Effectiveness of hypofractionated radiotherapy in painful bone metastases. Two prospective studies with 1 x 4 Gy and 4 x 4 Gy

Comparison of twice weekly palliative RT versus continuous hypofractionated palliative RT for painful bone metastases

Background

Palliative hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) is an effective mode of treating painful bone metastasis. While 8 Gy single fraction radiation is often effective for the same, for complicated bone metastases a protracted fractionated regimen is preferred, of which 30 Gy/10#/2weeks or 20 Gy/5#/1 week are the most common worldwide. However such schedules add to the burden of already overburdened radiation treatment facilities in a busy center, wherein alternative logistic favourable schedules with treatment on weekends are preferred. Here we compare the efficacy of a twice weekly schedule to that of standard continuous 20 Gy/5 #/1 week schedule in terms of pain relief, response and quality of life.

Materials and methods

A prospective non randomized study was undertaken from Jan 2018 to May 2019, wherein eligible patients of complicated bone metastases received palliative radiotherapy of 20 Gy/5#, either continuously for 5 fractions from Monday to Saturday or twice weekly, Saturday and Wednesday, starting on a Saturday over about 2 weeks. Pain relief was assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and FACES pain scale recorded prior to starting palliative RT and at 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months.

Results

Thirteen patients received continuous Hypofractionated RT while 16 received it in a twice weekly schedule. Spine was the most common site receiving palliative Radiation (27/29), while breast cancer was the most common primary (16/29). The demographic and the baseline characteristics were comparable. The mean pain score decline at 4 weeks was 2.56 ± 1.1 and 2.71 ± 0.52 in the 5-day and the two-week schedule, respectively (p = 0.67).

Conclusion

A twice weekly schedule over about two weeks was found to be equivalent in pain control and response to the standard fractionated palliative radiation and, thus, can be safely employed in resource constrained, busy radiotherapy centers.

An Evaluation of Half-Body Irradiation in the Treatment of Widespread, Painful Metastatic Bone Disease

Aims

Evaluation of analgesic uptake, pain intensity, and quality-of-life changes after half-body irradiation of patients with bone metastases.

Material and Methods

Ninety-five patients (97 irradiations) were treated with single half-body irradiation fraction (3–8 Gy). Thirty-three patients had upper-half-body irradiation, 55 lower-half-body irradiation and 9 middle-half-body irradiation. The patients were examined on the day of irradiation, 2 and 4 weeks later, and then once a month. The intake of analgesics, pain level (from 0 to 10), and the quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) were evaluated. The fluctuations of pain levels and the particular scaling values of QLQ-C30 during a one-year period were analyzed (Kendall t correlation).

Results

Over the course of 5 months, the incidence of patients using strong opioids decreased from 43.8% to 33.3%, and the incidence of patients who did not need to resort to analgesics increased from 6.7% to 25%. The mean pain level decreased from 6.1 points (half-body irradiation) to 3.1 points 2 weeks later. An inverse correlation between pain level readings and time was statistically significant. An increase was observed in the values of the five functional scales as reflected on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire (four of which correlated significantly with the observation time). A similar situation prevailed with respect to global health status. A decrease was observed in most of the values on the symptoms scales; 6 saw a significant decrease, in correlation with the follow-up. Correlations were also found between pain intensity and functionality, and between symptoms scales readings and global health status.

Conclusions

Half-body irradiation of cancer patients suffering from painful multiple bone dissemination is an effective and simple treatment modality that affords significant quality-of-life improvement and pain relief, thus allowing for a reduction in the use of strong analgesics.

Time course of pain relief in patients treated with radiotherapy for cancer pain: a prospective study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this prospective study was to analyze time course of pain relief by radiotherapy for cancer pain.

METHODS

A total of 91 patients with painful bone metastases were treated by radiotherapy with a median total dose of 46 Gy. Pain of the irradiated site was assessed using a numerical rating scale (pain score: 0 to 10) once a week from the beginning of radiotherapy (day 1) for about 5 weeks.

RESULTS

In time course analysis of the 91 cases, the mean (+/-SD) pain scores at day 5, day 12, day 19, day 26, day 33, and day 40 were 7.8 (+/-1.6), 5.3 (+/-2.5), 3.5 (+/-2.5), 2.4 (+/-2.5), 1.6 (+/-2.1), and 1.1 (+/-1.9), respectively, and mean pain score was significantly reduced with time from the start of radiotherapy (P<0.001: repeated measure ANOVA). Mean pain score was significantly reduced every week by d33 (P<0.05: d5 vs. d12, d12 vs. d19, d19 vs. d26, and d26 vs. d33). Complete pain relief was obtained in 45/91 (49%) cases, and partial (> or =50%) pain relief was obtained in 83/91 (91%) cases. The mean time to obtain 50% pain relief was 13 days. The mean time to obtain complete pain relief (n=45) was 24 days. Doses of analgesics were reduced in 28/64 (44%) cases at the end of radiotherapy.

DISCUSSION

Telling approximate time course of pain relief seems to reduce patients' anxiety, and knowing time course of pain relief seems to be useful to determine optimal dose of analgesics that changes according to the course.

Treatment of spinal tumors using cyberknife fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery: pain and quality-of-life assessment after treatment in 200 patients

OBJECTIVE

Benign and malignant tumors of the spine significantly impair the function and quality of life of many patients. Standard treatment options, including conventional radiotherapy and surgery, are often limited by anatomic constraints and previous treatment. Image-guided stereotactic radiosurgery using the CyberKnife system (Accuray, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) is a novel approach in the multidisciplinary management of spinal tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery on pain and quality-of-life outcomes of patients with spinal tumors.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 200 patients with benign or malignant spinal tumors treated at Georgetown University Hospital between March 2002 and September 2006. Patients were treated by means of multisession stereotactic radiosurgery using the CyberKnife as initial treatment, postoperative treatment, or retreatment. Pain scores were assessed by the Visual Analog Scale, quality of life was assessed by the SF-12 survey, and neurological examinations were conducted after treatment.

RESULTS

Mean pain scores decreased significantly from 40.1 to 28.6 after treatment (P < 0.001) and continued to decrease over the entire 4-year follow-up period (P < 0.05). SF-12 Physical Component scores demonstrated no significant change throughout the follow-up period. Mental Component scores were significantly higher after treatment (P < 0.01), representing a quality-of-life improvement. Early side effects of radiosurgery were mild and self-limited, and no late radiation toxicity was observed.

CONCLUSION

CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery is a safe and effective modality in the treatment of patients with spinal tumors. CyberKnife offers durable pain relief and maintenance of quality of life with a very favorable side effect profile.

Cost-utility analysis of the cyberknife system for metastatic spinal tumors

OBJECTIVE

Using decision analysis, a cost-utility study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CyberKnife (Accuray, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in comparison to external beam radiation therapy in the treatment of metastatic spinal malignancies.

METHODS

The published literature provided evidence on the effectiveness of the comparator interventions in the absence of primary outcomes data. Costs of care were derived from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services fee schedules. A Markov model was constructed from the payer perspective to simulate the outcomes of patients undergoing nonchemotherapeutic interventions for metastatic spinal tumors. Because cancer therapies bear significant health and economic consequences, the impact of treatment-related toxicities was integrated into the model. Given the terminal nature of these conditions and the limited life expectancy of the patient population, the time horizon for the analysis was limited to 12 months.

RESULTS

Patients treated with CyberKnife SRS gained an additional net health benefit of 0.08 quality-adjusted life year; the calculated cost of CyberKnife SRS was $1933 less than external beam radiation therapy for comparable effectiveness. The incremental cost per benefit for this strategy ($41 500 per quality-adjusted life year) met payers' willingness-to-pay criteria.

CONCLUSION

Cost-utility analysis demonstrated that CyberKnife SRS was a superior, cost-effective primary intervention for patients with metastatic spinal tumors compared with conventional external beam radiation therapy.

Cyberknife radiosurgery for breast cancer spine metastases: a matched-pair analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few options for breast cancer patients with spinal metastases recurrent within a previous radiation treatment field. CyberKnife radiosurgery has been used in our institution to treat such patients. To evaluate their outcomes, as there are no comparable radiation treatment options, the outcomes were compared between 18 patients with spinal metastases from breast cancer treated with CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgery, 17 of which had prior radiotherapy to the involved spinal region and were progressing, and 18 matched patients who received conventional external beam radiotherapy (CRT) up-front for spinal metastases.

METHODS

Radiosurgery was delivered in 3 to 5 fractions to doses ranging from 2100 to 2800 cGy. Women were matched to patients in a CRT group with respect to time from original diagnosis to diagnosis of metastases, estrogen receptor / progesterone receptor (ER/PR) status, presence or absence of visceral metastases, prior radiotherapy, and prior chemotherapy. Survival and complications were compared between treatment groups. Surviving patients were followed out to 24 months.

RESULTS

The CyberKnife and CRT groups were comparable along all matching dimensions and in performance status before treatment. Outcomes of treatment were similar for patients in both groups; ambulation, performance status, and pain worsened similarly across groups posttreatment. Survival and the number of complications appeared to favor the CyberKnife group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The statistical comparability of the CyberKnife and CRT groups reflects the small sample size and stringent requirements for significance of the matched-pair analysis. Nevertheless, comparability in these difficult cases shows that salvage CyberKnife treatment is as efficacious as initial CRT without added toxicity.

CyberKnife stereotactic radiosurgical treatment of spinal tumors for pain control and quality of life

OBJECT

The authors conducted a study to assess safety, pain, and quality of life (QOL) outcomes following CyberKnife radiosurgical treatment of spinal tumors.

METHODS

Data obtained in all patients with spinal tumors who underwent CyberKnife radiosurgery at Georgetown University Hospital between March 2002 and March 2003 were analyzed. Patients underwent examination, visual analog scale (VAS) pain assessment, and completed the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) before treatment and at 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 18, and 24 months following treatment. Fifty-one patients with 72 lesions (58 metastatic and 14 primary) were treated. The mean follow-up period was 1 year. Pain was improved, with the mean VAS score decreasing significantly from 51.5 to 21.3 at 4 weeks (p < 0.001). This effect on pain was durable, with a mean score of 17.5 at 1 year, which was still significantly decreased (p = 0.002). Quality of life was maintained throughout the study period. After 18 months, physical well-being was 33 (initial score 32; p = 0.96) and mental well-being was 43.8 (initial score 44.2; p = 0.97). (The mean SF-12 score is 50 +/- 10 [standard deviation].) Adverse effects included self-limited dysphagia (three cases), diarrhea (two cases), lethargy (three cases), paresthesias (one case), and wound dehiscence (one case).

CONCLUSIONS

CyberKnife radiosurgery improves pain control and maintains QOL in patients treated for spinal tumors. Early adverse events are infrequent and minor. The authors await long-term follow-up data to determine late complications and tumor control rates.

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

Recent randomised studies have reported that single fraction radiotherapy is as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving pain caused by 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. A systematic review of randomised studies, examining the effectiveness of single fraction radiotherapy versus multiple fraction radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain relief and prevention of bone complications, was conducted to help answer this controversy. Randomised studies comparing single fraction radiotherapy with multifraction radiotherapy on metastatic bone pain were identified. 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. Twelve trials involving 3621 sites were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pain-response rates for single fraction radiotherapy and multifraction radiotherapy were 60% (1080/1814) and 59% (1060/1807), respectively, giving an odds ratio (OR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.19), indicating no difference between the two radiotherapy schedules. There was also no difference in complete pain response rates for single fraction radiotherapy (34% [508/1476]) and multifraction radiotherapy (32% [475/1473]), with an OR of 1.10 (950% 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 with 7.4% (91/1236) of patients in the multifraction radiotherapy arm (OR 3.44 [95% CI 2.67-4.43]). The pathological fracture rate was also higher in single fraction radiotherapy arm patients. Three per cent (37/1240) of patients treated by single fraction radiotherapy developed pathological fracture compared with 1.6% (20/1236) for those treated by multifraction radiotherapy (OR 1.82 [95% CI 1.06-3.11]). The spinal cord compression rates were similar for both arms (OR 1.41 [95% CI 0.72-2.75]). Single fraction radiotherapy was as effective as multifraction radiotherapy in relieving metastatic bone pain. However, the re-treatment rate and pathological fracture rate 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.

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.

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.