Pain relief and quality of life following radiotherapy for bone metastases: a randomised trial of two fractionation schedules

Society of Urologic Oncology position statement: Redefining the management of hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma

Because patients with hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma are a very diverse group, management of these patients represents a unique challenge. Despite much research, to the authors' knowledge few studies published to date have provided definitive treatment answers. The Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) convened a multidisciplinary panel of urologists, oncologists, and radiation oncologists to develop a treatment algorithm for patients with hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma. The resulting treatment outline was based on a review of the literature review and on the expert opinions of the panelists. The current article provided a logical progression of treatment choices that included hormonal manipulations, chemotherapeutic options, and adjunctive therapies. Future clinical trials and therapies were also discussed by the authors. Management strategies should be targeted toward the individual patient. Although significant progress has been made in understanding and treating hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma, earlier interventions would be ideal and better therapeutic approaches to prolong survival are necessary.

Palliation of metastatic bone pain: single fraction versus multifraction radiotherapy - a systematic review of the randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Recent randomised studies reported that single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving pain due to bone metastasis. However, there are concerns about the higher re-treatment rates and the efficacy of preventing future complications such as pathological fracture and spinal cord compression by single fraction radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of single fraction radiotherapy versus multifraction radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain relief and prevention of bone complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancerlit, reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings. Relevant data was extracted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing single fraction radiotherapy with multifraction radiotherapy on metastatic bone pain

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The analyses were performed using intention-to-treat principle. The results were pooled using meta-analysis to estimate the effect of treatment on pain response, re-treatment rate, pathological fracture rate and spinal cord compression rate.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials that involved 3435 patients were identified. Of 3435 patients, 52 patients were randomised more than once for different painful bone metastasis sites. Altogether, 3487 painful sites were randomised. The trials included patients with painful bone metastases of any primary sites, but were mainly prostate, breast and lung. The overall pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy and multifraction radiotherapy were 60% (1059/1779) and 59% (1038/1769) respectively, giving an odds ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 - 1.19) indicating no difference between the two radiotherapy schedules. There was also no difference in complete pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy (34% [497/1441]) and multifraction radiotherapy (32% [463/1435]) with an odds ratio of 1.11 (95%CI 0.94-1.30). Patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy had a higher re-treatment rate with 21.5% (267/1240) requiring re-treatment compared to 7.4% (91/1236) of patients in the multifraction radiotherapy arm (odds ratio 3.44 [95%CI 2.67-4.43]). The pathological fracture rate was also higher in single fraction radiotherapy arm patients. Three percent (37/1240) of patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy developed pathological fracture compared to 1.6% (20/1236) for those treated by multifraction radiotherapy (odds ratio 1.82 [95%CI 1.06-3.11]). The spinal cord compression rates were similar for both arms (odds ratio 1.41 [95%CI 0.72-2.75]). Repeated analyses excluding dropout patients gave similar results.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving metastatic bone pain. However, the re-treatment rate and pathological fracture rates were higher after single fraction radiotherapy. Studies with quality of life and health economic end points are warranted to find out the optimal treatment option.

General principles of external beam radiation therapy for skeletal metastases

Radiation therapy plays a major role in the treatment of patients with bone metastases. The primary goals of treatment include pain relief and relief of neurologic symptoms, if present. Approximately 70% of patients will achieve pain relief with palliative external beam radiotherapy. Improvement in the severity of pain may occur within as few as 48 to 72 hours of initiation of therapy, but in some patients significant relief of pain may not occur for 4 weeks after completion of therapy. Treatment schemes ranging from 800 cGy in a single treatment to 3000 cGy in 10 treatments have not been shown to result in major differences in outcome. Treatment decisions must be individualized based on factors such as the patient's performance status, life expectancy, location of the lesion, and size of area to be treated. External beam radiotherapy is recommended after surgical treatment of pathologic fractures or impending fractures to decrease the need for a second surgical procedure and improve the patient's functional outcome. External beam radiotherapy continues to be an important component of the palliative treatment of bone metastases. Its integration with newer therapeutic modalities such as vertebroplasty and radiofrequency ablation currently is being studied.

Prospective quality of life research in bony metastatic disease

Metastatic bone disease is a major factor contributing to the deterioration in quality of life in patients with cancer. The decision to surgically stabilize an impending or existing pathologic fracture, or to excise a metastatic deposit is difficult because of the paucity of conclusive data regarding the efficacy of surgery in achieving pain relief, improved function, and quality of life. The psychometric properties of quality of life outcomes instruments and the differences between pain, function, and quality of life are explored in an attempt to define surgical goals. The results of different quality of life instruments in existing studies of internal fixation, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and bisphophonate treatment suggest that although the majority of patients derive benefit from their treatment, the success of such treatment is heavily dependent the quality of life instrument. Existing instruments are deficient and obstacles to the design and implementation of quality of life assessment in patients with skeletal metastasis are reviewed. Recommendations for improving our ability to assess the risk to benefit ratio of surgery include moving away from physician reported results, devising more appropriate quality of life measurement techniques, analyzing the relationship between pain relief, physical function and quality of life, and focusing attention on prospectively evaluating optimal treatments for patients as they near the end of life.

Utility-adjusted analysis of the cost of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases

Palliative radiotherapy is effective in the treatment of bone metastases but is under-utilized, possibly because it is perceived to be expensive. We performed a cost-utility analysis of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases, evaluating both the actual cost of radiotherapy as well as its impact on quality of life by adjusting for the variation in response to treatment. Hospital records between July 1991 and July 1996 were reviewed to ascertain the number of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases, the average number of fields of radiation delivered to each patient and the average duration of survival. Partial and complete response rates to palliative radiotherapy were obtained from a review of all published randomized controlled trials of radiation treatment of bone metastases. Utility values were assigned to the response rates, and an overall adjusted response rate to radiotherapy was derived. The cost of delivering a field of radiation was calculated. The total cost was divided by the total number of response months to give a utility-adjusted cost per month of palliative radiotherapy. The utility-adjusted cost per month of palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases was found to be AUS dollars 100 per month or AUS dollars 1200 per utility-adjusted life-year. This study demonstrates that, contrary to popular perception, palliative radiotherapy is a cost-effective treatment modality for bone metastases.

Patient preference for radiotherapy fractionation schedule in the palliation of painful bone metastases

PURPOSE

The radiotherapeutic management of painful bone metastases is controversial, with several institutional and national guidelines advocating use of single-fraction radiotherapy. We aimed to determine patient choice of fractionation schedule after involvement in the decision-making process by use of a decision board.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Advantages and disadvantages of two fractionation schedules (24 Gy in six fractions v 8 Gy in one fraction) used in the randomized Dutch Bone Metastasis Study were discussed with patients using a decision board. Patients were asked to choose a fractionation schedule, to give reasons for their choice, and to indicate level of satisfaction with being involved in decision making.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were entered. Eighty-five percent (95% confidence interval, 74% to 93%) chose 24 Gy in six fractions over 8 Gy in one fraction (P <.0005). Variables including age, sex, performance status, tumor type, pain score, and paying class were not significantly related to patient choice. Multiple fractionation was chosen for lower re-treatment rates (92%) and fewer fractures (32%). Single-fraction treatment was chosen for cost (11%) and convenience (89%). Eighty-four percent of patients expressed positive opinions about being involved in the decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

Decision board instruments are feasible and acceptable in an Asian population. The vast majority of patients preferred 24 Gy fractionated radiotherapy compared with a single fraction of 8 Gy. These results indicate the need for further research in this important area and serve to remind both clinicians and national or institutional policy makers of the importance of individual patient preference in treatment decision making.

International consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases

PURPOSE

To reach a consensus on a set of optimal endpoint measurements for future external beam radiotherapy trials in bone metastases.

METHODS

An International Bone Metastases Consensus Working Party invited principal investigators and individuals with a recognized interest in bone metastases to participate in the two surveys and a panel meeting on their preference of choice of optimal endpoints.

RESULTS

Consensus has been reached on the following: (a) eligibility criteria for future trials; (b) pain and analgesic assessments; (c) radiation techniques; (d) follow-up and timing of assessments; (e) parameters at follow-up; (f) endpoints; (g) re-irradiation; and (h) statistical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available literature and the clinical experience of the working party members, an acceptable set of endpoints has been agreed upon for future clinical trials to promote consistency in reporting. It is intended that the consensus will be re-examined every 5 years. Areas of further research were identified.

Meta-analysis of dose-fractionation radiotherapy trials for the palliation of painful bone metastases

PURPOSE

To compare pain relief among various dose-fractionation schedules of localized radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of painful bone metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A systematic search for randomized trials of localized RT on bone metastases using different dose fractionations was performed using Medline (1966 to February 2001) and other sources. The primary outcomes of interest were complete and overall pain relief. The studies were divided into three groups: comparisons of doses given as a single fraction, single vs. multiple fractions, and comparisons of doses given as multiple fractions. The complete and overall pain responses for studies comparing single vs. multiple fractions were pooled. Exploratory analyses of the dose-response relationship, using the biologic effective dose (alpha/beta = 10), were performed using results from all three groups of trials.

RESULTS

Two trials comparing single vs. single, eight trials comparing single vs. multiple, and six trials comparing multiple vs. multiple fractions were included. The complete and overall response rates from studies comparing single-fraction RT (median 8 Gy, range 8-10 Gy) against multifraction RT (median 20 Gy in 5 fractions, range 20 Gy in 5 fractions to 30 Gy in 10 fractions) were homogeneous and allowed pooling of data. Of 3260 randomized patients in seven studies, 539 (33.4%) of 1613 and 523 (32.3%) of 1618 patients achieved a complete response after single and multifraction RT, respectively, giving a risk ratio of 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.94-1.14; p = 0.5). The overall response rate was in favor of single-fraction RT (1011 [62.1%] of 1629) compared with multifraction (958 [58.7%] of 1631; risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.11, p = 0.04), reaching statistical significance. However, when the analysis was restricted to evaluated patients alone, the overall response rates were similar for single fraction and multifraction RT, at 1011 (72.7%) of 1391 and 958 (72.5%) of 1321, respectively (risk ratio 1.00; p = 0.9). Exploratory analyses by biologic effective dose did not reveal any dose-response relationship among the fractionation schedules used (single 8 Gy to 40 Gy in 15 fractions). Of the other results and observations reported in the trials, only the re-irradiation rates were consistently different between the treatment arms (more frequent re-irradiation in lower dose arms among trials reporting re-irradiation rates).

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of reported randomized trials shows no significant difference in complete and overall pain relief between single and multifraction palliative RT for bone metastases. No dose-response relationship could be detected by including data from the multifraction vs. multifraction trials. Additional data are needed to evaluate the role of re-irradiation and the impact of RT on other treatment end points such as quality of life.

Application of biological effective dose (BED) to estimate the duration of symptomatic relief and repopulation dose equivalent in palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To investigate the potential for mathematic modeling in the assessment of symptom relief in palliative radiotherapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy.

METHODS

The linear quadratic model of radiation effect with the overall treatment time and the daily dose equivalent of repopulation is modified to include the regrowth time after completion of therapy.

RESULTS

The predicted times to restore the original tumor volumes after treatment are dependent on the biological effective dose (BED) delivered and the repopulation parameter (K); it is also possible to estimate K values from analysis of palliative treatment response durations. Hypofractionated radiotherapy given at a low total dose may produce long symptom relief in slow-growing tumors because of their low alpha/beta ratios (which confer high fraction sensitivity) and their slow regrowth rates. Cancers that have high alpha/beta ratios (which confer low fraction sensitivity), and that are expected to repopulate rapidly during therapy, are predicted to have short durations of symptom control. The BED concept can be used to estimate the equivalent dose of radiotherapy that will achieve the same duration of symptom relief as palliative chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Relatively simple radiobiologic modeling can be used to guide decision-making regarding the choice of the most appropriate palliative schedules and has important implications in the design of radiotherapy or chemotherapy clinical trials. The methods described provide a rationalization for treatment selection in a wide variety of tumors.

Single- versus multiple-fraction radiotherapy in patients with painful bone metastases: cost-utility analysis based on a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is an effective palliative treatment for cancer patients with painful bone metastases. Although single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy are thought to provide equal palliation, which treatment schedule provides better value for the money is unknown. We compared quality-adjusted life expectancy (the overall valuation of the health of the patients) and societal costs for patients receiving either single- or multiple-fraction radiotherapy.

METHODS

A societal cost-utility analysis was performed on a Dutch randomized, controlled trial of 1157 patients with painful bone metastases that compared pain responses and quality of life from a single-fraction treatment schedule of 8 Gy with a treatment schedule of six fractions of 4 Gy each. The societal values of life expectancies were assessed with the EuroQol classification system (EQ-5D) questionnaire. A subset of 166 patients also answered additional questionnaires to estimate nonradiotherapy and nonmedical costs. Statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Comparing the single- and multiple-fraction radiotherapy schedules, no differences were found in life expectancy (43.0 versus 40.4 weeks, P =.20) or quality-adjusted life expectancy (17.7 versus 16.0 weeks, P =.21). The estimated cost of radiotherapy, including retreatments and nonmedical costs, was statistically significantly lower for the single-fraction schedule than for the multiple-fraction schedule ($2438 versus $3311, difference = $873, 95% confidence interval [CI] on the difference = $449 to $1297; P<.001). The estimated difference in total societal costs was larger, also in favor of the single-fraction schedule, but it was not statistically significant ($4700 versus $6453, difference = $1753, 95% CI on the difference = -$99 to $3604; P =.06). For willingness-to-pay between $5000 and $40 000 per quality-adjusted life year, the single-fraction schedule was statistically significantly more cost-effective than the multiple-fraction schedule (P< or =.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with multiple-fraction radiotherapy, single-fraction radiotherapy provides equal palliation and quality of life and has lower medical and societal costs, at least in The Netherlands. Therefore, single-fraction radiotherapy should be considered as the palliative treatment of choice for cancer patients with painful bone metastases.

Caring for children with advanced cancer integrating palliative care

The care of children with advanced cancer is multifaceted. Treatment should focus on continued efforts to control the underlying illness whenever possible. At the same time, children and their families should have access to interdisciplinary care aimed at promoting optimal physical, psychological and spiritual wellbeing. Open and compassionate communication can best facilitate meeting the goals of these children and families. However, there remain significant barriers to achieving optimal care related to lack of formal education, reimbursement issues and the emotional impact of caring for a dying child. Future research efforts should focus on ways to enhance communication, symptom management and quality of life for children with advanced cancer and their families. As efforts to break down barriers and create the evidence base continue, we conclude as follows: this is a most rewarding part of the practice of medicine. A kind word and caring attitude are remembered for decades.

Palliative radiation for vertebral metastases: the effect of variation in prescription parameters on the dose received at depth

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of prescription parameters on the dose received by the spine during palliative radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a survey, members of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists were asked to define their prescription parameters for vertebral metastases. The depth of the spinal canal and vertebral body at 8 spinal levels was measured in 20 magnetic resonance imaging studies (MRIs). Survey results were applied to the measurements to assess the dose received at depth. The depth of spinal structures assessed at simulation and by diagnostic imaging was compared.

RESULTS

Prescriptions were most commonly to D(max) 3 cm or 5 cm using 60Co-6MV photons delivering 8-30 Gy in 1-10 fractions. Mean depths from MRI were: posterior spinal canal, 5.5 cm; anterior spinal canal, 6.9 cm; and anterior vertebral body, 9.6 cm. Application of the prescription parameters from the survey to these measurements showed a wide range in the dose at depth with variation in technique. Depths measured at simulation correlated well with diagnostic imaging.

CONCLUSION

The spinal canal and vertebral body lie >5 cm beneath the skin, and the dose received varies by up to 50% with changes in prescription depth. We suggest a suitable prescription point for vertebral metastases and a method for determining this at simulation.

Primary treatment endpoint following palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: need for a consensus definition?

OBJECTIVES

To compare and contrast the definitions of primary treatment endpoints in randomized studies of dose-fractionation schedules for treating bone metastases and to identify basic characteristics of treatment endpoint that may require consensus among investigators.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various dose-fractionation schedules for painful bone metastases, published between 1980 and 1999, and on-going trials whose protocols were available, were systematically reviewed based on the following features of the primary treatment endpoint: (i) degree of pain relief; (ii) timing of the pain response assessment; (iii) effect of co-interventions on pain relief; (iv) the reduction of analgesic as a treatment response; and (v) quantification of response duration.

RESULTS

Ten published RCTs (each sampled over 100 patients), plus two current trial protocols were reviewed. Five of the 12 studies defined any reduction in pain score as the primary endpoint. Three trials defined response at pre-determined time points, whereas eight studies attributed pain improvement at any time during follow-up to the effect of radiotherapy. No trial incorporated effect of systemic treatments on response. Only two trials incorporated analgesic scores into the primary endpoint criteria, although several trials reported results of combined pain and analgesic relief. Eight trials reported duration of response. Three provided some estimation of duration with respect to survival: two of them employing actuarial time to pain progression, and one calculated the ratio of pain response to median survival duration (percent net relief). Quality of life was measured in four of 12 studies, as secondary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Although available data suggest similarity in pain relief among various dose-fractionation schedules, accurate and consistent description of the degree of benefit from radiotherapy is lacking. While pain relief is a consistent primary treatment goal among randomized trials, a consensus on several important features of treatment endpoint is needed in order to establish common grounds for future trials in palliative radiotherapy.

Second single 4 Gy reirradiation for painful bone metastasis

To investigate the efficacy of the second 4 Gy given as a single fraction radiotherapy (RT) for patients with painful bone metastasis who had already twice received single fraction RT (4, 6, or 8 Gy plus 4 Gy), a total of 25 patients were assessed before and after re-irradiation. The patients included 19 responders and 6 nonresponders to two prior single fraction RT, the latter one being 4 Gy. The overall response rate was 80%, with both complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) being 40%. No difference was found between the previous responders and previous nonresponders regarding both CR (P = 0.70) and overall response rate (P = 0.35). Response duration was longer in the previous responders (P = 0.0041), but the time to pain relief was similar between the two treatment groups. No acute or late high-grade toxicity was observed during this study and no pathological fractures or spinal cord compressions were seen. In this small and highly selected series of patients, the third single fraction RT of 4 Gy was effective and not toxic in the treatment of painful bone metastasis.

Single fraction external beam radiation therapy in the treatment of localized metastatic bone pain. A review

Bone metastases are a frequent complication of cancer, and frequently cause pain. Indications for radiotherapy for bone metastases include pain, risk for pathologic fracture, and neurological complications arising from spinal cord compression, nerve root pain or cranial nerve involvement. There are numerous fractionation patterns of external beam radiation therapy for painful bone metastasis, both fractionated schedules and single fraction regimens. All prospective randomized trials that evaluated differences in the outcomes associated with various fractionated regimens versus single fraction regimens unequivocally showed that single fraction regimens (mostly 8 Gy) are at least equal with various fractionated regimens. The single fraction regimens have an additional advantage of being more convenient to both patients and hospitals. However, there are still numerous questions that are left unanswered in these trials, such as the "optimal" single fraction that should be used, the possibility for retreatment, and prognostic factors that may help identify those patients more likely to respond to a single fraction radiation therapy in the treatment of painful bone metastasis.

Novel therapeutic approaches to cancer patients with bone metastasis

Bone metastases are a common event in advanced cancer. Breast, lung, prostate and thyroid neoplasms have striking osteotropism. Bone metastatic cancer may be associated with catastrophic consequences for the patients. Therefore, new strategies are warranted in order to reduce the incidence of bone metastases and to palliative established skeletal disease. External beam radiation therapy, endocrine treatments, chemotherapy, bisphosphonates and radioisotopes are all important. Bisphosphonates have become the treatment of choice for tumor-induced hypercalcaemia and more recently they have been used alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents in the palliative treatment of patients with bone metastases. The results are encouraging. Currently, new bisphosphonates that are a hundred times more powerful with respect to clodronate and pamidronate are under investigation. The treatment of metastases to bone and mechanisms of pain relief after radiation therapy are poorly understood. Up to date, there are not standard criteria for the irradiation of bone metastases and bone pain relief may be reached using a variety of fractionation schemes. Radionuclide therapy is the systemic use of radioisotopes for bone pain. It is currently regarded as suitable for comparison with wide-field irradiation, but appears to have major disadvantages in terms of pain relief and toxicity.

Prospective patient-based assessment of effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this report is to prospectively evaluate pain control provided by palliative radiotherapy for all irradiated patients with bone metastases by using their own assessments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective database was set up for all patients referred for palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases. Patients were asked to rate their pain intensity using an 11 categorical point scale (0=lack of pain, 10=worst pain imaginable). Analgesic consumption during the preceding 24 h was recorded and converted into equivalent total daily dose of oral morphine. For those who received radiotherapy, follow-up was conducted via telephone interviews at week 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12 post treatment using the same pain scale and analgesic diary. Radiotherapy outcome was initially assessed by pain score alone. Complete response (CR) was defined as a pain score of 0. Partial response (PR) was defined as a reduction of score > or =2 or a> or =50% reduction of the pre-treatment pain score. We further analyzed outcomes using integrated pain and analgesic scores. Response was defined as either a reduction of pain score > or =2 with at least no increase in analgesics or at least stable pain score with a > or =50% reduction in analgesic intake.

RESULTS

One hundred and five patients were treated with palliative radiotherapy. When response evaluation was by pain score alone, the PR rates at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks were 44, 42, 30 and 38%, respectively; while the CR rates were 24, 32, 31 and 29%, respectively. The overall response rate at 12 weeks was 67%. When assessed by the integrated pain and analgesic scores, the response rates were 50, 46, 43 and 43%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The response rate in our patient population is comparable with those reported in clinical trials. This is important when counselling our patients on the expected effectiveness of radiotherapy outside of clinical trials. Our observations confirm the generalizability of the trials conducted to date. While randomized trials still remain the gold standard of research, observational studies can serve as useful adjuncts to randomized trials to confirm the efficacy and guide the design of new controlled trials.

[Gross tumor volume and clinical target volume in radiotherapy: bone metastasis]

Bone is one of the three most favored sites of solid tumor metastasis. Skeletal metastasis may be identified by four clinical imaging methods: plain film radiography, computed tomography scanning, radioisotope scanning, and magnetic resonance imaging. The dose per fraction, total dose, and anatomic distribution of the radiation (dosimetry) are important factors in determining the efficacy and normal tissue tolerance to radiotherapy. Controversies about fractionation of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastasis are steel ongoing. The most commonly used schedules are a single treatment of 8 Gy, 30 Gy in 10 fractions and 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Treatment volumes and safety margins depend on the location and the extent of the bone metastasis, and are also determined by the symptoms felt by the patient.

Malignant bone pain: pathophysiology and treatments

Metastatic involvement of the bone is one of the most frequent causes of pain in cancer patients and represents one of the first signs of widespread neoplastic disease. The pain may originate directly from the bone, from nerve root compression, or from muscle spasms in the area of the lesions. The mechanism of metastatic bone pain is mainly somatic (nociceptive), even though, in some cases, neuropathic and visceral stimulations may overlap. The conventional symptomatic treatment of metastatic bone pain requires the use of multidisciplinary therapies, such as radiotherapy, in association with systemic treatment (hormonotherapy, chemotherapy, radioisotopes) with the support of analgesic therapy. Recently, studies have indicated the use of bisphosphonates in the treatment of pain and in the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with metastatic bone disease. In some patients, pharmacologic treatment, radiotherapy, and radioisotopes administered alone or in association are not able to manage pain adequately. The role of neuroinvasive techniques in treating metastatic bone pain is debated. The clinical conditions of the patient, his life expectancy, and quality of life must guide the physician in the choice of the best possible therapy.

Fractionated half-body irradiation (HBI) for the rapid palliation of widespread, symptomatic, metastatic bone disease: a randomized Phase III trial of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

PURPOSE

To find the fastest and most effective/efficient method to economically deliver fractionated half-body irradiation (HBI) for widespread (WS), symptomatic, metastatic bone cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Phase III trial with 3 HBI arms: (Arm A) Control (15 Gy/5 fractions/5 days); (Arm B) Hyperfractionation (HF) (8 Gy/2 fractions/1 day); (Arm C) Accelerated HF (12 Gy/4 fractions/2 days). Six countries randomized 156 patients (all with WS bone metastases): 51, 56, and 49 patients to Arms A, B, and C, respectively. There were 72 (46%) breast, 50 (32%) prostate, 9 (6%) lung, and 25 (16%) miscellaneous primary tumors. Initial performance status (PS) was 1-2 in 101 (65%) and PS 3-4 in 55 (35%). The lower, upper, and middle halves of the body were treated 79, 68, and 9 times.

RESULTS

Pain relief was seen in 91% of patients (45% complete [CR] and 46% partial [PR]) within 3-8 days. Overall (OS), median (MST), and pain-free (PFS) survival was 174, 150, and 122 days. Breast tumors had a higher OS (279 days) than that of other primary tumors, but when analyzed by treatment, was not significantly different than prostate tumors in Arm A. No survival differences were found in patients with PS 1-2 vs. 3-4, CR vs. PR, bone with/without visceral metastases, or by the number of metastases (< or > 15 bone lesions). Quality of life (QOL) assessed by the percent of the remaining life free of pain was 71%; furthermore significant improvements in PS, pain, and narcotic scores were seen after HBI. Toxicity was very acceptable (41% none, 50% mild/moderate, 12% severe but transitory); more was seen with upper HBI.

CONCLUSION

In terms of response, time to response, OS, MST, PFS, QOL, and toxicity, schedules for Arms A and C were similar for all but prostate primaries. Schedule for Arm B, which delivered the lowest biologic dose in the shortest time, had significantly worse results in pain relief, OS, MST, PFS, and QOL. Results indicate that, for most primary tumor types (except prostate), delivering two HBI daily doses of 3 Gy in 2 consecutive days is as effective as delivering a daily dose of 3 Gy for 5 consecutive days. Thus, this is a faster and much more convenient HBI schedule for the palliation of pain in widespread cancer.

Palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases: an evaluation of outcome measures

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

Radiation therapy

Radiation therapy is commonly used to alleviate the pain associated with bone metastases. This article reviews the components of the radiation oncology evaluation. The options for use of ionizing radiation including postoperative treatment, limited-volume external beam radiotherapy, wide-field radiotherapy, and radioisotope therapy are compared and contrasted. Side effects and toxicities of radiotherapy are discussed.

Differences in palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases within Western European countries

PURPOSE

To evaluate the differences in palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases amongst different Western European countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 565 radiotherapy centres in 19 Western European countries, based on the 1997 ESTRO directory. In this questionnaire the current local palliative radiotherapy practice for bone metastases was assessed in terms of total dose, fractionation, treatment complexity (use of shielding blocks, frequency of isodose calculations, field set-up) and type of machine used. The differences were analyzed according to the country and to the type and size of radiotherapy centre.

RESULTS

A total of 205 centres (36%) returned the questionnaire, of which 198 could be further analyzed. The most frequently used antalgic fractionation schedule is 30 Gy in ten daily fractions of 3 Gy (50%), single fractions and conventional 2 Gy fractions being used in a minority of the centres (respectively, 11 and 9%). Most antalgic treatments are performed on a linear accelerator (67% of the centres uses linear accelerators) and 64% of the centres predominantly uses a two-field set-up. The majority of the centres uses shielding blocks and performs isodose calculations in less than 50% of the patients, (respectively, 88 and 81%). There is a correlation between the centre size and the palliative irradiation practice, the largest centres using more hypofractionation (chi(2): P=0.001; logit: P=0. 0003) and a less complex treatment set up as expressed by the use of isodose calculations (chi(2): P=0.027; logit: P=0.0161). There is also a tendency to use less shielding blocks (P=0.177). The same goes for university centres as compared with private centres: university centres use shorter fractionation schedules (chi(2): P=0. 008; logit: P=0.0094), less isodoses (chi(2): P=0.010; logit: P=0. 0115) and somewhat less shielding blocks (P=0.151). Amongst the analyzed countries different tendencies in fractionation (P=0.001) and treatment complexity are observed (use of isodoses: P=0.014, use of shielding blocks: P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that beside work-load and clinical evidence, country-related factors such as tradition and habits, past teaching, the national organization of health care and reimbursement criteria may influence the local practice.

Continuing reluctance to use single fractions of radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain: an Australian and New Zealand practice survey and literature review

PURPOSE

To survey Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) radiation oncologists on their preferred fractionation regimens for pain due to bone metastases in the context of similar overseas surveys and the large body of evidence from randomized trials.

METHODS

Delegates to the October 1998 Royal ANZ College of Radiologists Annual Scientific Meeting were asked to state their fractionation for four hypothetical cases viz. local bone pain from metastatic breast, prostate and lung cancer and neuropathic (radicular) pain from metastatic lung cancer. In addition to demographic data, respondents were asked to select reasons for their choices and indicate what factors would influence a change in their recommended fractionation.

RESULTS

Twelve of 32 trainees and 41 of 82 specialists completed the survey, giving an overall response rate of 46%. There was decreasing use of shorter fractionation schedules from lung through prostate to breast cancer with, in particular, single fractions recommended by, respectively, 42, 28 and 15% of respondents for local bone pain (P=0.013). However, the presence of neuropathic pain from metastatic lung cancer led to lower use of single fractions (15%, P=0.0046). There were no statistically significant differences in preferred fractionation with respect to other variables assessed in this survey. The commonest reasons cited for fractionating were desire to minimize recurrent pain and the influence of training, with desire to minimize the risk of neurological progression and optimize tumour regression also important for neuropathic pain. By contrast, use of single fractions was most commonly based upon literature results and patient convenience. Changing from multiple to single fractions was most influenced by poor performance status, while the presence of neurological signs/symptoms had the reverse effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this ANZ survey largely reflect the results from other surveys performed in the UK, Europe, Canada and USA. Although debate continues in the literature, the continuing preference of radiation oncologists to fractionate for local bone pain is contrary to the 16 randomized trials published to date which give little support for a dose-response relationship above a single 6-8 Gy in this setting. This practice has significant implications for departmental workload, costs to the healthcare system and patient convenience. There is no objective evidence on the influence of fractionation for neuropathic bone pain in the literature at present, although an ANZ randomized trial addressing this problem is under way (TROG 96.05).

A role for radiotherapy in neuropathic bone pain: preliminary response rates from a prospective trial (Trans-tasman radiation oncology group, TROG 96.05)

PURPOSE

Radiotherapy (RT) has a proven role in palliation of pain from bone metastases with numerous randomized trials obtaining response rates (RRs) of typically 70-80% regardless of the fractionation employed. However RT for neuropathic bone pain (NBP), i.e., pain with a radiating cutaneous component due to compression/irritation of nerves by tumor has not previously been studied, and its role is thus uncertain.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In February 1996, the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) initiated a multicenter randomized trial comparing a single 8 Gy fraction with 20 Gy in 5 fractions for NBP with an accrual target of 270. Formal interim analyses were planned at 90 and 180 patients. The 90th patient was accrued in June 1998, and data from the first interim analysis with both arms combined form the basis of this report.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were randomized to a single 8 Gy, 46 to 20 Gy in 5 fractions. The commonest primary sites were prostate (34%), lung (28%) and breast (10%). Median age was 68 years (range 37-89). The index site was spine (86%), rib (13%), base of skull (1%). On an intention-to-treat basis, the overall RR was 53/90 = 59% (95% CI = 48-69%), with 27% achieving a complete response and 32% a partial response. The overall RR for eligible patients was 49/81 = 60% (95% CI = 49-71%) with 27% and 33% achieving complete and partial responses respectively. Estimated median time to treatment failure was 3.2 months (95% CI = 2.1-5.1 months), with estimated median survival of 5.1 months (95% CI = 4.2-7.2 months). To date, six spinal cord/cauda equina compressions and four new or progressive pathological fractures have been detected at the index site after randomization, although one cord compression occurred before radiotherapy was planned to commence. In February 1999, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee strongly recommended continuation of the trial.

CONCLUSION

Although these results are preliminary, it seems clear that there is indeed a role for RT in the treatment of NBP. Analysis of outcome by treatment arm awaits completion of the randomized trial.

Radiotherapy for the palliation of painful bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is used commonly to provide pain relief for painful bone metastases, and there is a perception that of the three-quarters of patients who achieve pain relief, half of these stay free from pain. However, the precise contribution from radiotherapy may be unclear because of difficulties in assessing the numbers of people achieving relief, the extent of relief and its duration, and the influence of other contemporaneous interventions, such as analgesics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess pain relief from: 1. localised bone metastases achieved by radiotherapy, comparing the efficacy of different fractionation schedules 2. more generalised metastatic disease achieved by radiotherapy or radioisotopes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies were identified by searching Medline (1966 to August 1998), Embase (1980 to 1998), the Cochrane Library (1998 Issue 3) and the Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950 to 1994).

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria used were: full journal publication, patients with pain due to bone metastases, and random allocation to a radiotherapeutic intervention (either external irradiation or administration of radioisotopes).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The number of patients achieving complete pain relief and at least 50% at one month were compared with an assumed natural history of 1 in 100 patients achieving pain relief without treatment to obtain the number-needed-to-treat (NNT). Summed pain relief or pain intensity difference over four to six hours was extracted, converted into dichotomous information yielding the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief, and used to calculate the relative benefit and the NNT for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty trials reported on 43 different radiotherapy fractionation schedules and eight studies of radioisotopes. Radiotherapy produced complete pain relief at one month in 395/1580 (25%) patients, and at least 50% relief in 788/1933 (41%) patients at some time during the trials. There were no differences in the proportions of patients achieving these outcomes between single or multiple fraction schedules. The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to achieve complete relief at one month (compared with an assumed natural history of 1 in 100 patients whose pain resolved without treatment) was 4.2 (95% CI 3.7-4.7). No pooled estimates of speed of onset of relief, or of its duration, could be obtained. In the largest trial (759 patients) 52% of those who had complete relief had achieved it within four weeks, and the median duration of complete relief was 12 weeks. For more generalised disease, radioisotopes produced similar analgesic results to external irradiation. Adverse effect reporting was poor. There were no obvious differences between the various fractionation schedules in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea or pathological fractures.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy is clearly effective at reducing pain from painful bone metastases. There was no evidence of any difference in efficacy between different fractionation schedules, nor indeed of a dose-response with total dose of radiation. For treatment of generalised bone pain both hemibody irradiation and radioisotopes can reduce the number of painful new sites.

Radiotherapy: the last 25 years

Some of the major changes in radiotherapy over the last years are reviewed in this paper. Radiotherapy has played a role in the changes in oncological practice including an increase in organ-sparing treatment and achieving good local control and improving survival. About half of all breast cancer patients are now treated with breast conserving therapy. Organ preservation, usually with multimodality therapy, has also been further developed in the treatment of cancers in the head and neck, anus, bladder and soft tissue sarcomas. Developments in radiobiology have led to the development of new fractionation schedules. Hyperfractionation allows an increase in the tumour dose whilst sparing normal tissues and accelerated fractionation combats accelerated tumour proliferation during treatment. Advances in accelerator technology and computerized treatment planning have enabled the development of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. This gives the oportunity to spare normal tissues and escalate the dose to the tumour. Quality control and standardization of dosimetry and treatment delivery at departmental and international level has also improved treatment results.

The effect of a single fraction compared to multiple fractions on painful bone metastases: a global analysis of the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study

PURPOSE

To answer the question whether a single fraction of radiotherapy that is considered more convenient to the patient is as effective as a dose of multiple fractions for palliation of painful bone metastases.

PATIENTS

1171 patients were randomised to receive either 8 Gy x 1 (n = 585) or 4 Gy x 6 (n = 586). The primary tumour was in the breast in 39% of the patients, in the prostate in 23%, in the lung in 25% and in other locations in 13%. Bone metastases were located in the spine (30%), pelvis (36%), femur (10%), ribs (8%), humerus (6%) and other sites (10%).

METHOD

Questionnaires were mailed to collect information on pain, analgesics consumption, quality of life and side effects during treatment. The main endpoint was pain measured on a pain scale from 0 (no pain at all) to 10 (worst imaginable pain). Costs per treatment schedule were estimated.

RESULTS

On average, patients participated in the study for 4 months. Median survival was 7 months. Response was defined as a decrease of at least two points as compared to the initial pain score. The difference in response between the two treatment groups proved not significant and stayed well within the margin of 10%. Overall, 71% experienced a response at some time during the first year. An analysis of repeated measures confirmed that the two treatment schedules were equivalent in terms of palliation. With regard to pain medication, quality of life and side effects no differences between the two treatment groups were found. The total number of retreatments was 188 (16%). This number was 147 (25%) in the 8 Gy x 1 irradiation group and 41 (7%) in the 4 Gy x 6 group. It was shown that the level of pain was an important reason to retreat. There were also indications that doctors were more willing to retreat patients in the single fraction group because time to retreatment was substantially shorter in this group and the preceding pain score was lower. Unexpectedly, more pathological fractures were observed in the single fraction group, but the absolute percentage was low. In a cost-analysis, the costs of the 4 Gy x 6 and the 8 Gy x 1 treatment schedules were calculated at 2305 and 1734 Euro respectively. Including the costs of retreatment reduced this 25% cost difference to only 8%. The saving of radiotherapy capacity, however, was considered the major economic advantage of the single dose schedule.

CONCLUSION

The global analysis of the Dutch study indicates the equality of a single fraction as compared to a 6 fraction treatment in patients with painful bone metastases provided that 4 times more retreatments are accepted in the single dose group. This equality is also shown in long term survivors. A more detailed analysis of the study is in progress.

Single fraction radiotherapy for bone metastases: are all questions answered?

All randomized trials show comparable pain relief rates with single or fractionated radiotherapy (RT) in selected patients. Further studies are required to determine the optimal single dose (our analysis suggests 6-8 Gy), its efficacy in preventing fractures/cord compression and defining criteria for recommending fractionated RT for a select few. Besides this, a 'lingua franca' for pain assessment tools is urgently required.

Single 4 Gy re-irradiation for painful bone metastasis following single fraction radiotherapy

PURPOSE

to investigate effectiveness of a single-fraction of 4 Gy given for re-treatment of bone metastasis after previous single-fraction radiotherapy (RT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of 135 patients retreated, 109 patients were retreated because of pain relapsing after 4 Gy (group I, n = 34), 6 Gy (group II, n = 39), or 8 Gy (group III, n = 36), while 26 patients were re-irradiated after initial non-response (group I, n = 12; group II, n = 8; group III, n = 6).

RESULTS

Of the 109 patients that were re-irradiated for pain relapse, 80 (74%) patients responded (complete response (CR) = 31%; partial response PR) = 42%). Among the 26 patients that initially did not respond, there were 12 (46%) responses. Patients with previous CR were more likely to achieve CR than were patients with previous PR (P = 0.042). No such finding was observed for obtaining PR, which was achieved in 45% each of patients previously having either CR or PR (P = 0.99). Patients with previous CR had similar chance to obtain either CR or PR (P = 0.65), while previous PR influenced subsequent response in the way of achieving more PRs than CRs (P = 0.00054). Combined, these data showed that patients with initial CR were more likely to respond than those with previous PR (85% vs. 67%, P = 0.037). There were no difference between the three initial treatment groups regarding the efficiency (CR or CR + PR) of second RT. Toxicity was low and only gastrointestinal.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-fraction RT consisting of 4 Gy was effective and little toxic treatment that could be administered after previous single-fraction RT.

Bone metastasis: review and critical analysis of random allocation trials of local field treatment

PURPOSE

Compare and contrast reports of random allocation clinical trials of local field radiation therapy of metastases to bone to determine the techniques producing the best results (frequency, magnitude, and duration of benefit), and relate these to the goals of complete relief of pain and prevention of disability for the remaining life of the patient.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Review all published reports of random allocation clinical trials, and perform a systematic analysis of the processes and outcomes of the several trial reports.

RESULTS

All trials were performed on selected populations of patients with symptomatic metastases and most studies included widely diverse groups with regard to: (a) site of primary tumor, (b) location, extent, size, and nature of metastases, (c) duration of survival after treatment All trial reports lack sufficient detail for full and complete analysis. Much collected information is not now available for reanalysis and many important data sets were apparently never collected. Several of the variations in patient and tumor characteristics were found to be much more important than treatment dose in the outcome results. Treatment planning and delivery techniques were unsophisticated and probably resulted in a systematic delivery of less than the assigned dose to some metastases. In general the use and benefit of retreatment was greater in those patients who initially received lower doses but the basis and dose of retreatment was not documented. Follow-up of patients was varied with a large proportion of surviving patients lost to follow-up in several studies. The greatest difference in the reports is the method of calculation of results. The applicability of Kaplan-Meier actuarial analysis, censoring the lost and dead patients, as used in studies with loss to follow-up of a large number of patients is questionable. The censoring involved is "informative" (the processes of loss relate to the outcome) and not acceptable since it results in artificial elevation of the frequency of response. Overall, higher dose fractionated treatment regimens produced a better frequency, magnitude, and duration of response than lower dose single-fraction regimens. Relapse after initial response was frequent. The "median duration of relief" was much shorter than the "median duration of survival" post-treatment. Thus the "net pain relief" is far less than the goal of pain relief for the total duration of life after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The pain relief obtained in all studies is poor and our care practices need to be improved. Many patients never achieved complete relief and for most who did, the duration of relief was much less than their period of survival after treatment. Higher dose, fractionated treatments produced a greater frequency, magnitude, and duration of response with an improved "net pain relief." Additional trials with selection of comparable cases, good definition of extent of disease, exemplary treatment, and complete follow-up are required.

Radiotherapy for bone metastases: a critical appraisal of outcome measures

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

Randomized trial of single dose versus fractionated palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases

PURPOSE

Data in the literature suggest that for painful bone metastases a single dose is as effective as fractionated radiotherapy. In the present multicentre prospective trial, the effects of 8 Gy x1 and 5 Gy x4 were compared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 241 patients were randomized to 8 Gy (122 patients) or 20 Gy (119 patients). The primary tumour was in the breast in 39% of patients, in the prostate in 34% of patients, in the lung in 13% of patients and in other locations in 14% of patients. Outcome measures were pain relief as measured by VAS and in half of the patients also by a five-point categorical pain scale, global quality of life (QoL) and analgesic consumption. Evaluation was performed before and 4, 8, 12 and 20 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients were evaluable for response. The two groups did not differ with respect to age, sex, primary tumour, metastasis localization, analgesic consumption (type and dose), performance status, prior systemic treatment, degree of pain and QoL. The treatment was completed as planned in 98% of patients. The degree of pain relief did not differ between the two treatment groups. At 4 weeks the difference in pain relief was 6% (95% CI 7, 20%) and at 8 weeks the difference was 13% (95% CI 3, 28%). Neither was there any significant difference in the duration of pain relief, the number of new painful sites and the need for reirradiation and toxicity was minor.

CONCLUSION

The present randomized study showed that a single fraction of 8 Gy was as effective as 5 Gy x4 in relieving pain from bone metastasis.