Effectiveness of reirradiation for painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review of Bone Metastasis in Gynecologic Malignancies: Evaluation and Treatment

OPINION STATEMENT

Metastatic bone disease (MBD) is a significant source of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients with solid tumors, including those with gynecologic malignancies. Infiltration of tumor cells within the bone microenvironment disrupts bone homeostasis and leads to osteoblastic, osteolytic, or mixed bone lesions. Greater than two thirds of those with MBD experience cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) and one to two-thirds will develop a skeletal-related event (SRE). Various pharmacologic, surgical, and radiation treatments exist for the palliation of bone metastases and the prevention of SREs. It is paramount to understand the diagnostic evaluation and evidence-based treatment paradigms of bone metastases to decrease healthcare utilization, alleviate financial burden, mitigate disability, and improve quality of life.

Randomized phase III study comparing re-irradiation stereotactic body radiotherapy and conventional radiotherapy for painful spinal metastases: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG2211 (RESCORE study)

Bone metastases are often associated with pain and can occur in various types of cancer, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Despite the high response rates to initial conventional radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastases, recurrence and inadequate response still occur. Thus, the development of a highly effective strategy for pain recurrence is crucial to improving the quality of life in patients with advanced metastatic cancer. This randomized phase III trial aims to confirm the superiority of re-irradiation with stereotactic body radiotherapy (24 Gy in 2 fractions) over conventional radiotherapy (8 Gy in a single fraction) in achieving a complete pain response at 12 weeks in patients with previously irradiated painful spinal metastases. A total of 158 patients from 33 hospitals will be enrolled in Japan over 3.5 years. This trial has been registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials as jRCTs1030240172 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCT1030240172).

Radiation therapy, radiosurgery, chemotherapy and targeted therapies for metastatic spine tumors: WFNS Spine committee recommendations

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.

Reirradiation - still navigating uncharted waters?

With the emergence of high-precision radiotherapy technologies such as stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), MR guided brachytherapy, image guided intensity modulated photon and proton radiotherapy and most recently daily adaptive radiotherapy, reirradiation is increasingly recognized as a viable treatment option for many patients. This includes those with recurrent, metastatic or new malignancies post initial radiotherapy. The primary challenge in reirradiation lies in balancing tumor control against the risk of severe toxicity from cumulative radiation doses to previously irradiated normal tissue. Although technology for precise delivery has advanced at a fast pace, clinical practice of reirradiation still mostly relies on individual expertise, as prospective evidence is scarce, the level of reporting in clinical studies is not standardized and of low quality - especially with respect to cumulative doses received by organs at risk. A recent ESTRO/EORTC initiative proposed a standardized definition of reirradiation and formulated general requirements for minimal reporting in clinical studies [1]. As a consequence we found it timely to convene for an international and interdisciplinary meeting with experts in the field to summarize the current evidence, identify knowledge gaps and explore which best practices can be derived for safe reirradiation. The meeting was held on 15.06.2023 in Zurich and was endorsed by the scientific societies SASRO, DEGRO and ESTRO. Here, we report on available evidence and research priorities in the field of reirradiation, as discussed during the meeting.

MR-guided Focused Ultrasound for Musculoskeletal Applications

MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) has a wide range of musculoskeletal applications. Some indications are well validated, specifically the treatment of painful osseous metastases and osteoid osteoma. Others are only beginning to be studied, such as the treatment of painful facet, sacroiliac, and knee joints. MRgFUS of soft tissue lesions also shows promise, particularly in patients whom alternative modalities are not feasible or may result in significant morbidity. Ongoing and future research will illuminate the full potential for MRgFUS in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions.

CT-Guided Microwave Ablation with Vertebral Augmentation for Spinal Metastases with Posterior Wall Defects

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined microwave ablation (MWA) and vertebral augmentation (VA) in the treatment of spinal metastases with posterior wall defects.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective review was conducted for 67 patients (42 men, 25 women) with painful spine metastases and posterior wall defects who underwent MWA combined with VA. Among these patients, 52 vertebrae had no epidural invasion and 33 had mild invasion but did not compress the spinal cord. Procedural effectiveness was determined by comparing visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores before the procedure and during the follow-up period.

Results

The procedure was technically successful in all patients. The mean VAS score declined significantly from 6.85 ± 1.81 before the procedure to 3.27 ± 1.97 at 24 h, 1.96 ± 1.56 at 1 week, 1.84 ± 1.50 at 4 weeks, 1.73 ± 1.45 at 12 weeks, and 1.71 ± 1.52 at 24 weeks post-procedure (p < 0.01). The mean ODI score was lower post-procedure than before the procedure (p < 0.001). Transient nerve injury occurred in two patients (SIR classification D), and the incidence of asymptomatic bone cement (SIR classification A) was 43.5% (37/85).

Conclusion

MWA combined with VA is an effective and safe treatment for painful spine metastases with posterior wall defects.

Meta-Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation ThERapy in Nonspine BONE Metastases (MASTER-BONES)

PURPOSE

The efficacy and safety of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with nonspine bone metastases remains in question. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate SBRT treatment outcomes in nonspine bone metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Eligible studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase, Scielo, the Cochrane Library, and annual meeting proceedings through July 6, 2023. We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guideline recommendations. Quantitative synthesis was performed using a random-effects model. Meta-regression was performed to determine correlation between clinical and treatment factors with the local failure (LF) and fracture rate. P values ≤.05 were deemed statistically significant.

RESULTS

Seven retrospective studies, with a total of 807 patients (1048 lesions) treated with SBRT were included, with median follow-up ranging from 7.6 to 26.5 months. The most common SBRT sites were pelvis (39.2%), ribs (25.8%), femur (16.7%), and humerus/shoulder region (8.7%). At 1 year, the LF and fracture rate were 7% (95% CI, 5.5%-8.5%; I2 = 0; n = 75/1048) and 5.3% (95% CI, 3%-7.5%; I2 = 0; n = 65/1010). The 2-year cumulative LF incidence was 12.1% (95% CI, 10%-15.5%). The overall survival and progression-free survival at 1 year were 82% (95% CI, 75%-88%; I2 = 82%; n = 746/867) and 33.5% (95% CI, 26%-41%; I2 = 0%; n = 51/152), with a median of 20.2 months (95% CI, 10.9-49.1 months) and 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.3-10.3 months) for overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. Meta-regression analysis revealed a significant relationship between planning target volume and fracture rate (P < .05). Ribs (2.5%) followed by the femur (1.9%; 95% CI, 0%-6.1%) were the most common fracture sites. The occurrence of pain flare, fatigue, and dermatitis were 7%, 5.4%, and 0.65%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Stereotactic body radiation proves both safety and efficacy for non-spine bone metastases, and although serious complications (grade 3) are rare, one case of grade 5 complication was reported. Careful consideration of target volume is crucial due to its link with a higher fracture risk.

Re-irradiation in clinical practice: Results of an international patterns of care survey within the framework of the ESTRO-EORTC E2-RADIatE platform

BACKGROUND

Re-irradiation is an increasingly utilized treatment for recurrent, metastatic or new malignancies after previous radiotherapy. It is unclear how re-irradiation is applied in clinical practice. We aimed to investigate the patterns of care of re-irradiation internationally.

MATERIAL/METHODS

A cross-sectional survey conducted between March and September 2022. The survey was structured into six sections, each corresponding to a specific anatomical region. Participants were instructed to complete the sections of their clinical expertise. A total of 15 multiple-choice questions were included in each section, addressing various aspects of the re-irradiation process. The online survey targeted radiation and clinical oncologists and was endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

RESULTS

371 physicians from 55 countries across six continents participated. Participants had a median professional experience of 16 years, and the majority (60%) were affiliated with an academic hospital. The brain region was the most common site for re-irradiation (77%), followed by the pelvis (65%) and head and neck (63%). Prolonging local control was the most common goal (90-96% across anatomical regions). The most common minimum interval between previous radiotherapy and re-irradiation was 6-12 months (45-55%). Persistent grade 3 or greater radiation-induced toxicity (77-80%) was the leading contraindication. Variability in organs at risk dose constraints for re-irradiation was observed. Advanced imaging modalities and conformal radiotherapy techniques were predominantly used. A scarcity of institutional guidelines for re-irradiation was reported (16-19%). Participants from European centers more frequently applied thoracic and abdominal re-irradiation. Indications did not differ between academic and non-academic hospitals.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the heterogeneity in re-irradiation practices across anatomical regions and emphasizes the need for high-quality evidence from prospective studies to guide treatment decisions and derive safe cumulative dose constraints.

Spinal Reirradiation-Mediated Myelopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Reirradiation of the spine is carried out in 42% of patients who do not respond to treatment or have recurrent pain. However, there are few studies and data on the effect of reirradiation of the spine and the occurrence of acute and chronic side-effects caused by reirradiation, such as myelopathy, in these patients. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the safe dose in terms of biological effective dose (BED), cumulative dose and dose interval between BED1 and BED2 to decrease or prevent myelopathy and pain control in patients undergoing radiation therapy in the spinal cord. A search was carried out using EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, Google Scholar, Cochrane Collaboration library electronic databases, Magiran, and SID from 2000 to 2022 to recognise qualified studies. In total, 17 primary studies were applied to estimate the pooled effect size. The random effects model showed that the pooled BED in the first stage, the BED in the second stage and the cumulative BED1 and BED2 were estimated at 77.63, 58.35 and 115.34 Gy, respectively. Studies reported on dose interval. The results of a random effects model showed that the pooled interval was estimated at 13.86 months. The meta-analysis revealed that using appropriate BED1 and/or BED2 in a safe interval between the first and second phases of treatment can have an influential role in preventing or reducing the effects of myelopathy and regional control pain in spinal reirradiation.

The Role of Post-Operative Radiotherapy for Non-Spine Bone Metastases (NSBMs)

Non-spine bone metastases (NSBMs) can cause significant morbidity and deterioration in the quality of life of cancer patients. This paper reviews the role of post-operative radiotherapy (PORT) in the management of NSBMs and provides suggestions for clinical practice based on the best available evidence. We identified six retrospective studies and several reviews that examined PORT for NSBMs. These studies suggest that PORT reduces local recurrence rates and provides effective pain relief. Based on the literature, PORT was typically delivered as 20 Gy in 5 fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions within 5 weeks of surgery. Complete coverage of the surgical hardware is an important consideration when designing an appropriate radiation plan and leads to improved local control. Furthermore, the integration of PORT in a multidisciplinary team with input from radiation oncologists and orthopedic surgeons is beneficial. A multimodal approach including PORT should be considered for an NSBM that requires surgery. However, phase III studies are needed to answer many remaining questions and optimize the management of NSBMs.

Radiation Therapy for Painful Bone Metastases: Fractionation, Recalcification, and Symptom Control

Bone is a common site for metastases, which may cause pain and other skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with advanced cancer. Since the 1980s, prospective clinical trials have demonstrated the high efficacy of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for pain relief from focal, symptomatic lesions. In uncomplicated bone metastases, which include those without pathologic fracture, evidence of cord compression, or prior surgical intervention, improvement or complete pain relief with radiotherapy is as high as 60%, with no difference in efficacy when radiotherapy is delivered in a single or multiple fractions. The ability to treat with a single fraction makes EBRT an attractive therapy even for patients with poor performance status and/or life expectancy. Even in patients with complicated bone metastases (eg cord compression), several randomized trials have demonstrated similar rates of pain relief in addition to improved functional outcomes such as ambulation. In this review, we summarize the role of EBRT for alleviating painful bone metastases and explore its role for other endpoints including functional outcomes, recalcification, and prevention of SREs.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Reirradiation on spine metastases: an Italian survey on behalf of palliative care and reirradiation study groups of Italian association of radiotherapy and clinical oncology (AIRO)

AIM

This survey derived from the collaboration between the Palliative Care and Reirradiation Study Groups of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO). Its aim was to obtain a real "snapshot" on the treatments of spinal metastases, focusing on reirradiation, among radiation oncologists in Italy.

METHODS

The survey was elaborated on SurveyMonkey's online interface and was sent via e-mail to all Radiation Oncologists of AIRO that were invited to anonymously fill in the electronic form within 60 days. The questionnaire was prepared by the AIRO "Palliative care" and "Reirradiation" Study Groups and it consisted of 36 questions, 19 single-choice questions, 10 multiple-choice questions and 6 open questions. The data were analyzed and represented with tables and graphs.

RESULTS

The survey shows that palliative radiotherapy remains a field of interest for most ROs in the Italian centers. 3D Conventional Radiation Therapy (3DCRT) alone or in combination with other techniques is the primary choice for patients with a life expectancy of less than 6 months. For patients with a life expectancy of more than six months, there is an increased use of new technologies, such as Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). Factors considered for retreatment are time between first and second treatment, dose delivered to spine metastasis and spinal cord in the first treatment, vertebral stability, symptoms, and/or performance status. The most feared complication are myelopathy followed by vertebral fracture and local recurrence. This explain an increasing focus on patient selection and the use of high technology in the treatment of metastatic patients.

CONCLUSION

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and image-guided radiotherapy allow the administration of ablative RT doses while sparing the constraints of healthy tissue in spinal metastases. However, there is still an unclear and heterogeneous reality in the reirradiation of spinal metastases. A national registry with the aim of clarifying the most controversial aspects of vertebral metastasis retreatments will enable better management of these patients and design more targeted study designs.

Focused Ultrasound and External Beam Radiation Therapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Phase II Clinical Trial

Background Recent consensus statements and clinical trials have assessed the value of MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery for pain palliation of bone metastases; however, a comparison with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has not been performed. Purpose To compare safety and effectiveness data of MRI-guided focused ultrasound and EBRT in the treatment of bone metastases. Materials and Methods Participants with painful bone metastases, excluding skull and vertebral bodies, were enrolled in a prospective open-label nonrandomized phase II study between January 2017 and May 2019 and underwent either MRI-guided focused ultrasound or EBRT. The primary end point was the overall response rate at 1-month following treatment, assessed via the numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain (0-10 scale, with zero meaning "no pain" and 10 meaning "the worst pain imaginable"). Secondary end points were improvements at 12-month follow-up in NRS and quality of life (QoL) measures, including the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), QoL-Questionnaire Cancer-15 Palliative Care (QLQ-C15-PAL), and QoL-Questionnaire Bone Metastases-22 (QLQ-BM22) and analysis of adverse events. Statistical analyses, including linear regression, χ² test, and Student t test followed the per-protocol principle. Results Among 198 participants, 100 underwent MRI-guided focused ultrasound (mean age, 63 years ± 13 [SD]; 51 women), and 98 underwent EBRT (mean age, 65 years ± 14; 52 women). The overall response rates at 1-month follow-up were 91% (91 of 100) and 67% (66 of 98), respectively, in the focused ultrasound and EBRT arms (P < .001), and complete response rates were 43% (43 of 100) and 16% (16 of 98) (P < .001). The mean baseline NRS score was 7.0 ± 2.1 for focused ultrasound and 6.6 ± 2.4 for EBRT (P = .16); at 1-month follow-up, they were reduced to 3.2 ± 0.3 and 5.1 ± 0.3 (P < .001), respectively. QLQ-C15-PAL for physical function (P = .002), appetite (P < .001), nausea and vomiting (P < .001), dyspnea (P < .001), and QoL (P < .001) scores were lower in the focused ultrasound group. The overall adverse event rates were 15% (15 of 100) after focused ultrasound and 24% (24 of 98) after EBRT. Conclusion MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery and external beam radiation therapy showed similar improvements in pain palliation and quality of life, with low adverse event rates. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kelekis in this issue.

Team Approach: Management of Pathologic Fractures

»

Optimal care for pathologic fractures centers on the use of a multidisciplinary team; thus, whenever there is a concern for pathologic fracture and proper workup is unable to be performed, prompt referral to a center equipped to manage these injuries should occur.

»

Fixation strategies for pathologic fractures must take into account patient characteristics, cancer subtypes, and overall goals of treatment.

»

As the treatments of cancers improve, patient life expectancy with disease will improve as well. This will lead to an increase in the incidence of impending or completed pathologic fractures. The broader subspecialties of orthopaedics must be aware of general principles in the diagnosis and management of these injuries.

Efficacy and safety of CT-guided 125I seed implantation by coplanar template as a salvage therapy for vertebral metastases after failure of external beam radiation therapy: a retrospective study

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy safety of computed tomography (CT)-guided ¹²⁵I seed implantation by coplanar template for vertebral metastases after failure of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).

Material and methods

Retrospective analysis of the clinical outcomes of 58 patients with vertebral metastases after failure of EBRT, who underwent ¹²⁵I seed implantation as a salvage treatment with a CT-guided coplanar template-assisted technique from January 2015 to January 2017.

Results

The mean post-operative NRS score decreased significantly at T_4w (3.5 ± 0.9, p<0.01), T_8w (2.1 ± 0.9, p<0.01), T_12w (1.5 ± 0.7, p< 0.01) and T_6m (1.2 ± 0.6, p< 0.01) respectively. The local control rates after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months were 100% (58/58), 93.1% (54/58), 87.9% (51/58), and 81% (47/58), respectively. The median overall survival time was 18.52months (95% CI, 16.24-20.8), and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 81% (47/58) and 34.5% (20/58), respectively. By performing a paired t-test analysis, there was no significant difference in D90, V90, D100, V100, V150, V200, GTV volume, CI, EI and HI between preoperative and postoperative (p>0.05).

Conclusions

¹²⁵I seed implantation can be used as a salvage treatment for patients with vertebral metastases after failure of EBRT.

Focused Ultrasound and RadioTHERapy for non-invasive palliative pain treatment in patients with bone metastasis: a study protocol for the three armed randomized controlled FURTHER trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP), caused by bone metastases, is a common complication of cancer and strongly impairs quality of life (QoL). External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) is the current standard of care for treatment of CIBP. However, approximately 45% of patients have no adequate pain response after EBRT. Magnetic resonance image-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) may improve pain palliation in this patient population. The main objective of this trial was to compare MR-HIFU, EBRT, and MR-HIFU + EBRT for the palliative treatment of bone metastases.

METHODS/DESIGN

The FURTHER trial is an international multicenter, three-armed randomized controlled trial. A total of 216 patients with painful bone metastases will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive EBRT only, MR-HIFU only, or combined treatment with EBRT followed by MR-HIFU. During a follow-up period of 6 months, patients will be contacted at eight time points to retrieve information about their level of pain, QoL, and the occurrence of (serious) adverse events. The primary outcome of the trial is pain response at 14 days after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes include pain response at 14 days after trial enrolment, pain scores (daily until the 21st day and at 4, 6, 12 and 24 weeks), toxicity, adverse events, QoL, and survival. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The FURTHER trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MR-HIFU-alone or in combination with EBRT-compared to EBRT to relieve CIBP. The trial will be performed in six hospitals in four European countries, all of which are partners in the FURTHER consortium.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The FURTHER trial is registered under the Netherlands Trials Register number NL71303.041.19 and ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT04307914. Date of trial registration is 13-01-2020.

European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus on re-irradiation: definition, reporting, and clinical decision making

Re-irradiation can be considered for local recurrence or new tumours adjacent to a previously irradiated site to achieve durable local control for patients with cancer who have otherwise few therapeutic options. With the use of new radiotherapy techniques, which allow for conformal treatment plans, image guidance, and short fractionation schemes, the use of re-irradiation for different sites is increasing in clinical settings. Yet, prospective evidence on re-irradiation is scarce and our understanding of the underlying radiobiology is poor. Our consensus on re-irradiation aims to assist in re-irradiation decision making, and to standardise the classification of different forms of re-irradiation and reporting. The consensus has been endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. The use of this classification in daily clinical practice and research will facilitate accurate understanding of the clinical implications of re-irradiation and allow for cross-study comparisons. Data gathered in a uniform manner could be used in the future to make recommendations for re-irradiation on the basis of clinical evidence. The consensus document is based on an adapted Delphi process and a systematic review of the literature was done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

Early economic modeling of magnetic resonance image-guided high intensity focused ultrasound compared to radiotherapy for pain palliation of bone metastases

Introduction

Magnetic Resonance Image-guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is a non-invasive treatment option for palliative patients with painful bone metastases. Early evidence suggests that MR-HIFU is associated with similar overall treatment response, but more rapid pain palliation compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). This modelling study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of MR-HIFU as an alternative treatment option for painful bone metastases from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI).

Materials and methods

A microsimulation model with lifelong time horizon and one-month cycle length was developed. To calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), strategy A (MR-HIFU as first-line treatment or as retreatment option in case of persistent pain or only partial pain relief after EBRT) was compared to strategy B (EBRT alone) for patients with bone metastases due to breast, prostate, or lung cancer. Input parameters used for the model were extracted from the literature. Results were expressed as EUR per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and EUR per pain response (i.e., months spent with complete or partial pain response). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of results, and a value of information analysis was conducted.

Results

Compared to strategy B, strategy A resulted in additional costs (EUR 399) and benefits (0.02 QALYs and 0.95 months with pain response). In the base case, the resulting ICERs (strategy A vs. strategy B) are EUR 19,845/QALY and EUR 421 per pain response. Offering all patients MR-HIFU as first-line treatment would increase the ICER by 50% (31,048 EUR/QALY). PSA showed that at a (hypothetical) willingness to pay of EUR 20,000/QALY, the probability of MR-HIFU being cost-effective was 52%. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) for the benefit population in Germany is approximately EUR 190 Mio.

Conclusion

Although there is considerable uncertainty, the results demonstrate that introducing MR-HIFU as a treatment alternative for painful bone metastases might be cost-effective for the German SHI. The high EVPI indicate that further studies to reduce uncertainty would be worthwhile.

Interventional Radiology in the Management of Metastases and Bone Tumors

Interventional Radiology (IR) has experienced an exponential growth in recent years. Technological advances of the last decades have made it possible to use new treatments on a larger scale, with good results in terms of safety and effectiveness. In musculoskeletal field, painful bone metastases are the most common target of IR palliative treatments; however, in selected cases of bone metastases, IR may play a curative role, also in combination with other techniques (surgery, radiation and oncology therapies, etc.). Primary malignant bone tumors are extremely rare compared with secondary bone lesions: osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, and chondrosarcoma are the most common; however, the role of interventional radiology in this fiels is marginal. In this review, the main techniques used in interventional radiology were examined, and advantages and limitations illustrated. Techniques of ablation (Radiofrequency, Microwaves, Cryoablation as also magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound), embolization, and Cementoplasty will be described. The techniques of ablation work by destruction of pathological tissue by thermal energy (by an increase of temperature up to 90 °C with the exception of the Cryoablation that works by freezing the tissue up to -40 °C). Embolization creates an ischemic necrosis by the occlusion of the arterial vessels that feed the tumor. Finally, cementoplasty has the aim of strengthening bone segment weakened by the growth of pathological tissue through the injection of cement. The results of the treatments performed so far were also assessed and presented focused the attention on the management of bone metastasis.

A Multimodal Clinical Approach for the Treatment of Bone Metastases in Solid Tumors

CONTEXT

Bone metastasis (BM) is a frequent complication of cancer, representing the third most common site of secondary spread in solid cancers behind the lung and liver. Bone metastasis is found in up to 90% of prostate and breast cancer patients. They can cause significant complications, such as pathological fractures and paralysis of the spine, which decrease daily functioning and quality of life (QoL) and worsen prognosis. The growing life expectancy of cancer patients due to improvements in systemic therapies may further increase BM's eventuality and clinical burden in cancer patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Four physicians from five different specialties were interviewed and resumed the most relevant literature of the last 20 years focusing on pain treatment in BM patients.

RESULTS

Treatment for BM ideally involves various types of specialists and assessments. The disease status and patient background should be considered, requiring holistic care and expertise from various medical specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventional, nuclear medicine, radiotherapy, and mini-invasive techniques can be safe and effective for relieving pain and modifying health-related QoL in BM patients.

ESTRO ACROP guidelines for external beam radiotherapy of patients with uncomplicated bone metastases

After liver and lungs, bone is the third most common metastatic site (Nystrom et al., 1977). Almost all malignancies can metastasize to the skeleton but 80% of bone metastases originate from breast, prostate, lung, kidney and thyroid cancer (Mundy, 2002). Introduction of effective systemic treatment in many cancers has prolonged patients' survival, including those with bone metastases. Bone metastases may significantly reduce quality of life due to related symptoms and possible complications, such as pain and neurologic compromise. The most serious complications of bone metastases are skeletal-related events (SRE), defined as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, pain, or other symptoms requiring an urgent intervention such as surgery or radiotherapy. In turn, growing access to modern diagnostic tools allows early detection of asymptomatic bone metastases that could be successfully managed with local treatment avoiding development of SRE. The treatment for bone metastases should focus on relieving existing symptoms and preventing new ones. Radiotherapy is the standard of care for patients with symptomatic bone metastases, providing durable pain relief with minimal toxicity and reasonable cost-effectiveness. Historically, the dose was prescribed in one to five fractions and delivered using simple planning techniques. While 3D-conformal radiotherapy is still widely used for treating bone metastases, introduction of highlyconformal radiotherapy techniques such as stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) have opened new therapeutic possibilities that should be considered in selected patients with bone metastases.

3-T magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (3 T-MR-HIFU) for the treatment of pain from bone metastases of solid tumors

INTRODUCTION

Bone metastases (BM) are still the main cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, not only because of their complications, defined as skeletal-related events (SREs), but also because of the negative impact bone pain has on quality of life (QoL) and survival, especially when opioid analgesics and locoregional treatments fail.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center prospective study was carried out on 12 patients with symptomatic BM treated with MRI-guided focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU). The primary endpoint was the effectiveness of MR-HIFU in reducing current and breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) scores. The main secondary aims were the evaluation of circulating markers at different time-points and their relation to pain and procedure efficacy. Other secondary objectives included temporal evolution of pain response, evaluation of QoL, and side effects of the treatment. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate primary and secondary endpoints. Questionnaires on pain and QoL completed at baseline and at 30 days were compared using appropriate statistical tests with exploratory intent.

RESULTS

MR-HIFU was successfully completed in all 12 patients enrolled between September 2015 and December 2018. On day 30, 6 (50.0%) patients showed a complete response of current pain and 6 a partial response, while 5 (41.7%) obtained a complete BTCP response. A partial response of BM evaluated by MD Anderson criteria was obtained in 9 (81.8%) patients. Only one patient progressed in the target lesion after MR-HIFU. No treatment-related adverse events were recorded. Bone turnover markers CTX/RANK-L (P) do not demonstrate any significant change with the pain or BM response.

CONCLUSION

In our patients, targeted therapy of painful BM with MRI-guided focused ultrasound ablation was safe and showed encouraging early-onset and functional results.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for spinal metastases

PURPOSE

We analyze the cost-effectiveness of standard palliative external beam radiation (EBRT, 8 Gy in 1 fraction), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT, 24 Gy in 2 fractions), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for painful spinal metastases. Single-fraction SBRT (delivering 24 Gy) is also assessed.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Markov state transition model was constructed. Key model parameters were derived from prospective clinical trial data. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. Costs included both hospital and professional costs using 2020 Medicare reimbursement.

RESULTS

The base case demonstrated that 2-fraction SBRT was not cost-effective compared to single-fraction EBRT, with an ICER of $194,145/QALY gained. RFA was a dominated treatment strategy (more costly and less effective) in this model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBRT was favored in 66% of model iterations. If median survival were improved after SBRT, two-fraction SBRT became cost-effective, with ICER of $80,394, $57,062, and $47,038 for 3, 6, and 9-month improvements in survival. Because two-fraction SBRT data reported 18% of patients with indeterminant pain response at 3 months, and two-fraction SBRT is infrequently used in clinical practice, single-fraction SBRT data was also assessed. Single-fraction SBRT delivering 24 Gy was cost-effective compared to single-fraction EBRT, with an ICER of $92,833/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

For appropriately chosen patients, single-fraction SBRT is more cost-effective than conventional EBRT or RFA. Conventional EBRT remains a cost-effective treatment for patients with poor expected survival.

Radiotherapy of bone metastases

We present the update of the recommendations of the French society of oncological radiotherapy on bone metastases. This is a common treatment in the management of patients with cancer. It is a relatively simple treatment with proven efficacy in reducing pain or managing spinal cord compression. More complex treatments by stereotaxis can be proposed for oligometastatic patients or in case of reirradiation. In this context, increased vigilance should be given to the risks to the spinal cord.

Efficacy and safety of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for the treatment of painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To report the safety and efficacy of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) in the treatment of painful bone metastases through a systematic review and meta-analysis of pain scores before and after MRgFUS treatment and post-treatment adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed for studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of MRgFUS. The mean difference of pain scores (10-point visual analogue scale or numerical rating scale) between baseline and 1-month/3-month pain scores was collected and analyzed in a pooled meta-analysis. Post-treatment adverse events based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading were recorded and the pooled prevalence was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies published between 2007 and 2019 were collected, resulting in a total sample size of 1082 patients. The majority of the studies were prospective with a reported follow-up period of 3 months. The pooled proportion of patients that achieved pain relief from MRgFUS (complete response or partial response [≥ 2-point improvement of pain score]) was 79% (95% CI 73-83%). The pooled 1-month and 3-month mean difference in pain score were - 3.8 (95% CI - 4.3; - 3.3) and - 4.4 (95% CI - 5.0; - 3.7), respectively. The overall rate of high-grade (CTCAE grade 3 or higher) and low-grade (CTCAE grade 2 or lower) MRgFUS-related adverse events were 0.9% and 5.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MRgFUS is an effective procedure that is able to provide significant pain palliation for patients with symptomatic bone metastases with a favorable safety profile.

Prognostic Factors Influencing Survival and a Treatment Pattern Analysis of Conventional Palliative Radiotherapy for Patients with Bone Metastases

BACKGROUND

Treatment indication for bone metastases is influenced by patient prognosis. Single-fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) was proven equally effective as multiple fractionation regimens (MFRT) but continues to be underused.

OBJECTIVE

Primary objectives: (a) to identify prognostic factors for overall survival and (b) to analyze treatment patterns of palliative radiotherapy (proportion of SFRT indication and predictive factors of radiotherapy regimen) for bone metastases.

METHODS

582 patients with bone metastases who underwent conventional radiotherapy between January 1st 2014-31 December 2017 were analyzed. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify predictors of overall survival. For the treatment pattern analysis, 677 radiotherapy courses were evaluated. The logistic regression model was used to identify potential predictors of radiotherapy regimen.

RESULTS

The 3-year overall survival was 15%. Prognostic factors associated with poor overall survival were multiple bone metastases [hazard ratio (HR = 5.4)], poor performance status (HR = 1.5) and brain metastases (HR = 1.37). SFRT prescription increased from 41% in 2017 to 51% in 2017. Predictors of SFRT prescription were a poor performance status [odds ratio (OR = 0.55)], lung (OR = 0.49) and urologic primaries (OR = 0.33) and the half-body lower site of irradiation (OR = 0.59). Spinal metastases were more likely to receive MFRT (OR = 2.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the prognostic factors we identified, a selection protocol for patients candidates for palliative radiotherapy to bone metastases could be established, in order to further increase SFRT prescription in our institution.

Current Overview of Treatment for Metastatic Bone Disease

The number of patients with bone metastasis increases as medical management and surgery improve the overall survival of patients with cancer. Bone metastasis can cause skeletal complications, including bone pain, pathological fractures, spinal cord or nerve root compression, and hypercalcemia. Before initiation of treatment for bone metastasis, it is important to exclude primary bone malignancy, which would require a completely different therapeutic approach. It is essential to select surgical methods considering the patient’s prognosis, quality of life, postoperative function, and risk of postoperative complications. Therefore, bone metastasis treatment requires a multidisciplinary team approach, including radiologists, oncologists, and orthopedic surgeons. Recently, many novel palliative treatment options have emerged for bone metastases, such as stereotactic body radiation therapy, radiopharmaceuticals, vertebroplasty, minimally invasive spine stabilization with percutaneous pedicle screws, acetabuloplasty, embolization, thermal ablation techniques, electrochemotherapy, and high-intensity focused ultrasound. These techniques are beneficial for patients who may not benefit from surgery or radiotherapy.

Chemoembolization for Symptomatic Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Refractory to Re-radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of chemoembolization for inoperable metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) refractory to re-radiotherapy.

METHODS

Nineteen consecutive patients with recurrent MESCC after re-radiotherapy who had undergone chemoembolization were retrospectively analyzed. Outcome measures were pain relief rate, neurological improvement rate, objective response rate, and adverse events. MESCC degree classification was assessed using Bilsky grades. Pain assessment was performed using Numerical Rating Scale, and neurological function was evaluated using the Frankel classification.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 7 (range 2-44) months. All participants had MESCC grade 2 or higher and had severe pain. Fifteen patients (79%) had neurological deficits, and ten had Frankel classification C and five had D. Symptoms were relieved in almost all patients the day following chemoembolization. Pain relief was achieved in 18 of 19 (95%) patients; the median decrease in Numerical Rating Scale score was 8 (range 0-10; p < 0.001). Neurological improvement was achieved in 11 of 15 patients (73%); the median increase in Frankel classification was 1 (range 0-2; p = 0.006). Ten of 19 (53%) patients showed a reduction in MESCC; the median decrease in Bilsky grade was 1 (range 0-2; p = 0.005). There was no correlation between the change in Bilsky grade and pain relief (p = 0.421). However, the decrease in Bilsky grade significantly improved neurological symptoms (p = 0.01). No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

Chemoembolization may be a useful palliative treatment modality for MESCC refractory to re-radiotherapy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3b, Follow up Study.

Image-Guided Robotic Radiosurgery for the Treatment of Same Site Spinal Metastasis Recurrences

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.

2020 Korean guidelines for the management of metastatic prostate cancer

In 2017, Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) published the Korean management guideline of metastatic prostate cancer. This paper is the 2nd edition of the Korean management guideline of metastatic prostate cancer. We updated recent many changes of management in metastatic prostate cancer in this 2nd edition guideline. The present guideline consists of the three categories: management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer; management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer; and clinical consideration for treating patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In category 1 and 2, levels of evidence (LEs) have been mentioned according to the general principles of evidence-based medicine. And grades of recommendation (GR) was taken into account the quality of evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, the values and preferences, and the use of resources and GR were divided into strong recommendations (SR) and weak recommendations (WR). A total of 16 key questions are selected. And we proposed recommendations and described key evidence for each recommendation. The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer is changing very rapid and many trials are ongoing. To verify the results of the future trials is necessary and should be applied to the treatment for metastatic prostate cancer patients in the clinical practice. Especially, many prostate cancer patients are old age, have multiple underlying medical comorbidities, clinicians should be aware of the significance of medical management as well as clinical efficacy of systemic treatment.

Percutaneous bipolar radiofrequency ablation for spine metastatic lesions

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to become familiar with the most common indications for imaging guided percutaneous bipolar radiofrequency ablation, to learn about different technical considerations during performance providing the current evidence. Controversies concerning products will be addressed.

METHODS

We performed a literature review excluding non-English studies and case reports. All references of the obtained articles were also evaluated for any additional information.

RESULTS

RFA achieves cytotoxicity by raising target area temperatures above 60 °C, and may be used to achieve total necrosis of lesions smaller than 3 cm in diameter, to debulk and reduce the pain associated with larger lesions, to prevent pathological fractures due to progressive osteolysis or for cavity creation aiming for targeted cement delivery in case of posterior vertebral wall breaching. Protective ancillary techniques should be used in order to increase safety and augment efficacy of RFA in the spine.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of vertebral lesions is a reproducible, successful and safe procedure. Ablation should be combined with vertebral augmentation in all cases. In order to optimize maximum efficacy a patient- and a lesion-tailored approach should both be offered focusing upon clinical and performance status along with life expectancy of the patient as well as upon lesion characteristics.

MRI-Guided Focused Ultrasound of Osseous Metastases: Treatment Parameters Associated With Successful Pain Reduction

BACKGROUND

A phase 3 multicenter trial demonstrated that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided focused ultrasound (US) is a safe, noninvasive treatment that alleviated pain from bone metastases. However, outcomes varied among institutions (from 0%-100% treatment success).

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify patient selection, technical treatment, and imaging parameters that predict successful pain relief of osseous metastases after MRI-guided focused US.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a phase 3 clinical study that included participants who received MRI-guided focused US treatment for painful osseous metastases. Noncontrast CT was obtained before treatment. T2-weighted and T1-weighted postcontrast MRIs at 1.5 T or 3 T were obtained before, at the time of, and at 3 months after treatment. Numerical Rating Scale pain scores and morphine equivalent daily dose data were obtained over a 3-month follow-up period. At the 3-month endpoint, participants were categorized as pain relief responders or nonresponders based on Numerical Rating Scale and morphine equivalent daily dose data. Demographics, technical parameters, and imaging features associated with pain relief were determined using stepwise univariable and multivariable models. Responder rates between the subgroup of participants with all predictive parameters and that with none of the parameters were compared using Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

The analysis included 99 participants (mean age, 59 ± 14 years; 56 women). The 3 variables that predicted successful pain relief were energy density on the bone surface (EDBS) (P = 0.001), the presence of postprocedural periosteal devascularization (black band, BB+) (P = 0.005), and female sex (P = 0.02). The subgroup of participants with BB+ and EDBS greater than 5 J/mm2 had a larger decrease in mean pain score (5.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-5.8) compared with those without (BB-, EDBS ≤ 5 J/mm2) (1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0; P < 0.001). Participants with all 3 predictive variables had a pain relief responder rate of 93% compared with 0% in participants having none of the predictive variables (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

High EDBS during treatment, postprocedural periosteal devascularization around the tumor site (BB+), and female sex increased the likelihood of pain relief after MRI-guided focused US of osseous metastasis.

Cumulative dose, toxicity, and outcomes of spinal metastases re-irradiation : Systematic review on behalf of the Re-Irradiation Working Group of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO)

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify patient-, tumor-, or treatment-related factors which may affect disease-related outcomes of re-irradiation (reRT) in patients with previously irradiated vertebral metastases.

METHODS

A computerized search of the literature was performed by searching for terms related to reRT and spinal metastases in MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and the Cochrane database from 1995 to 2019. Studies including at least 10 patients who had received reRT at the same site of initial radiotherapy for vertebral metastases with localized external beam radiotherapy were included. To determine the pooled ≥G3 acute and late toxicity rate, pain relief, local control, and overall survival, a meta-analysis technique of single-arm studies was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies including 1373 patients met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The pooled pain relief, neurological improvement, 1‑year local control, and 1‑year overall survival rates were 74.3%, 73.8%, 78.8%, and 54.6%, respectively, with moderate to high heterogeneity among studies. No difference in heterogeneity was evidenced for pain relief or local control after omitting studies not using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) or studies delivering biologically effective dose (BED) < 45 Gy₁₀, whereas heterogeneity for 1‑year OS was lower after omitting studies not using SBRT and delivering BED < 45 Gy₁₀. The pooled results of grade ≥ 3 acute and late toxicity were 0.4% (95% confidence interval: 0.1-1.2%) and 2.2% (95% confidence interval: 1.2-37%), respectively, with low heterogeneity among studies.

CONCLUSION

While this systematic review confirmed that reRT is both safe and effective for treating patients with recurrent spinal metastases, it could not identify factors which may affect outcomes of reRT in this patient population.

Efficacy and toxicity of re-irradiation spine stereotactic body radiotherapy with respect to irradiation dose history

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to clarify the outcomes of re-irradiation stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases with a uniform dose fractionation schedule at our institution.

METHODS

Data of patients treated with re-irradiation stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases (September 2013-March 2020) were retrospectively reviewed. The prescribed dose was 24 Gy in two fractions. The spinal cord dose constraint and dose for previously irradiated cases ≥50 Gy in 25 fractions were 12.2 Gy (maximum dose) and 11 Gy, respectively. The endpoints were pain control, local failure and adverse effects. Pain status was measured on a scale of 0-10 using the patients' self-reports and pain response was defined using international consensus criteria. Local failure was defined as tumor progression on imaging evaluations.

RESULTS

We assessed 133 lesions in 123 patients, where 70 (52.6%) had three or more spinal levels treated, 58 (43.6%) had previous irradiation doses of 40 Gy or more and 53 (39.8%) had the targets compressing the cord. The median follow-up was 12 months and the 3-, 6- and 12-month pain response rate was 75, 64 and 59%, respectively. The 1-year local failure rate was 25.8%. Previous irradiation dose was not correlated with local failure rate (P = 0.13). Radiation-induced myelopathy, radiculopathy and vertebral compression fractures were observed in 4 (3.0%), 2 (1.5%) and 17 (13.8%) lesions, respectively. A trend towards an association between any toxicity and previous irradiation dose was not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Re-irradiation spine stereotactic body radiotherapy achieved good local control and pain control, with reduced risk of radiation myelopathy.

Combining radiotherapy and focused ultrasound for pain palliation of cancer induced bone pain; a stage I/IIa study according to the IDEAL framework

•

Combined treatment of EBRT and MR-HIFU is feasible and well tolerated by patients.

•

Clinical outcomes of combined treatment of EBRT and MR-HIFU are promising.

•

Superiority of combined treatment over standard EBRT needs to be evaluated in a comparative study.

Background

Cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) strongly interferes with patient’s quality of life. Currently, the standard of care includes external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), resulting in pain relief in approximately 60% of patients. Magnetic Resonance guided High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU) is a promising treatment modality for CIBP.

Methods

A single arm, R-IDEAL stage I/IIa study was conducted. Patients presenting at the department of radiation oncology with symptomatic bone metastases in the appendicular skeleton, as well as in the sacrum and sternum were eligible for inclusion. All participants underwent EBRT, followed by MR-HIFU within 4 days. Safety and feasibility were assessed, and pain scores were monitored for 4 weeks after completing the combined treatment.

Results

Six patients were enrolled. Median age was 67 years, median lesion diameter was 56,5 mm. In all patients it was logistically possible to plan and perform the MR-HIFU treatment within 4 days after EBRT. All patients tolerated the combined procedure well. Pain response was reported by 5 out of 6 patients at 7 days after completion of the combined treatment, and stabilized on 60% at 4 weeks follow up. No treatment related serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

This is the first study to combine EBRT with MR-HIFU. Our results show that combined EBRT and MR-HIFU in first-line treatment of CIBP is safe and feasible, and is well tolerated by patients. Superiority over standard EBRT, in terms of (time to) pain relief and quality of life need to be evaluated in comparative (randomized) study.

Bone density and fracture risk following SBRT for non-spine bone metastases

PURPOSE/METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated local recurrence (LR) and fracture risk in non-spine bone metastases treated with SBRT.

RESULTS

181 lesions in 116 patients are reported. The median dose was 27 Gy (range 15-40) in 3 fractions (range 1-6). The cumulative incidence of LR was 2.8%, 7.2% and 12.5% at 6 mo, 1 yr and 2 yrs. Fractures occurred in 11 lesions (6%). Radioresistant histology and increasing PTV predicted for LR on univariate analysis, while rib location was associated with control. Increasing PTV remained a significant predictor for LR on multivariate analysis. Univariate predictors of fracture risk included female gender, lytic lesions and poorer KPS. Average CT-approximated L1 trabecular attenuation in patients with fracture was significantly lower than in patients without fracture (112.2 vs. 142.6 Hounsfield units).

CONCLUSION

In the largest series to date, we report excellent local control for SBRT to non-spine bone metastases and a novel relationship between CT-based bone quality assessment and fracture risk.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Management of Spinal Metastases: A Review

Importance

Rising cancer incidence combined with improvements in systemic and local therapies extending life expectancy are translating into more patients with spinal metastases. This makes the multidisciplinary management of spinal metastases and development of new therapies increasingly important. Spinal metastases may cause significant pain and reduced quality of life and lead to permanent neurological disability if compression of the spinal cord and/or nerve root occurs. Until recently, treatments for spinal metastases were not optimal and provided temporary local control and pain relief. Spinal stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is an effective approach associated with an improved therapeutic ratio, with evolving clinical application.

Objective

To review the literature of spinal SABR for spinal metastases, discuss a multidisciplinary approach to appropriate patient selection and technical considerations, and summarize current efforts to combine spinal SABR with systemic therapies.

Evidence Review

The MEDLINE database was searched to identify articles reporting on spinal SABR to September 30, 2018. Articles including clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies, systematic reviews, and consensus recommendations were selected for relevance to multidisciplinary management of spinal metastases.

Results

Fifty-nine unique publications with 5655 patients who underwent SABR for spinal metastases were included. Four comprehensive frameworks for patient selection were discussed. Spinal SABR was associated with 1-year local control rates of approximately 80% to 90% in the de novo setting, greater than 80% in the postoperative setting, and greater than 65% in the reirradiation setting. The most commonly discussed adverse effect was development of a vertebral compression fracture with variable rates, most commonly reported as approximately 10% to 15%. High-level data on the combination of SABR with modern therapies are still lacking. At present, 19 clinical trials are ongoing, mainly focusing on combined modality therapies, radiotherapy prescription dose, and oligometastic disease.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that spinal SABR may be an effective treatment option for well-selected patients with spinal metastases, achieving high rates of local tumor control with moderate rates of adverse effects. Optimal management should include review by a multidisciplinary care team.

Transarterial Chemoembolization for the Palliation of Painful Bone Metastases Refractory to First-Line Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization for the palliation of radiotherapy (RT)-failure bone metastases (BMs) with those of re-radiotherapy (Re-RT) in achieving pain relief.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients with RT-failure BMs who had undergone Re-RT (23 patients) and transarterial chemoembolization (27 patients) were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was clinical response, and the secondary endpoints were objective response and adverse events. Pain assessment was performed using the numerical rating scale, and tumor response was evaluated using the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Pain relief was defined as lack of pain with no analgesic usage (complete pain response) or a decrease in pain score by ≥3 points with analgesic usage (partial pain response).

RESULTS

The pain relief rates in the Re-RT and transarterial chemoembolization groups were 57% and 92%, respectively (P = .006). The median pain relief duration was 2 and 3 months in the Re-RT and transarterial chemoembolization groups, respectively (P = .002). The 6-month pain-free survival rates were 30% and 51% in the Re-RT and transarterial chemoembolization groups, respectively (P = .08). The median tumor reduction rates were -4% and 9% in the Re-RT and transarterial chemoembolization groups, respectively (P < .001). The objective response rates were 0% and 11% in the Re-RT and transarterial chemoembolization groups, respectively (P = .29). No serious adverse events or complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Transarterial chemoembolization achieved a superior response rate and longer duration of palliation in symptomatic RT-failure BMs.

Physician-Predicted Prognosis and Palliative Radiotherapy Treatment Utilization at the End of Life: An Audit of a Large Cancer Center Network

CONTEXT

At our institution, clinical pathways capture physicians' prognostication of patients being evaluated for palliative radiotherapy. We hypothesize a low utilization rate of long-course radiotherapy (LCRT) and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) among patients seen at the end of life, especially those with physician-predicted poor prognosis.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze utilization rates and predictors of LCRT and SAbR at the end of life.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on patients who were evaluated for palliative radiotherapy between January 2017 and August 2019 and died within 90 days of consultation. Binary logistic regression was used to identify predictors for utilization of LCRT (≥10 fractions) and SAbR.

RESULTS

A total of 1608 patients were identified, of which 1038 patients (64.6%) were predicted to die within a year. Six hundred ninety-three patients (66.8%) out of 1038 were prescribed LCRT or SAbR. On a multivariate analysis, patients were less likely to be prescribed LCRT if treated at an academic site (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.39; P < 0.01) and treated for bone metastases (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.05-0.11; P < 0.01) or other nonbrain/nonbone metastases (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.13-0.30; P < 0.01). SAbR was less likely to be prescribed among patients predicted to die within a year (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; P < 0.01), treated for bone metastases (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07-0.22; P < 0.01), with poor performance status (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31-0.85; P = 0.01), and with a breast primary (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.82; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Although most patients were predicted to have a limited prognosis, LCRT and SAbR were commonly prescribed at the end of life.

Management of recurrent or progressive spinal metastases: reirradiation techniques and surgical principles

With the growing incidence of new cases and the increasing prevalence of patients living longer with spine metastasis, a methodological approach to the management of patients with recurrent or progressive disease is increasing in relevance and importance in clinical practice. As a result, disease management has evolved in these patients using advanced surgical and radiotherapy technologies. Five key goals in the management of patients with spine metastases include providing pain relief, controlling metastatic disease at the treated site, improving neurologic deficits, maintaining or improving functional status, and minimizing further mechanical instability. The focus of this review is on advanced reirradiation techniques, given that the majority of patients will be treated with upfront conventional radiotherapy and further treatment on progression is often limited by the cumulative tolerance of nearby organs at risk. This review will also discuss novel surgical approaches such as separation surgery, minimally invasive percutaneous instrumentation, and laser interstitial thermal therapy, which is increasingly being coupled with spine reirradiation to maximize outcomes in this patient population. Lastly, given the complexities of managing recurrent spinal disease, this review emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary care from neurosurgery, radiation oncology, medical oncology, neuro-oncology, rehabilitation medicine, and palliative care.

Complex Clinical Decision-Making Process of Re-Irradiation

As patients live longer with their cancer as a result of more effective treatment, recurrences and second malignancies in a previously irradiated field are an increasing challenge. The technical advances that enable high-dose radiation to limited volumes, excluding critical normal tissues, have increased the use of re-irradiation for many tumour sites. Minimising the volume, selecting patients with good performance status, negative metastatic screening and longer disease-free intervals are important principles. Despite this there is a narrow therapeutic window, and careful consideration with open discussion, including the patient, of the probable benefit and the implications of potential toxicities will always be essential. In this overview we evaluate the various radiobiological factors that need to be considered for re-irradiation, tissue recovery and dose tolerances in the setting of re-irradiation and summarise the available literature to guide clinicians in their decision-making for re-irradiation to primary and metastatic site/s of disease.

A single-center retrospective safety analysis of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors concurrent with radiation therapy in metastatic breast cancer patients

Cyclin dependent kinases 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors gained an essential role in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Nevertheless, data regarding their use in combination with radiotherapy are still scarce. We performed a retrospective preliminary analysis of breast cancer patients treated at our Center with palliative radiation therapy and concurrent CDK4/6 inhibitors. Toxicities were measured according to CTCAE 4.0, local response according to RECIST 1.1 or PERCIST 1.0 and pain control using verbal numeric scale. 18 patients (32 treated sites) were identified; 50% received palbociclib, 33.3% ribociclib and 16.7% abemacliclib. Acute non-hematologic toxicity was fair, with the only exception of a patient who developed G3 ileitis. During 3 months following RT, 61.1% of patients developed G 3–4 neutropenia; nevertheless no patient required permanent suspension of treatment. Pain control was complete in 88.2% of patients three months after radiotherapy; 94.4% of patients achieved and maintained local control of disease. Radiotherapy concomitant to CDK4/6 inhibitors is feasible and characterized by a fair toxicity profile, with isolated episodes of high-grade reversible intestinal toxicity. Rate of G 3–4 neutropenia was comparable with that measured for CDK4/6 inhibitors alone. Promising results were reported in terms of pain relief and local control of disease.

Local surgical complication rates in patients receiving surgery without immediate post-operative radiation therapy for lower extremity bone metastases

•

161 lower limb reconstruction surgeries for pathological or impending pathological fractures were included in the study.

•

46.6% of patients did not receive radiation within 12 weeks of surgery.

•

Among patients not receiving post-operative radiation, 6.7% required a second operation to the index surgical site.

•

Among patients not receiving post-operative radiation, 16.0% later received radiation to the index surgical site."?>

Purpose

Pathological metastatic fractures in lower-extremity weight bearing bones often require surgical reconstruction. Post-operative radiation is routinely recommended following surgical reconstruction. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients that undergo surgical fixation of an established or an impending pathologic lower extremity fracture without post-operative radiation.

Materials and methods

A retrospective chart review of patients at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center between 2007 and 2019 was performed. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 161 surgical reconstruction procedures were identified. Among these cases, 86/161 (53.4%) received post-operative radiation, 75/161 (47%) did not receive post-operative radiation within 12 weeks of their index surgery. Of the 75 patients not receiving post-operative radiation, 40 patients had prior radiation to the surgical site and 35 patients were radiation naïve. 5 patients (6.7%) required a second operation to the index surgical site, with 4 patients (5.3%) requiring a second fixation surgery to stabilize hardware at a median of 6.0 months post-surgery. Post-surgical radiation to the surgical site (at >12 weeks) was administered to 12 patients (16.0%) at a median of 9.1 months post-surgery.

Conclusions

The surgical revision rate was low despite absence of immediate post-operative radiation therapy and was similar to prior reports in patients receiving post-operative radiation.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Oligometastatic Patients After Conventional or Stereotactic Radiation Therapy to Bone Metastases: An Analysis of the PRESENT Cohort

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) has become a widely adopted treatment for patients with oligometastatic disease, despite limited evidence of superiority. We compared pain response and quality of life (QoL) in patients with oligometastatic disease treated with conventionally fractionated 3-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) or SBRT to bone metastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We included patients with oligometastatic disease (≤5 lesions within ≤3 organs) treated within the prospective PRESENT cohort. Main outcomes were pain response, clinical local control, and QoL 2, 4, and 8 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Pain response was assessed only in patients who reported pain at baseline and was defined according to international consensus criteria.

RESULTS

Of 131 patients with oligometastatic disease, 66 patients were treated with 3DCRT and 65 patients with SBRT. A pain response was achieved in 81% (3DCRT) versus 84% (SBRT) with a median duration of 23 weeks (range, 1-58) and 24 weeks (range, 0-50), respectively. Reirradiation was needed in 33% versus 5% of the patients, respectively. None of the QoL subscales were significantly different between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with oligometastatic disease, SBRT to bone metastases did not improve pain response or QoL compared with 3DCRT. Reirradiation was less often needed in the SBRT group.

Prognostic factors and a new scoring system for survival of patients irradiated for bone metastases

Background

Personalized therapy for bone metastases should consider the patients’ remaining lifespan. Estimation of survival can be facilitated with scoring tools. A new tool was developed, specifically designed to estimate 12-month survival.

Methods

In 445 patients irradiated for bone metastases, radiotherapy regimen plus 13 factors (age, gender, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), primary tumor type, interval between cancer diagnosis and RT of bone metastases, visceral metastases, other (non-irradiated) bone metastases, sites of bone metastases, number of irradiated sites, pathological fracture, fractionation of RT, pre-RT surgery, pre-RT administration of bisphosphonates/denosumab, pre-RT systemic anticancer treatment) were retrospectively analyzed for survival. Factors achieving significance (p < 0.05) or borderline significance (p < 0.055) on multivariate analysis were used for the scoring system. Twelve-month survival rates were divided by 10 (factor scores); factor scores were summed for each patient (patient scores).

Results

On multivariate analysis, survival was significantly associated with KPS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.91, p < 0.001) and primary tumor type (HR 1.12, p < 0.001); age achieved borderline significance (HR 1.14, p = 0.054). These factors were used for the scoring tool. Patient scores ranged from 8 to 17 points. Three groups were designated: 8–9 (A), 10–14 (B) and 15–17 (C) points. Twelve-month survival rates were 9, 38 and 72% (p < 0.001); median survival times were 3, 8 and 24 months.

Conclusions

This new tool developed for patients irradiated for bone metastases at any site without spinal cord compression allows one to predict the survival of these patients and can aid physicians when assigning the treatment to individual patients.

Single-Fraction Radiotherapy (SFRT) For Bone Metastases: Patient Selection And Perspectives

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.