1
|
Guninski RS, Cuccia F, Alongi F, Andratschke N, Belka C, Bellut D, Dahele M, Josipovic M, Kroese TE, Mancosu P, Minniti G, Niyazi M, Ricardi U, Munck Af Rosenschold P, Sahgal A, Tsang Y, Verbakel WFAR, Guckenberger M. Efficacy and safety of SBRT for spine metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis for preparation of an ESTRO practice guideline. Radiother Oncol 2024; 190:109969. [PMID: 37922993 DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Advances in characterizing cancer biology and the growing availability of novel targeted agents and immune therapeutics have significantly changed the prognosis of many patients with metastatic disease. Palliative radiotherapy needs to adapt to these developments. In this study, we summarize the available evidence for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in the treatment of spinal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA methodology, including publications from January 2005 to September 2021, with the exception of the randomized phase III trial RTOG-0631 which was added in April 2023. Re-irradiation was excluded. For meta-analysis, a random-effects model was used to pool the data. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2-test, assuming substantial and considerable as I2 > 50 % and I2 > 75 %, respectively. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS A total of 69 studies assessing the outcomes of 7236 metastases in 5736 patients were analyzed. SBRT for spine metastases showed high efficacy, with a pooled overall pain response rate of 83 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 68 %-94 %), pooled complete pain response of 36 % (95 % CI: 20 %-53 %), and 1-year local control rate of 94 % (95 % CI: 86 %-99 %), although with high levels of heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 93 %, I2 = 86 %, and 86 %, respectively). Furthermore, SBRT was safe, with a pooled vertebral fracture rate of 9 % (95 % CI: 4 %-16 %), pooled radiation induced myelopathy rate of 0 % (95 % CI 0-2 %), and pooled pain flare rate of 6 % (95 % CI: 3 %-17 %), although with mixed levels of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 92 %, I2 = 0 %, and 95 %, respectively). Only 1.7 % of vertebral fractures required surgical stabilization. CONCLUSION Spine SBRT is characterized by a favorable efficacy and safety profile, providing durable results for pain control and disease control, which is particularly relevant for oligometastatic patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R S Guninski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - F Cuccia
- ARNAS Civico Hospital, Radiation Oncology Unit, Palermo, Italy
| | - F Alongi
- Advanced Radiation Department, IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Negrar-Verona, Italy. University of Brescia, Italy
| | - N Andratschke
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - C Belka
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), partner site Munich, Munich, Germany. Bavarian Cancer Research Center (BZKF), Munich, Germany
| | - D Bellut
- University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Department of Neurosurgery. Zurich, Switzerland
| | - M Dahele
- Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Center Amsterdam, de Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Josipovic
- Department of Oncology, Centre for Cancer and Organ Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 3B, 2200 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - T E Kroese
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - P Mancosu
- IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Medical Physics Unit, Radiation Oncology department, via Manzoni 56, I-20089 Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - G Minniti
- Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Anatomical PathologySapienza University of Rome, Rome; IRCCS Neuromed, Pozzilli, IS, Italy
| | - M Niyazi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - U Ricardi
- University of Turin, Department of Oncology, Turin, Italy
| | - P Munck Af Rosenschold
- Radiation Physics, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden; Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - A Sahgal
- Odette Cancer Center of the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Toronto, Canada
| | - Y Tsang
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Radiation Medicine Program, Toronto, Canada
| | - W F A R Verbakel
- Amsterdam University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - M Guckenberger
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sahgal A, Kellett S, Nguyen T, Maralani P, Greenspoon J, Linden K, Pearce A, Siddiqi F, Ruschin M. A Cancer Care Ontario Consensus-Based Organizational Guideline for the Planning and Delivery of Spine Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Treatment in Ontario. Pract Radiat Oncol 2023; 13:499-509. [PMID: 37597616 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2023.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/01/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2023]
Abstract
The proposed recommendations are primarily based on the consensus opinion and in-field experience of the Ontario Health/Cancer Care Ontario stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for Spine Metastasis Guideline Development Group and published literature when available. Primary consideration was given to the perceived benefits for patients and the small likelihood of harm arising from recommendation implementation. Apart from the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) follow-up strategy, all evidence was considered indirect and was provided by the working group in conjunction with their collective expertise in the field of SBRT. The application of an SBRT program requires a multidisciplinary team consisting of a radiation oncologist, spine surgeon, neuroradiologist, medical physicist, medical dosimetrist, and radiation therapist. In Canada, linear accelerators are the most used treatment delivery units and should follow technology-specific quality assurance procedures. Immobilization technique is location dependant. Treatment planning MRI sequences should be acquired no more than 14 days from the date of treatment. In the case of epidural disease, simulation MRI should be completed no more than 7 days from the date of treatment. After treatment, patients should be followed with routine clinical visits every 3 months for the first year, every 3 to 6 months during years 2 and 3, and every 4 to 6 months thereafter. The recommendations enclosed provide a framework for the minimum requirements for a cancer center in Ontario, Canada to offer SBRT for spine metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arjun Sahgal
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
| | - Sarah Kellett
- Program in Evidence-Based Care, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Fawaz Siddiqi
- London Health Sciences Center, London, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mark Ruschin
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|