncologie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - J-L Dumas
- Département de radiothérapie oncologie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| | - Y M Kirova
- Département de radiothérapie oncologie, institut Curie, 25, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Vellayappan BA, Chao ST, Foote M, Guckenberger M, Redmond KJ, Chang EL, Mayr NA, Sahgal A, Lo SS. The evolution and rise of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2018; 18:887-900. [DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2018.1493381] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Balamurugan A. Vellayappan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore
| | - Samuel T. Chao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Matthew Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Kristin J. Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Eric L. Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nina A. Mayr
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Simon S. Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Bernard V, Bishop AJ, Allen PK, Amini B, Wang XA, Li J, Tatsui CE, Rhines LD, Brown PD, Ghia AJ. Heterogeneity in Treatment Response of Spine Metastases to Spine Stereotactic Radiosurgery Within "Radiosensitive" Subtypes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99:1207-1215. [PMID: 29029886 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.08.028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2016] [Revised: 08/11/2017] [Accepted: 08/21/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To characterize outcomes of metastatic colorectal and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) histologies, compared with other radiosensitive histologies, treated with spine stereotactic radiosurgery with regard to local control, overall survival, and predictors of response. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 127 patients with 148 spine stereotactic radiosurgery-treated metastatic lesions at our institution between 2003 and 2013 were reviewed. We assessed clinical endpoints in relation to histologic type, including local control (LC) and overall survival (OS), using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS For all patients, the 1- and 2-year actuarial rates for LC were 82.6% and 75.8%, and rates for OS were 72.9% and 51.5% respectively. Among tumor histologies, 1-year cumulative incidence rates of local failure for thyroid, breast, lung, and colon cancer were 8.7%, 7.0%, 26.6%, and 39.6%, respectively. When analyzed together, NSCLC and colorectal cancers had significantly greater cumulative incidence rates at 1 and 2 years (30.4% and 38.7%, respectively) than other histologies (8.0% and 14.1% respectively, P=.0008). Non-small cell lung cancer/colorectal tumor status was a significant predictor of local failure in a competing risk univariate model (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.07-4.17, P=.03) and multivariate model (hazard ratio 2.35, 95% confidence interval 1.12-4.92, P=.024). CONCLUSIONS Spine stereotactic radiosurgery is an effective strategy in achieving local control of spine metastases, particularly among radiosensitive histologies. However, a subset of these classically defined histologies (NSCLC and colorectal) has a propensity toward local failure. In addition to resulting in poorer OS outcomes, the poor LC rates seen in NSCLC and colorectal cancers in this study are more consistent with a radioresistant phenotype, suggesting the need for optimized dosing regimens in this subgroup.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vincent Bernard
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Andrew J Bishop
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Pamela K Allen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Behrang Amini
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Xin A Wang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Jing Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Claudio E Tatsui
- Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Laurence D Rhines
- Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Amol J Ghia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Katsoulakis E, Kumar K, Laufer I, Yamada Y. Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Spinal Metastases. Semin Radiat Oncol 2017; 27:209-217. [DOI: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2017.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
|
36
|
Huo M, Sahgal A, Pryor D, Redmond K, Lo S, Foote M. Stereotactic spine radiosurgery: Review of safety and efficacy with respect to dose and fractionation. Surg Neurol Int 2017; 8:30. [PMID: 28303210 PMCID: PMC5339918 DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.200581] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2016] [Accepted: 12/30/2016] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment option for spinal metastases with demonstrated efficacy in the upfront, postoperative, and re-treatment settings, as well as for tumor histologies considered radioresistant. Uncertainty exists regarding the optimal dose and fractionation schedule, with single and multifraction regimens commonly utilized. METHODS A literature search of the PubMed and Medline databases was conducted to identify papers specific to spine SBRT and the effect of varying dose/fractionation regimens on outcomes. Bibliographies of relevant papers were searched for further references, and international spine SBRT experts were consulted. RESULTS Local control rates generally exceed 80% at 1 year, while high rates of pain control have been attained. There is insufficient evidence to suggest superiority of either single or multiple fraction regimens with respect to local control and pain control. Low rates of toxicity have been reported, assuming strict dose constraints are respected. Radiation myelopathy may be the most morbid toxicity, although the rates are low. The risk of vertebral compression fracture appears to be associated with higher doses per fraction such as those used in single-fraction regimens. The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score should be considered when evaluating patients for spine SBRT, and prophylactic stabilisation may be warranted. Pain flare is a relatively common toxicity which may be mediated with prophylactic dexamethasone. Because of the treatment complexity and potentially serious toxicities, strict quality assurance should occur at the organizational, planning, dosimetric, and treatment delivery levels. CONCLUSION Both single and multifraction regimens are safe and efficacious in spine SBRT for spinal metastases. There may be advantages to hypofractionated treatment over single-fraction regimens with respect to toxicity. Ongoing investigation is underway to define optimal dose and fractionation schedules.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Huo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - David Pryor
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Kristin Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
| | - Simon Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, USA
| | - Matthew Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Kopp MA, Watzlawick R, Martus P, Failli V, Finkenstaedt FW, Chen Y, DeVivo MJ, Dirnagl U, Schwab JM. Long-term functional outcome in patients with acquired infections after acute spinal cord injury. Neurology 2017; 88:892-900. [PMID: 28130472 DOI: 10.1212/wnl.0000000000003652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 78] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2016] [Accepted: 12/09/2016] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate whether prevalent hospital-acquired pneumonia and wound infection affect the clinical long-term outcome after acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS This was a longitudinal cohort study within the prospective multicenter National Spinal Cord Injury Database (Birmingham, Alabama). We screened datasets of 3,834 patients enrolled in 20 trial centers from 1995 to 2005 followed up until 2016. Eligibility criteria were cervical SCI and American Spinal Cord Injury Association impairment scale A, B, and C. Pneumonia or postoperative wound infections (Pn/Wi) acquired during acute medical care/inpatient rehabilitation were analyzed for their association with changes in the motor items of the Functional Independence Measure (FIMmotor) using regression models (primary endpoint 5-year follow-up). Pn/Wi-related mortality was assessed as a secondary endpoint (10-year follow-up). RESULTS A total of 1,203 patients met the eligibility criteria. During hospitalization, 564 patients (47%) developed Pn/Wi (pneumonia n = 540; postoperative wound infection n = 11; pneumonia and postoperative wound infection n = 13). Adjusted linear mixed models after multiple imputation revealed that Pn/Wi are significantly associated with lower gain in FIMmotor up to 5 years after SCI (-7.4 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.5 to -3.3). Adjusted Cox regression identified Pn/Wi as a highly significant risk factor for death up to 10 years after SCI (hazard ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.16). CONCLUSION Hospital-acquired Pn/Wi are predictive of propagated disability and mortality after SCI. Pn/Wi qualify as a potent and targetable outcome-modifying factor. Pn/Wi prevention constitutes a viable strategy to protect functional recovery and reduce mortality. Pn/Wi can be considered as rehabilitation confounders in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcel A Kopp
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Ralf Watzlawick
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Peter Martus
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Vieri Failli
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Felix W Finkenstaedt
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Yuying Chen
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Michael J DeVivo
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Ulrich Dirnagl
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus
| | - Jan M Schwab
- From the Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Clinical and Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Research (Neuroparaplegiology) (M.A.K., R.W., V.F., F.W.F., J.M.S.), and Center for Stroke Research Berlin (U.D.), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biostatistics (P.M.), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany; National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (Y.C., M.J.D.), Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Paraplegiology (Spinal Cord Injury Division), Department of Neurology (J.M.S.), and Departments of Neuroscience and Center for Brain and Spinal Cord Repair and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, The Neurological Institute (J.M.S.), The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Redmond KJ, Lo SS, Soltys SG, Yamada Y, Barani IJ, Brown PD, Chang EL, Gerszten PC, Chao ST, Amdur RJ, De Salles AAF, Guckenberger M, Teh BS, Sheehan J, Kersh CR, Fehlings MG, Sohn MJ, Chang UK, Ryu S, Gibbs IC, Sahgal A. Consensus guidelines for postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy for spinal metastases: results of an international survey. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 26:299-306. [PMID: 27834628 DOI: 10.3171/2016.8.spine16121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Although postoperative stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases is increasingly performed, few guidelines exist for this application. The purpose of this study is to develop consensus guidelines to promote safe and effective treatment for patients with spinal metastases. METHODS Fifteen radiation oncologists and 5 neurosurgeons, representing 19 centers in 4 countries and having a collective experience of more than 1300 postoperative spine SBRT cases, completed a 19-question survey about postoperative spine SBRT practice. Responses were defined as follows: 1) consensus: selected by ≥ 75% of respondents; 2) predominant: selected by 50% of respondents or more; and 3) controversial: no single response selected by a majority of respondents. RESULTS Consensus treatment indications included: radioresistant primary, 1-2 levels of adjacent disease, and previous radiation therapy. Contraindications included: involvement of more than 3 contiguous vertebral bodies, ASIA Grade A status (complete spinal cord injury without preservation of motor or sensory function), and postoperative Bilsky Grade 3 residual (cord compression without any CSF around the cord). For treatment planning, co-registration of the preoperative MRI and postoperative T1-weighted MRI (with or without gadolinium) and delineation of the cord on the T2-weighted MRI (and/or CT myelogram in cases of significant hardware artifact) were predominant. Consensus GTV (gross tumor volume) was the postoperative residual tumor based on MRI. Predominant CTV (clinical tumor volume) practice was to include the postoperative bed defined as the entire extent of preoperative tumor, the relevant anatomical compartment and any residual disease. Consensus was achieved with respect to not including the surgical hardware and incision in the CTV. PTV (planning tumor volume) expansion was controversial, ranging from 0 to 2 mm. The spinal cord avoidance structure was predominantly the true cord. Circumferential treatment of the epidural space and margin for paraspinal extension was controversial. Prescription doses and spinal cord tolerances based on clinical scenario, neurological compromise, and prior overlapping treatments were controversial, but reasonable ranges are presented. Fifty percent of those surveyed practiced an integrated boost to areas of residual tumor and density override for hardware within the beam path. Acceptable PTV coverage was controversial, but consensus was achieved with respect to compromising coverage to meet cord constraint and fractionation to improve coverage while meeting cord constraint. CONCLUSIONS The consensus by spinal radiosurgery experts suggests that postoperative SBRT is indicated for radioresistant primary lesions, disease confined to 1-2 vertebral levels, and/or prior overlapping radiotherapy. The GTV is the postoperative residual tumor, and the CTV is the postoperative bed defined as the entire extent of preoperative tumor and anatomical compartment plus residual disease. Hardware and scar do not need to be included in CTV. While predominant agreement was reached about treatment planning and definition of organs at risk, future investigation will be critical in better understanding areas of controversy, including whether circumferential treatment of the epidural space is necessary, management of paraspinal extension, and the optimal dose fractionation schedules.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin J Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Simon S Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - Scott G Soltys
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford
| | - Yoshiya Yamada
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
| | - Igor J Barani
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Paul D Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center
| | - Eric L Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Norris Cancer Center and Keck School of Medicine at University of Southern California
| | - Peter C Gerszten
- Department of Neurological Surgery and Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Samuel T Chao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neurooncology Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Robert J Amdur
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida
| | - Antonio A F De Salles
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Brain Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | | | - Bin S Teh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Cancer Center and Research Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, Texas
| | - Jason Sheehan
- Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville
| | - Charles R Kersh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Riverside Radiation Oncology Specialists, Newport News, Virginia
| | - Michael G Fehlings
- Division of Neurosurgery and Spine Program, Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto
| | - Moon-Jun Sohn
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Radiosurgery Center, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, College of Medicine, Goyang; and
| | - Ung-Kyu Chang
- Department of Neurosurgery, Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Samuel Ryu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stony Brook Cancer Center, Stony Brook, New York
| | - Iris C Gibbs
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University, Stanford
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Jin L, Price RA, Wang L, Meyer J, Fan JJ, Ma CMC. Dosimetric and delivery efficiency investigation for treating hepatic lesions with a MLC-equipped robotic radiosurgery-radiotherapy combined system. Med Phys 2016; 43:727-33. [PMID: 26843236 DOI: 10.1118/1.4939259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The CyberKnife M6 (CK-M6) Series introduced a multileaf collimator (MLC) for extending its capability from stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic radiotherapy (SBRT) to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. This work is to investigate the dosimetric quality of plans that are generated using MLC-shaped beams on the CK-M6, as well as their delivery time, via comparisons with the intensity modulated radiotherapy plans that were clinically used on a Varian Linac for treating hepatic lesions. METHODS Nine patient cases were selected and divided into three groups with three patients in each group: (1) the group-one patients were treated conventionally (25 fractions); (2) the group-two patients were treated with SBRT-like hypofractionation (5 fractions); and (3) the group-three patients were treated similar to group-one patients, but with two planning target volumes (PTVs) and two different prescription dose levels correspondingly. The clinically used plans were generated on the eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) and delivered on a Varian Linac (E-V plans). The multiplan (MP) TPS was used to replan these clinical cases with the MLC as the beam device for the CK-M6 (C-M plans). After plans were normalized to the same PTV dose coverage, comparisons between the C-M and E-V plans were performed based on D(99%) (percentage of prescription dose received by 99% of the PTV), D(0.1cm(3)) (the percentage of prescription dose to 0.1 cm(3) of the PTV), and doses received by critical structures. Then, the delivery times for the C-M plans will be obtained, which are the MP TPS generated estimations assuming having an imaging interval of 60 s. RESULTS The difference in D(99%) between C-M and E-V plans is +0.6% on average (+ or - indicating a higher or lower dose from C-M plans than from E-V plans) with a range from -4.1% to +3.8%, and the difference in D(0.1cm(3)) was -1.0% on average with a range from -5.1% to +2.9%. The PTV conformity index (CI) for the C-M plans ranges from 1.07 to 1.29 with a mean of 1.19, slightly inferior to the E-V plans, in which the CI ranges from 1.00 to 1.15 with a mean of 1.07. Accounting for all nine patients in three groups, 45% of the critical structures received a lower mean dose for the C-M plans as compared with the E-V plans, and similarly, 48% received a lower maximum dose. Furthermore, the average difference of the mean critical structure dose between the C-M and E-V plans over all critical structures for all patients showed only +2.10% relative to the prescription dose and the similar comparison finds the average difference of the maximum critical structure dose of only +1.24%. The estimated delivery times for the C-M plans on the CK-M6 range from 18 to 24 minutes while they are from 7 to 13.7 min for the E-V plans on the Varian Linac. CONCLUSIONS For treating hepatic lesions, for the C-M plans that are comparable to E-V plans in quality, the times needed to deliver these C-M plans on the CK-M6 are longer than the delivery time for the E-V plans on the Varian Linac, but may be clinically acceptable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lihui Jin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111
| | - Robert A Price
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111
| | - Lu Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111
| | - Joshua Meyer
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111
| | - James Jiajin Fan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111
| | - Chang Ming Charlie Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, 333 Cottman Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19111
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Pasquier D, Martinage G, Mirabel X, Lacornerie T, Makhloufi S, Faivre JC, Thureau S, Lartigau É. Radiothérapie stéréotaxique des métastases osseuses vertébrales. Cancer Radiother 2016; 20:500-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.canrad.2016.07.073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2016] [Accepted: 07/13/2016] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
41
|
Hashmi A, Guckenberger M, Kersh R, Gerszten PC, Mantel F, Grills IS, Flickinger JC, Shin JH, Fahim DK, Winey B, Oh K, John Cho BC, Létourneau D, Sheehan J, Sahgal A. Re-irradiation stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: a multi-institutional outcome analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 25:646-653. [PMID: 27341054 DOI: 10.3171/2016.4.spine151523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study is a multi-institutional pooled analysis specific to imaging-based local control of spinal metastases in patients previously treated with conventional external beam radiation therapy (cEBRT) and then treated with re-irradiation stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to the spine as salvage therapy, the largest such study to date. METHODS The authors reviewed cases involving 215 patients with 247 spinal target volumes treated at 7 institutions. Overall survival was calculated on a patient basis, while local control was calculated based on the spinal target volume treated, both using the Kaplan-Meier method. Local control was defined as imaging-based progression within the SBRT target volume. Equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2) was calculated for the cEBRT and SBRT course using an α/β of 10 for tumor and 2 for both spinal cord and cauda equina. RESULTS The median total dose/number of fractions of the initial cEBRT was 30 Gy/10. The median SBRT total dose and number of fractions were 18 Gy and 1, respectively. Sixty percent of spinal target volumes were treated with single-fraction SBRT (median, 16.6 Gy and EQD2/10 = 36.8 Gy), and 40% with multiple-fraction SBRT (median 24 Gy in 3 fractions, EQD2/10 = 36 Gy). The median time interval from cEBRT to re-irradiation SBRT was 13.5 months, and the median duration of patient follow-up was 8.1 months. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 6- and 12-month overall survival rates were 64% and 48%, respectively; 13% of patients suffered a local failure, and the 6- and 12-month local control rates were 93% and 83%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) < 70 as a significant prognostic factor for worse overall survival, and single-fraction SBRT as a significant predictive factor for better local control. There were no cases of radiation myelopathy, and the vertebral compression fracture rate was 4.5%. CONCLUSIONS Re-irradiation spine SBRT is effective in yielding imaging-based local control with a clinically acceptable safety profile. A randomized trial would be required to determine the optimal fractionation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmed Hashmi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, and
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Wuerzburg, Germany;,Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Ron Kersh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Riverside Medical Center, Newport News, Virginia
| | | | - Frederick Mantel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Wuerzburg, Germany
| | | | - John C Flickinger
- Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Daniel K Fahim
- Neurosurgery, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan
| | - Brian Winey
- Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kevin Oh
- Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - B C John Cho
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Daniel Létourneau
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jason Sheehan
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia; and
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, and
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Jawad MS, Fahim DK, Gerszten PC, Flickinger JC, Sahgal A, Grills IS, Sheehan J, Kersh R, Shin J, Oh K, Mantel F, Guckenberger M. Vertebral compression fractures after stereotactic body radiation therapy: a large, multi-institutional, multinational evaluation. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 24:928-36. [DOI: 10.3171/2015.10.spine141261] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to identify factors contributing to an increased risk for vertebral compression fracture (VCF) following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal tumors.
METHODS
A total of 594 tumors were treated with spinal SBRT as primary treatment or re-irradiation at 8 different institutions as part of a multi-institutional research consortium. Patients underwent LINAC-based, image-guided SBRT to a median dose of 20 Gy (range 8–40 Gy) in a median of 1 fraction (range 1–5 fractions). Median patient age was 62 years. Seventy-one percent of tumors were osteolytic, and a preexisting vertebral compression fracture (VCF) was present in 24% of cases. Toxicity was assessed following treatment. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using a logistic regression method to determine parameters predictive for post-SBRT VCF.
RESULTS
At a median follow-up of 10.1 months (range 0.03–57 months), 80% of patients had local tumor control. At the time of last imaging follow-up, at a median of 8.8 months after SBRT, 3% had a new VCF, and 2.7% had a progressive VCF. For development of any (new or progressive) VCF following SBRT, the following factors were predictive for VCF on univariate analysis: short interval from primary diagnosis to SBRT (less than 36.8 days), solitary metastasis, no additional bone metastases, no prior chemotherapy, preexisting VCF, no MRI used for target delineation, tumor volume of 37.3 cm3 or larger, equivalent 2-Gy-dose (EQD2) tumor of 41.8 Gy or more, and EQD2 spinal cord Dmax of 46.1 Gy or more. Preexisting VCF, solitary metastasis, and prescription dose of 38.4 Gy or more were predictive on multivariate analysis. The following factors were predictive of a new VCF on univariate analysis: solitary metastasis, no additional bone metastases, and no MRI used for target delineation. Presence of a solitary metastasis and lack of MRI for target delineation remained significant on multivariate analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
A VCF following SBRT is more likely to occur following treatment for a solitary spinal metastasis, reflecting a more aggressive treatment approach in patients with adequately controlled systemic disease. Higher prescription dose and a preexisting VCF also put patients at increased risk for post-SBRT VCF. In these patients, pre-SBRT cement augmentation could be considered to decrease the risk of subsequent VCF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Daniel K. Fahim
- 2Neurological Surgery, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, Michigan;
| | - Peter C. Gerszten
- Departments of 3Neurological Surgery and
- 4Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - John C. Flickinger
- Departments of 3Neurological Surgery and
- 4Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- 5Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | | | - Jason Sheehan
- 6Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville
| | - Ronald Kersh
- 7Department of Radiation Oncology, Riverside Medical Center, Newport News, Virginia;
| | | | - Kevin Oh
- 9Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Frederick Mantel
- 10Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Germany; and
| | - Matthias Guckenberger
- 10Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Germany; and
- 11Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Blanck O, Wang L, Baus W, Grimm J, Lacornerie T, Nilsson J, Luchkovskyi S, Cano IP, Shou Z, Ayadi M, Treuer H, Viard R, Siebert FA, Chan MKH, Hildebrandt G, Dunst J, Imhoff D, Wurster S, Wolff R, Romanelli P, Lartigau E, Semrau R, Soltys SG, Schweikard A. Inverse treatment planning for spinal robotic radiosurgery: an international multi-institutional benchmark trial. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2016; 17:313-330. [PMID: 27167291 PMCID: PMC5690905 DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v17i3.6151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2015] [Revised: 01/19/2016] [Accepted: 01/18/2016] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is the accurate, conformal delivery of high‐dose radiation to well‐defined targets while minimizing normal structure doses via steep dose gradients. While inverse treatment planning (ITP) with computerized optimization algorithms are routine, many aspects of the planning process remain user‐dependent. We performed an international, multi‐institutional benchmark trial to study planning variability and to analyze preferable ITP practice for spinal robotic radiosurgery. 10 SRS treatment plans were generated for a complex‐shaped spinal metastasis with 21 Gy in 3 fractions and tight constraints for spinal cord (V14Gy<2 cc, V18Gy<0.1 cc) and target (coverage >95%). The resulting plans were rated on a scale from 1 to 4 (excellent‐poor) in five categories (constraint compliance, optimization goals, low‐dose regions, ITP complexity, and clinical acceptability) by a blinded review panel. Additionally, the plans were mathematically rated based on plan indices (critical structure and target doses, conformity, monitor units, normal tissue complication probability, and treatment time) and compared to the human rankings. The treatment plans and the reviewers' rankings varied substantially among the participating centers. The average mean overall rank was 2.4 (1.2‐4.0) and 8/10 plans were rated excellent in at least one category by at least one reviewer. The mathematical rankings agreed with the mean overall human rankings in 9/10 cases pointing toward the possibility for sole mathematical plan quality comparison. The final rankings revealed that a plan with a well‐balanced trade‐off among all planning objectives was preferred for treatment by most participants, reviewers, and the mathematical ranking system. Furthermore, this plan was generated with simple planning techniques. Our multi‐institutional planning study found wide variability in ITP approaches for spinal robotic radiosurgery. The participants', reviewers', and mathematical match on preferable treatment plans and ITP techniques indicate that agreement on treatment planning and plan quality can be reached for spinal robotic radiosurgery. PACS number(s): 87.55.de
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver Blanck
- University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein; Saphir Radiosurgery Cente.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Yang H, Cai BN, Wang XS, Cong XH, Xu W, Wang JY, Yang J, Xu SP, Ju ZJ, Ma L. Dose Evaluation of Fractionated Schema and Distance From Tumor to Spinal Cord for Spinal SBRT with Simultaneous Integrated Boost: A Preliminary Study. Med Sci Monit 2016; 22:598-607. [PMID: 26902177 PMCID: PMC4767138 DOI: 10.12659/msm.897146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2015] [Accepted: 01/28/2016] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study investigated and quantified the dosimetric impact of the distance from the tumor to the spinal cord and fractionation schemes for patients who received stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and hypofractionated simultaneous integrated boost (HF-SIB). MATERIAL AND METHODS Six modified planning target volumes (PTVs) for 5 patients with spinal metastases were created by artificial uniform extension in the region of PTV adjacent spinal cord with a specified minimum tumor to cord distance (0-5 mm). The prescription dose (biologic equivalent dose, BED) was 70 Gy in different fractionation schemes (1, 3, 5, and 10 fractions). For PTV V100, Dmin, D98, D95, and D1, spinal cord dose, conformity index (CI), V30 were measured and compared. RESULTS PTV-to-cord distance influenced PTV V100, Dmin, D98, and D95, and fractionation schemes influenced Dmin and D98, with a significant difference. Distances of ≥2 mm, ≥1 mm, ≥1 mm, and ≥0 mm from PTV to spinal cord meet dose requirements in 1, 3, 5, and 10 fractionations, respectively. Spinal cord dose, CI, and V30 were not impacted by PTV-to-cord distance and fractionation schemes. CONCLUSIONS Target volume coverage, Dmin, D98, and D95 were directly correlated with distance from the spinal cord for spine SBRT and HF-SIB. Based on our study, ≥2 mm, ≥1 mm, ≥1 mm, and ≥0 mm distance from PTV to spinal cord meets dose requirements in 1, 3, 5 and 10 fractionations, respectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hao Yang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Inner Mongolia Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated People’s Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, P.R. China
| | - Bo-ning Cai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
| | - Xiao-shen Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
| | - Xiao-hu Cong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
| | - Wei Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
| | - Jin-yuan Wang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
| | - Jun Yang
- Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University, Weihui, Henan, P.R. China
| | - Shou-ping Xu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
| | - Zhong-jian Ju
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
| | - Lin Ma
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hainan Branch of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Haitang Bay, Sanya, Hainan, P.R. China
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Braam P, Lambin P, Bussink J. Stereotactic versus conventional radiotherapy for pain reduction and quality of life in spinal metastases: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016; 17:61. [PMID: 26829933 PMCID: PMC4735957 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1178-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2015] [Accepted: 01/15/2016] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Painful spinal metastases have been treated with conventional radiotherapy for decades, but one-third of the patients have insufficient pain relief after treatment and one-fifth need retreatment. Stereotactic radiotherapy is a method to increase the dose in the spinal metastases with a potentially longer lasting palliative effect without increasing the side effects of the treatment and thereby is expected to improve the quality of life significantly. Methods/Design This study is a multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial comparing conventional radiotherapy (1 x 8Gy) with stereotactic radiotherapy (1 x 20Gy) for pain reduction and quality of life in patients with painful spinal metastases. A total of 386 patients will be randomized between the two treatment groups. Besides pain measured by the Dutch Brief Pain Inventory, quality of life and cost-effectiveness also will be measured. The primary outcome is pain reduction at 6 weeks after treatment. Secondary outcomes will be the time to pain response, duration of pain relief, health-related quality of life and toxicity, as well as cost-effectiveness. Discussion This study investigates whether stereotactic radiotherapy with dose escalation for symptomatic spinal metastases can lead to improved pain reduction as compared to conventional radiotherapy without an increase of treatment-related side effects. These results will contribute to the optimization and individualization of the treatment for the patient. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02407795 (March 31, 2015).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pètra Braam
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 32, route 874, PB 9101, Nijmegen, GA, 6525, The Netherlands.
| | - Philippe Lambin
- MAASTRO Clinic, Doctor Tanslaan 12, 6229 ET, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| | - Johan Bussink
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 32, route 874, PB 9101, Nijmegen, GA, 6525, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
De Bari B, Alongi F, Mortellaro G, Mazzola R, Schiappacasse L, Guckenberger M. Spinal metastases: Is stereotactic body radiation therapy supported by evidences? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2016; 98:147-58. [DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2015] [Revised: 11/01/2015] [Accepted: 11/04/2015] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
|
47
|
Redmond KJ, Sahgal A, Foote M, Knisely J, Gerszten PC, Chao ST, Suh JH, Sloan AE, Chang EL, Machtay M, Lo SS. Single versus multiple session stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastasis: the risk-benefit ratio. Future Oncol 2015; 11:2405-15. [PMID: 26369361 DOI: 10.2217/fon.15.160] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Spine stereotactic body radiation therapy represents an important advancement in the management of spinal metastases that allows precise delivery of ablative doses of radiation therapy with excellent local control. Although the technique is being increasingly used in clinical practice, the optimal fractionation schedule remains uncertain. In this perspective paper, we review radiobiologic principles that support the use of multiple- versus single-fraction spine stereotactic body radiation therapy schedules and clinical data supporting the multiple-fraction approach. Specifically, we suggest that there may be a local control benefit of fractionation, while helping to limit the risk of toxicities such as vertebral body fracture, pain flare and radiation myelopathy. We conclude with future directions and the need for future study on this important topic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristin J Redmond
- Department of Radiation Oncology, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Arjun Sahgal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Matthew Foote
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
| | - Jonathan Knisely
- Department of Radiation Medicine, North Shore - Long Island Jewish Health System, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY, USA
| | - Peter C Gerszten
- Department of Neurological Surgery & Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Samuel T Chao
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor & Neuro-oncology Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - John H Suh
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor & Neuro-oncology Center, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Andrew E Sloan
- Departments of Neurological Surgery & Pathology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Eric L Chang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Norris Cancer Center & Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Mitchell Machtay
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Simon S Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Puvanesarajah V, Lo SFL, Aygun N, Liauw JA, Jusué-Torres I, Lina IA, Hadelsberg U, Elder BD, Bydon A, Bettegowda C, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Rigamonti D, Kleinberg LR, Gokaslan ZL, Witham TF, Redmond KJ, Lim M. Prognostic factors associated with pain palliation after spine stereotactic body radiation therapy. J Neurosurg Spine 2015; 23:620-629. [PMID: 26230422 DOI: 10.3171/2015.2.spine14618] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
OBJECT The number of patients with spinal tumors is rapidly increasing; spinal metastases develop in more than 30% of cancer patients during the course of their illness. Such lesions can significantly decrease quality of life, often necessitating treatment. Stereotactic radiosurgery has effectively achieved local control and symptomatic relief for these patients. The authors determined prognostic factors that predicted pain palliation and report overall institutional outcomes after spine stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). METHODS Records of patients who had undergone treatment with SBRT for either primary spinal tumors or spinal metastases from June 2008 through June 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Data were collected at the initial visit just before treatment and at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up visits. Collected clinical data included Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, pain status, presence of neurological deficits, and prior radiation exposure at the level of interest. Radiation treatment plan parameters (dose, fractionation, and target coverage) were recorded. To determine the initial extent of epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC), the authors retrospectively reviewed MR images, assessed spinal instability according to the Bilsky scale, and evaluated lesion progression after treatment. RESULTS The study included 99 patients (mean age 60.4 years). The median survival time was 9.1 months (95% CI 6.9-17.2 months). Significant decreases in the proportion of patients reporting pain were observed at 3 months (p < 0.0001), 6 months (p = 0.0002), and 12 months (p = 0.0019) after treatment. Significant decreases in the number of patients reporting pain were also observed at the last follow-up visit (p = 0.00020) (median follow-up time 6.1 months, range 1.0-56.6 months). Univariate analyses revealed that significant predictors of persistent pain after intervention were initial ESCC grade, stratified by a Bilsky grade of 1c (p = 0.0058); initial American Spinal Injury Association grade of D (p = 0.011); initial Karnofsky Performance Scale score, stratified by a score of 80 (p = 0.002); the presence of multiple treated lesions (p = 0.044); and prior radiation at the site of interest (p < 0.0001). However, when multivariate analyses were performed on all variables with p values less than 0.05, the only predictor of pain at last follow-up visit was a prior history of radiation at the site of interest (p = 0.0038), although initial ESCC grade trended toward significance (p = 0.073). Using pain outcomes at 3 months, at this follow-up time point, pain could be predicted by receipt of radiation above a threshold biologically effective dose of 66.7 Gy. CONCLUSIONS Pain palliation occurs as early as 3 months after treatment; significant differences in pain reporting are also observed at 6 and 12 months. Pain palliation is limited for patients with spinal tumors with epidural extension that deforms the cord and for patients who have previously received radiation to the same site. Further investigation into the optimal dose and fractionation schedule are needed, but improved outcomes were observed in patients who received radiation at a biologically effective dose (with an a/b of 3.0) of 66.7 Gy or higher.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Uri Hadelsberg
- Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lawrence R Kleinberg
- Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | | | - Kristin J Redmond
- Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Zairi F, Vieillard MH, Assaker R. Spine metastases: are minimally invasive surgical techniques living up to the hype? CNS Oncol 2015; 4:257-64. [PMID: 26095003 DOI: 10.2217/cns.15.15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Surgery is still considered the mainstay treatment of spine metastases. However, conventional surgery is associated with a high complication rate that may delay the initiation of adjuvant therapies and make some patients not eligible. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed to overcome these drawbacks while providing the same benefits than standard open surgery. In recent years, there has been a flourishing enthusiasm demonstrating the advantages of these various techniques. Although, it is clear that these techniques have greatly improved the treatment of spine metastases, each has its own limitations. In this report, we list the main minimally invasive surgical techniques emphasizing their advantages and drawbacks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fahed Zairi
- Department of Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France
| | | | - Richard Assaker
- Department of Neurosurgery, Lille University Hospital, Lille, France
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Tang C, Hess K, Bishop AJ, Pan HY, Christensen EN, Yang JN, Tannir N, Amini B, Tatsui C, Rhines L, Brown P, Ghia A. Creation of a Prognostic Index for Spine Metastasis to Stratify Survival in Patients Treated With Spinal Stereotactic Radiosurgery: Secondary Analysis of Mature Prospective Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 93:118-25. [PMID: 26130231 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.04.050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2014] [Revised: 04/25/2015] [Accepted: 04/28/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE There exists uncertainty in the prognosis of patients following spinal metastasis treatment. We sought to create a scoring system that stratifies patients based on overall survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients enrolled in 2 prospective trials investigating stereotactic spine radiation surgery (SSRS) for spinal metastasis with ≥ 3-year follow-up were analyzed. A multivariate Cox regression model was used to create a survival model. Pretreatment variables included were race, sex, age, performance status, tumor histology, extent of vertebrae involvement, previous therapy at the SSRS site, disease burden, and timing of diagnosis and metastasis. Four survival groups were generated based on the model-derived survival score. RESULTS Median follow-up in the 206 patients included in this analysis was 70 months (range: 37-133 months). Seven variables were selected: female sex (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.7, P=.02), Karnofsky performance score (HR = 0.8 per 10-point increase above 60, P = .007), previous surgery at the SSRS site (HR = 0.7, P=.02), previous radiation at the SSRS site (HR = 1.8, P=.001), the SSRS site as the only site of metastatic disease (HR = 0.5, P=.01), number of organ systems involved outside of bone (HR = 1.4 per involved system, P<.001), and >5 year interval from initial diagnosis to detection of spine metastasis (HR = 0.5, P < .001). The median survival among all patients was 25.5 months and was significantly different among survival groups (in group 1 [excellent prognosis], median survival was not reached; group 2 reached 32.4 months; group 3 reached 22.2 months; and group 4 [poor prognosis] reached 9.1 months; P < .001). Pretreatment symptom burden was significantly higher in the patient group with poor survival than in the group with excellent survival (all metrics, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS We developed the prognostic index for spinal metastases (PRISM) model, a new model that identified patient subgroups with poor and excellent prognoses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chad Tang
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Kenneth Hess
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Andrew J Bishop
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Hubert Y Pan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eva N Christensen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - James N Yang
- Department of Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Nizar Tannir
- Department of Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Behrang Amini
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Claudio Tatsui
- Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Laurence Rhines
- Department of Neurosurgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Paul Brown
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Amol Ghia
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|